econ1, on Thursday, March 16th, 2006, 10:37 AM, said:
The whole "Bush said we invaded Iraq because of Saddam's involvement in 9-11" riff has been expertly played up by the Dems but I challenege anyone to find me a quote where Bush or any administration official has said those words.
I agree he never said those words. But what he did do is say that Iraq had "links" to Al Qaeda, which in many peoples minds implicates Iraq in 9/11 (though that is a STUPID, illogical conclusion). He also constantly talked about Iraq and 9/11 in the same breath, again, causing the casual observer and the not-to-quick john-q-public to think there is a link. I presonally think this administration saw this reaction and sought to exploit it.
It is a fine line to be sure but Bush's reasons for the Iraq invasion is that because 9-11 completely changed the rules of the game we were no longer in a position to let someone like Saddam Hussein run free.
He was hardly running free. We were watching him like a hawk, bombing him on a daily basis and had significant sanctions imposed. He was well contained. And our findings after the war proved this to be true.
Did Saddam have a hand in plotting and carrying out 9-11? ABSOLUTELY NOT.
If only the rest of the country also understood that.
Did Saddam completely disregard over a decade of INTERNATIONAL demands? Ablsolutely.
Yep, lots of countries have disregarded international demands.
Is there plentiful evidence of terrorists hiding out in Iraq (a country that at the time had an iron-fisted dictator who surel had to know they were there?) Absolutely.
Did the entire world believe Saddam either had or was furiously pursuing WMD programs? Absolutely.
Bullshit. Prove it. He didn't have ****. He may have tricked his generals into thinking they had some, but they didn't have anything that even remotely resembled a program that could be re-activated, let alone a program that could be considered as "furiously pursing WMD".
So I guess the question becomes: you are the lead of the free world. At the very least you have the lives of some 300 million of your own citizens you are responsible for. The rules of engaement have just change dramatically and the realities of technology and transportation have made it clear that enemies of this country can and are determined to deliver the most haenous weapons possible INSIDE our borders. What do you do? Do you "play it safe" and rely on international negotiations that have failed misserably for over a decade to somehow magically begin to work or do you fight a new war in a new way?
I'd assess the overall risk. Everyone knew an occupation would be a ****ing mess. SH was contained. We bombed him daily to keep him in check. I think we should have spend that TRILLION dollars we've dumped into that country and sured up our BORDERS.
For the dissenters out there I highly reccomend you start reading Christopher Hitchen's articles on the subject. Hitchens in no Conservative - in fact he has a severely leftist (read Trotskyite) background and while he is not thrilled with the way the war has been prosecuted he has been completely willing to accept the dumptruck loads full of crap he has had to endure for supporting the initial decision.
And for every leftie who supports this, there are a couple more righties who think this was a collossal mistake. I read up on this crap constantly--from all sorts of sources. This was a mess from the beginning and continues to this day.