Amazing. Now it's turned into semantics and hair-splitting. Howard Dean opposes the "unilateral" war in Iraq. He supported a unilateral action in Bosnia.
When any thread is opened with statements made about someone or some issue it will naturally lead to people arguing and "hair-splitting".
If on the other hand threads were opened in a manner to question ideas, views, stances, claims, and or historical quotes then the obstreperous nature we find with the former would be much reduced.
If anything, there were many more reasons to invade Iraq, AND...we do have many other partner nations in the process. In addition, we had a UN resolution that said "serious consequences" would occur if Iraq did not fully cooperate with UN inspections. Not one person on this board can tell me Iraq complied. Iraq's government plotted the assasination of a former President, fired on coalition aircraft, cheated in the inspections process, made openly aggressive and hostile statements towards the US, openly praised 9/11 in public statements and had a history of developing and USING chemical weapons. Whether or not you supported the war on these grounds, the fact is that there was far more reason to go to war in Iraq than to get involved in Bosnia.
First of all, I'm not voting for Howard Dean in 13 days, so let me get that out of the way right away. That being said, the United States did not go to war based on the 'plot to assassinate a former President', the fact that Iraqi troops open fired on coalition aircraft, the fact that they openly praised 9/11, or because they used chemical weapons in the 80s. The reason that the Bush Administration gave for the United States going to war was that there was an immediate threat from Iraq. There were claims that Iraq not only had WMDs, but were planning on delivery systems and planning to sell said weapons to terrorist organizations. It was later that the administration tried to link Iraq with Al Qaeda and the War on Terror, but as we all know now, there was no such connection.
The war against Bosnia was a NATO action. The mission was led by NATO Commander General Wesley Clark. There was an immediate humanitarian need to end the genocide in the Balkans as there was a policy of racial and ethnic cleansing by the governments there. The actions taken by NATO saved hundreds of thousands of lives (if not more).
Over the weekend, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil came out and said that it was the policy of the Bush Administration to have regime change in Iraq from day 1 of his Presidency. If we were going to go to war for the reasons stated above, why did the Bush Administration not use them? The reason is simple. The Congress passed a resolution authorizing President Bush to use military force in Iraq under specific conditions, mainly if there was an imminent threat to national security or if such a force was needed to fight the war on terror. Since President Bush would have needed a formal declaration of war by the US Congress to use the other reasons as stated, he made his case based on flimsy (Al-Qaeda/Saddam connections) and false intelligence reports (uranium from Africa/Niger).
I personally don't believe a unilateral approach is the best option. If all other methods had been exhausted and there were still no other allies willing to come forward, it should not be up to the President alone to order our troops into battle, that's why we have a Congress and the balances of power. It was proven in Iraq that not only did Saddam Hussein not have the capability to launch attacks using chemical weapons, it was also proven that Iraq did not have *any* WMDs. The UN weapons inspections *worked*.
For the most part, the US acted 'unilateraly' in Iraq. I know there were a few allies but most did not send combat troops and very few paid their own way (we had to cough up the money for them to be there). I know people are going to say 'that's not what unilateraly means' but when you have the US taking on 95% of the costs, that's about as unilateral as you can get. As a result, it is the US taking on the massive costs of the war where NATO or the UN have taken on much of those costs before.
You are very intelligent and I always appreciate your candor. We of course disagree about a lot of things. First of all, the word "immediate" was never used. Neither was "imminent". True, there were claims of Iraq being able to launch within 45 minutes. Has that been totally disproven? I don't think it has. I do think there are a lot of questions about the accuracy of such statements, and the accuracy of the intelligence behind them. Secondly, as far as the terror connection, I think you're just wrong. There is evidence to support the claim that Iraq was tied to Al-Qaeda. There is plenty more linking Saddam to terror. Is there definitive proof? No. Unless of course we count Saddam's payments to homicide bombers. If asked to make a judgement based on what we know, we must conclude Saddam supported terror...though we don't know for sure, I agree. And finally on Iraq, all of the reasons I listed are valid ones for attacking. I was not saying Bush focused on all of them.
On Bosnia, I would just indicate that it was a "policy" in Iraq to kill hundreds of thousands of people as well. Did not U.S intervention save lives? Have you not seen the mass graves? And as far as NATO action...that's besides the point. It may have been "NATO" but it was really the US, as always.
