[A Quiet Boom]

Originally posted by 911pcars
Christian,
The key is the supposed link between 9/11 and Saddam - now widely proven bogus (if you don't listen to Bush/Cheney). GW and friends never had any conclusive proof of WMDs, only speculation and suspicion. But that was apparently good enough for them.

If you were in charge, would you risk the life of American soldiers, commit resources and credibility with the world and attack a sovereign country based merely on a hunch and suspect intelligence reports? That's what happened.

Blessed with hindsight, I think a wiser person would have concentrated on the perps who were responsible for 9/11 while still maintaining an eye on the axis. If I were Bush, I might have asked my father for advice which he apparently never did or admitted to. Seems reasonable to me. I might have followed the suggestions of veteran Gulf war commanders like Powell and others with more experience in waging war. I might have listened to State Dept. officials about post-war responsibilities to win the peace and preserve infrastructure instead of concentrating so much on the front end. And I might have learned something from this experience instead of rationalizing why we attacked in the first place. And you suggest we repeat this scenario with Iran and South Korea?

Obsessing over the past is only important in that we don't repeat the same errors in judgement or re-elect the same leaders who would, given the chance, continue their ethnocentric view of world order.

Sherwood

No link between 9/11 and Saddam is needed. The problem is that most liberals are too naive to realise that the war on terror is a global war, not a war against Al Qaeda only. In a post 9/11 era we cannot afford to take the chance that the intelligence might be wrong. You also refuse to acknowledge that most of the civilized world believed Saddam had these weapons, how could the intelligence been considered suspect at that time when so many sources said he had weapons? If I where President I would never take a chance by not acting, inaction is still a choice and it is a wrong one.

Are you suggesting that Kerry can tell the future? That he wouldn't have attacked Iraq because he somehow knew we wouldn't find weapons? If so was he so strong for military action in Iraq in the years leading up to the democratic primaries? Maybe Howard Dean can see the future and told him there where no weapons? I'm sure there was a debate in the WH prior to the war and the President must weigh ALL of his advisors positions and make a choice based on what they tell him as well as his own assessment of the situation. The decision to invade Iraq was a good one for the same reasons we went into Afghanistan. Both countries supported terrorists and both Bush and Kerry have vowed to hunt down the terrorists wherever they may be hinding. Nations that support terror are just as guilty as the terrorists and like it or not by any real definition Saddam was a terrorist sponsor making him a terrorist himself.

As for N. Korea and Iran, I'm not suggesting force at this time, John Kerry is. He is totally hypocritical in this regard, he wanted more diplomacy in Iraq after over a decade of sanctions and resolutions did not work to stop Saddam. The UN's own oil for food program effectively gave Saddam the money to offer $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers. Don't kid yourself, Saddam was NOT contained, he was actively supporting terror as well as inflicting terror on his own people and if the pressure on him would have eased he'd have increased his efforts. John Kerry suggests the President is not doing enough to deal with Iran and N. Korea yet the President is doing EXACTLY what Kerry wanted him to do with Iraq. Bush is actively engaged in multi-lateral talks with NK, has helped put sanctions an world pressure on both countries, the only way to get tougher like John Kerry suggests would be military action. I don't want that, no one does but the President correctly won't take that possibility off the table. Let's think about that for a moment. Bush threatened the Taliban with military force and they didn't comply, we went in and killed or captured those leaders. He threatened military action in Iraq and Saddam did not comply, we captured him, killed his sons and either killed or captured a majority of his supporters. If things in NK or Iran deteriorate Bush will threaten military action and based on his past record he WILL do it. Do you think the leaders of those countries really want to suffer the same fate as the Taliban and Saddam? Right now Iran is actively engaged in supporting the insurgency in Iraq, if sanctions and diplomacy do not work to stop this behavior our ONLY choice will be airstrikes and possibly a full scale invasion. My hope is that it won't come to that even though I believe it is inevitable for whoever is the next President, my worry is that Kerry won't act until it's too late.

Let's face the facts here, no war has ever gone exactly as planned and ye we have made mistakes in the aftermath of the Iraq invasion but just because things aren't going perfectly now doesn't mean Bush and his advisors don't have a plan to correct the problems and stop the insurgency. They are being careful however to work with the Iraqi leadership to solve these problems without resorting to blowing up holy sites or thousands of innocent Iraqi's in the process. We will succeed as long a we have an optomistic and strong leader like Bush in command. Kerry's pessimism will only make things worse and his waivering positions will not help our allies morale. We will lose support for our efforts if Kerry gets elected and none of the liberals want to admit that.