Christian,
To reply to your statements:
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.
After 9/11, it was prudent to go after the terrorist org. that was responsible, not conduct a global war. After 9/11, maybe we should have invaded the Philipines for terrorists. That's global and a hell of a lot smaller than Iraq.
--------
In a post 9/11 era we cannot afford to take the chance that the intelligence might be wrong.
What does that mean? You get intelligence reports from several sources. You cross check for validity, then say screw it? If you can't rely on intelligence and other verifiable sources to tell you what's happening, you're deciding a course of action by a hunch, a feeling and what amounts to a flip of the coin. That sounds a little impetuous doesn't it?
--------
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 there was verifiable proof Saddam had WMDs, we would have had more global support. How do you know what other countries believed? What were the sources linking Saddam with WMDs? Here's a site that tells us the number of coalition forces in Iraq (as of 7/04). It looks like these troop numbers correlate with their belief in this war.
--------
If I where President I would never take a chance by not acting, inaction is still a choice and it is a wrong one.
Does this mean if you were in charge, you would attack Iran and South Korea say, tomorrow? World situations are seldom black and white issues. Inaction doesn't necessarily mean "not attacking".
-------
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.
No one can predict the future. A wiser person would have looked for solid proof of their existence before starting a war. There was none. Invading Iraq was Bush's idea and he listened only to a few in his administration (Cheney, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, Rove, Rice, those closest to him) who were in favor or went along with it. Other voices were not allowed access, most prominantly Sec. of State Powell, the person with the most experience in Iraq, what with Cheney and Rumsfield running interference for GW. Who else is there in the cabinet who has access to the president? The Chiefs of Staff were under orders as soldiers and not seen as advisors. We know GW didn't listen to other world leaders.
--------
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.
Good reason is subjective. There are 60 countries that have terrorist orgs. in them. Not all of these countries support terrorism. Attack them all? Let's keep track: 58 to go.
---------
As for N. Korea and Iran, I'm not suggesting force at this time, John Kerry is.
Not sure what your stance is. You say better not take a chance our intell is wrong; attacking Iraq was justified for the same reasons we went to Afghanistan. Then you equivocate with N. Korea and Iran who admit to having WMDs. What's the difference between Iraq and these two countries? According to your Saddam premise, we should declare war and attack.
--------
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.
These were not the rationale before we went to war. GW and company warned the world Iraq was an imminent danger; he had WMDs and planned to use them. The world body concluded there was no verifiable evidence of WMDs. There's still no evidence. Maybe Halliburton will find the evidence.
The administration offered other reasons for attacking after WMDs were not found. GW could have made a case before the UN based on these other reasons. He didn't, instead he used the dubious WMD claim and listed the other reasons post-war to rationalize attacking.
--------
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.
So you disagree with GW here. Didn't you say we should attack them too because we can't rely on our intelligence.
--------
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?
So we declare war on Iran and N. Korea. That leaves 56 countries left to declare war.
--------
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.
We're suppose to be fighting those responsible for 9/11. I suspect GW will also declare war on entire countries. I realize you don't see a difference. Do you enjoy holy wars?
---------
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.
Tell that to GW who, if he recognized any mis-steps, hasn't admitted it yet. I appreciate your acknowledging events in hindsight. However, it's the prez who should and he hasn't or won't. That's the worrisome part. Isn't his plan, "Stay the course"?
-------
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.
GW's plan in Iraq was limited and flawed and his long term vision is myopic. We are seeing the result of that. It's not going well and his version of "spreading freedom" is not comforting. Whoever is president the next four years will have a tough time extricating the US out of Iraq. IMHO, to follow GWs battle cry is not the wise move. However, if people think it is, I guess they'll vote Bush/Cheney.
Respectfully,
Sherwood