Quote:
The Congress passed a resolution authorizing President Bush to use military force in Iraq under specific conditions, mainly if there was an imminent threat to national security or if such a force was needed to fight the war on terror
I left out the part about O'Neill...mostly because I jsut don't see how his word can be trusted. He has every reason to be disingenous. He was FIRED. As far as regime change, it had been the policy of the US since 1998...under Clinton. Are you faulting Bush for continuing Clinton's policy? And if getting rid of Saddam was discussed....so what? Why is that wrong? Can you imagine what ELSE is discussed in cabinet meetings? That doesn't mean there was some grand plan to invade...all crafted and executed for political gain. As far as your quote above goes, it's a but inaccurate. Congress authorized Bush to use force....and not just under circumstances of imminent threat.
And now this:
Quote:
It was proven in Iraq that not only did Saddam Hussein not have the capability to launch attacks using chemical weapons, it was also proven that Iraq did not have *any* WMDs. The UN weapons inspections *worked*.
They didn't work for shit. Not for shit, Fran. Blix found clear intent to deceive. They did not fully cooperate. Inpectors are not scavenger hunters. They only work with total cooperation. And what's this about not having "any" WMD's? That's patently false. Iraq declared it had ZERO WMD. ZERO! And we just recently FOUND chemical warheads. Whether they were "left over" or not is irrellevant....they HAD them. Besides, I really think it's too soon to pronounce the case closed on the issue. I guess we'll have to see.
And finally on unlilateralism: The point here is Dean supported it in a situation that had nothing to do with US Security. And moreover, he has argued against unilateralism ITSELF...at least implicitly. If he wanted to make the distinction between the two situations credibly, he could have. He could have simply said "I supported the unilateral Bosnia action because of X, Y and Z....I do not support the Iraq action in the same manner because of A, B and C". But he didn't do that, he just assailed Bush for his policies of unilateralism in general. It's ridiculous, just as much out of Dr. Dean's mouth has been recently.
If he wanted to make the distinction between the two situations credibly, he could have. He could have simply said "I supported the unilateral Bosnia action because of X, Y and Z....I do not support the Iraq action in the same manner because of A, B and C". But he didn't do that...
Actually, Dean did exactly that.
I was there in person and heard what he said first hand, at Daniel Webster College in Nashua, NH, not filtered through any intervening media.
This was a few weeks ago, well before the current media hype on the subject.
Someone asked Dean a question about Iraq and UN approval, and without any prompting he brought up Bosnia, quite of his own accord, to compare and contrast his views on unilateral use of force, why he'd strive for it, and why sometimes he would regrettably go it alone, why Iraq was a bad case for it, and why Bosnia was good. I didn't record the speech, but a transcript is probably available somewhere.
You might not agree with his reasoning (in fact, I'm sure you'd probably rather eat broken glass than do so), but not agreeing with his reasons for making such distinctions hardly amounts to "catching him" in some terrible act of self-contradiction or hypocrisy, as you're so eager to make it out to be.
And what's this about not having "any" WMD's? That's patently false. Iraq declared it had ZERO WMD. ZERO! And we just recently FOUND chemical warheads. Whether they were "left over" or not is irrellevant....they HAD them
If you are referring to the 'weapons' found in Southern Iraq, it was recently said that while there was some kind of agent detected near them sometimes used in chemical weapons, that the weapons found were not WMDs as was originally thought. If you're talking about something else, I haven't heard about it. One would think that finding WMDs in Iraq would be a *huge* news story, and no such story seems to have broken.
Quote:
On Bosnia, I would just indicate that it was a "policy" in Iraq to kill hundreds of thousands of people as well. Did not U.S intervention save lives? Have you not seen the mass graves? And as far as NATO action...that's besides the point. It may have been "NATO" but it was really the US, as always.
The point is that this is not why President Bush said we should have gone to war against Iraq. Also, as horrific as these discoveries are, most of these mass graves are from the 80s or immediately following the first Gulf War (under Bush #41's watch). These types of mass killings were not happening recently, whereas a massive civil war was under way in Bosnia when action was taken. Remember these graves were around in 1991 and nothing was done then.
Quote:
True, there were claims of Iraq being able to launch within 45 minutes. Has that been totally disproven?
The famous quote went something like, "How long should we wait to act? When there's a mushroom cloud in Detroit?" The problem is that we were led to believe that Iraq was creating chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and there has been no evidence that such weapons programs were underway.
Did we act alone? No. If we did not act, would our 'allies' have acted? Also no. Since we spent most of the money and set the game plan for the war, does it mean that we were responsible? Yes. That's what people are talking about when they say we acted unilaterialy. The case was made to the American people, and it was a poor case, yet we went to war any way. Now we are being told we went to war for other reasons, it just doesn't fly.
To get back on track, comparing Bosnia and Iraq just doesn't work because the situations were so vastly different. Again, I'm not voting for Dean, but out of all of his 'blunders', this one doesn't hold up too much.
Kyoto again? So how well is the EU doing on that score?
Not that it's relevant to the thread, but infinitely better than the US given that the EU produces half the CO2 emissions you do for a population a third as big again.
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to raise your country's appalling environmental policy, though. Appreciated.
Kyoto again? So how well is the EU doing on that score?
Well, I believe. The EU ratified (CNN) the treaty 18 months ago. Check out the full list (PDF) of signatories and ratifications to the Kyoto Protocol. In my view, the United States' omission is...rather...embarrassing. Right up there with Egypt, Indonesia, Niger, Russia, and Zambia among few others.
Well, I believe. The EU ratified (CNN) the treaty 18 months ago. Check out the full list (PDF) of signatories and ratifications to the Kyoto Protocol. In my view, the United States' omission is...rather...embarrassing. Right up there with Egypt, Indonesia, Niger, Russia, and Zambia among few others.
The Kyoto treaty is pile. It would NEVER have gotten Senate approval.
If you are referring to the 'weapons' found in Southern Iraq, it was recently said that while there was some kind of agent detected near them sometimes used in chemical weapons, that the weapons found were not WMDs as was originally thought. If you're talking about something else, I haven't heard about it. One would think that finding WMDs in Iraq would be a *huge* news story, and no such story seems to have broken.
But they did exist. We even found chemical shells before the war. Yes, they were leftover....but Iraq said it had NONE. The ones found prior to war were described as being in "excellent" condition. What we haven't found is a stockpile of weapons....or massive facilities for their production. But, we have found evidence of clear intent to restart these programs. And, there is great suspicion as to whether Saddam shipped weapons out of the country to avoid detection. We certainly know he deceived inspectors, lied to them, and generally frustrated them in every way. Why would he do that? We simply cannot say that Iraq did not have any WMD at this time. There are just too many possible explanations.
Quote:
The point is that this is not why President Bush said we should have gone to war against Iraq. Also, as horrific as these discoveries are, most of these mass graves are from the 80s or immediately following the first Gulf War (under Bush #41's watch). These types of mass killings were not happening recently, whereas a massive civil war was under way in Bosnia when action was taken. Remember these graves were around in 1991 and nothing was done then.
First, Bush stated many reasons...though I agree he focused on WMD. I think a more straightforward and multi-facted argument would have been better, because there were numerous reasons to go in.
As far as your comment about Bush 41, I think that's a cheap shot. What is the point of that comment? I agree he made mistakes, particularly encouraging an uprising and then not supporting it. But I'm not sure of your point. And these mass killings....how do you know they were not happening recently? Prove it. And yes, I remember that these graves were discovered in 1991...but what should we have done? Should we have finished the job? I seem to remember the Left going crazy about the War we DID conduct. You mean we should have taken him out then? I just don't follow you.
Quote:
The famous quote went something like, "How long should we wait to act? When there's a mushroom cloud in Detroit?" The problem is that we were led to believe that Iraq was creating chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and there has been no evidence that such weapons programs were underway.
We were led to believe? I'm not sure about that. As I said...there are a lot of questions..I agree with that. But we know for sure Saddam once had an active program...and used the weapons. We know he pursued a nuclear program in the past. So he just gave those up after 1991, then? I just can't believe that, can you?
And finally: I agree we are now "responsible" for Iraq. We're on the same page there. I do disagree about the case for war. In my opinion, there was a solid case for war...particularly Iraq's non-compliance with existing UN resolutions. Whether the Bush administration made the argument well or not is a different issue.
Comments
Originally posted by SDW2001
Amazing. Now it's turned into semantics and hair-splitting. Howard Dean opposes the "unilateral" war in Iraq. He supported a unilateral action in Bosnia.
When any thread is opened with statements made about someone or some issue it will naturally lead to people arguing and "hair-splitting".
If on the other hand threads were opened in a manner to question ideas, views, stances, claims, and or historical quotes then the obstreperous nature we find with the former would be much reduced.
Fellowship
If anything, there were many more reasons to invade Iraq, AND...we do have many other partner nations in the process. In addition, we had a UN resolution that said "serious consequences" would occur if Iraq did not fully cooperate with UN inspections. Not one person on this board can tell me Iraq complied. Iraq's government plotted the assasination of a former President, fired on coalition aircraft, cheated in the inspections process, made openly aggressive and hostile statements towards the US, openly praised 9/11 in public statements and had a history of developing and USING chemical weapons. Whether or not you supported the war on these grounds, the fact is that there was far more reason to go to war in Iraq than to get involved in Bosnia.
First of all, I'm not voting for Howard Dean in 13 days, so let me get that out of the way right away. That being said, the United States did not go to war based on the 'plot to assassinate a former President', the fact that Iraqi troops open fired on coalition aircraft, the fact that they openly praised 9/11, or because they used chemical weapons in the 80s. The reason that the Bush Administration gave for the United States going to war was that there was an immediate threat from Iraq. There were claims that Iraq not only had WMDs, but were planning on delivery systems and planning to sell said weapons to terrorist organizations. It was later that the administration tried to link Iraq with Al Qaeda and the War on Terror, but as we all know now, there was no such connection.
The war against Bosnia was a NATO action. The mission was led by NATO Commander General Wesley Clark. There was an immediate humanitarian need to end the genocide in the Balkans as there was a policy of racial and ethnic cleansing by the governments there. The actions taken by NATO saved hundreds of thousands of lives (if not more).
Over the weekend, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil came out and said that it was the policy of the Bush Administration to have regime change in Iraq from day 1 of his Presidency. If we were going to go to war for the reasons stated above, why did the Bush Administration not use them? The reason is simple. The Congress passed a resolution authorizing President Bush to use military force in Iraq under specific conditions, mainly if there was an imminent threat to national security or if such a force was needed to fight the war on terror. Since President Bush would have needed a formal declaration of war by the US Congress to use the other reasons as stated, he made his case based on flimsy (Al-Qaeda/Saddam connections) and false intelligence reports (uranium from Africa/Niger).
I personally don't believe a unilateral approach is the best option. If all other methods had been exhausted and there were still no other allies willing to come forward, it should not be up to the President alone to order our troops into battle, that's why we have a Congress and the balances of power. It was proven in Iraq that not only did Saddam Hussein not have the capability to launch attacks using chemical weapons, it was also proven that Iraq did not have *any* WMDs. The UN weapons inspections *worked*.
For the most part, the US acted 'unilateraly' in Iraq. I know there were a few allies but most did not send combat troops and very few paid their own way (we had to cough up the money for them to be there). I know people are going to say 'that's not what unilateraly means' but when you have the US taking on 95% of the costs, that's about as unilateral as you can get. As a result, it is the US taking on the massive costs of the war where NATO or the UN have taken on much of those costs before.
You are very intelligent and I always appreciate your candor. We of course disagree about a lot of things. First of all, the word "immediate" was never used. Neither was "imminent". True, there were claims of Iraq being able to launch within 45 minutes. Has that been totally disproven? I don't think it has. I do think there are a lot of questions about the accuracy of such statements, and the accuracy of the intelligence behind them. Secondly, as far as the terror connection, I think you're just wrong. There is evidence to support the claim that Iraq was tied to Al-Qaeda. There is plenty more linking Saddam to terror. Is there definitive proof? No. Unless of course we count Saddam's payments to homicide bombers. If asked to make a judgement based on what we know, we must conclude Saddam supported terror...though we don't know for sure, I agree. And finally on Iraq, all of the reasons I listed are valid ones for attacking. I was not saying Bush focused on all of them.
On Bosnia, I would just indicate that it was a "policy" in Iraq to kill hundreds of thousands of people as well. Did not U.S intervention save lives? Have you not seen the mass graves? And as far as NATO action...that's besides the point. It may have been "NATO" but it was really the US, as always.
The Congress passed a resolution authorizing President Bush to use military force in Iraq under specific conditions, mainly if there was an imminent threat to national security or if such a force was needed to fight the war on terror
I left out the part about O'Neill...mostly because I jsut don't see how his word can be trusted. He has every reason to be disingenous. He was FIRED. As far as regime change, it had been the policy of the US since 1998...under Clinton. Are you faulting Bush for continuing Clinton's policy? And if getting rid of Saddam was discussed....so what? Why is that wrong? Can you imagine what ELSE is discussed in cabinet meetings? That doesn't mean there was some grand plan to invade...all crafted and executed for political gain. As far as your quote above goes, it's a but inaccurate. Congress authorized Bush to use force....and not just under circumstances of imminent threat.
And now this:
It was proven in Iraq that not only did Saddam Hussein not have the capability to launch attacks using chemical weapons, it was also proven that Iraq did not have *any* WMDs. The UN weapons inspections *worked*.
They didn't work for shit. Not for shit, Fran. Blix found clear intent to deceive. They did not fully cooperate. Inpectors are not scavenger hunters. They only work with total cooperation. And what's this about not having "any" WMD's? That's patently false. Iraq declared it had ZERO WMD. ZERO! And we just recently FOUND chemical warheads. Whether they were "left over" or not is irrellevant....they HAD them. Besides, I really think it's too soon to pronounce the case closed on the issue. I guess we'll have to see.
And finally on unlilateralism: The point here is Dean supported it in a situation that had nothing to do with US Security. And moreover, he has argued against unilateralism ITSELF...at least implicitly. If he wanted to make the distinction between the two situations credibly, he could have. He could have simply said "I supported the unilateral Bosnia action because of X, Y and Z....I do not support the Iraq action in the same manner because of A, B and C". But he didn't do that, he just assailed Bush for his policies of unilateralism in general. It's ridiculous, just as much out of Dr. Dean's mouth has been recently.
Originally posted by SDW2001
If he wanted to make the distinction between the two situations credibly, he could have. He could have simply said "I supported the unilateral Bosnia action because of X, Y and Z....I do not support the Iraq action in the same manner because of A, B and C". But he didn't do that...
Actually, Dean did exactly that.
I was there in person and heard what he said first hand, at Daniel Webster College in Nashua, NH, not filtered through any intervening media.
This was a few weeks ago, well before the current media hype on the subject.
Someone asked Dean a question about Iraq and UN approval, and without any prompting he brought up Bosnia, quite of his own accord, to compare and contrast his views on unilateral use of force, why he'd strive for it, and why sometimes he would regrettably go it alone, why Iraq was a bad case for it, and why Bosnia was good. I didn't record the speech, but a transcript is probably available somewhere.
You might not agree with his reasoning (in fact, I'm sure you'd probably rather eat broken glass than do so), but not agreeing with his reasons for making such distinctions hardly amounts to "catching him" in some terrible act of self-contradiction or hypocrisy, as you're so eager to make it out to be.
Originally posted by billybobsky
Dancing at your desk without moving feet or chair.
Iraq didnt have UN approval, no. But it is a collaboration of more than one country (heh).
Oh I think I get it. Words mean whatever the left say they mean. Only the UN can make something "multilateral".
Originally posted by SDW2001
If Dean opposes unilateral action in Iraq, then why not in Bosnia? What's the difference?
Are you 'deaf'? Did Dean ever oppose unilateral action in Iraq? When? Where? Show us.
Originally posted by Scott
Oh I think I get it. Words mean whatever the left say they mean. Only the UN can make something "multilateral".
Use a dictionary if you have the mental capacity to do so. Look up the definition of unilateral if you're not too scared to do so.
Originally posted by bunge
Use a dictionary if you have the mental capacity to do so. Look up the definition of unilateral if you're not too scared to do so.
Enough of this
This goes for everyone!
Fellowship
And what's this about not having "any" WMD's? That's patently false. Iraq declared it had ZERO WMD. ZERO! And we just recently FOUND chemical warheads. Whether they were "left over" or not is irrellevant....they HAD them
If you are referring to the 'weapons' found in Southern Iraq, it was recently said that while there was some kind of agent detected near them sometimes used in chemical weapons, that the weapons found were not WMDs as was originally thought. If you're talking about something else, I haven't heard about it. One would think that finding WMDs in Iraq would be a *huge* news story, and no such story seems to have broken.
On Bosnia, I would just indicate that it was a "policy" in Iraq to kill hundreds of thousands of people as well. Did not U.S intervention save lives? Have you not seen the mass graves? And as far as NATO action...that's besides the point. It may have been "NATO" but it was really the US, as always.
The point is that this is not why President Bush said we should have gone to war against Iraq. Also, as horrific as these discoveries are, most of these mass graves are from the 80s or immediately following the first Gulf War (under Bush #41's watch). These types of mass killings were not happening recently, whereas a massive civil war was under way in Bosnia when action was taken. Remember these graves were around in 1991 and nothing was done then.
True, there were claims of Iraq being able to launch within 45 minutes. Has that been totally disproven?
The famous quote went something like, "How long should we wait to act? When there's a mushroom cloud in Detroit?" The problem is that we were led to believe that Iraq was creating chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and there has been no evidence that such weapons programs were underway.
Did we act alone? No. If we did not act, would our 'allies' have acted? Also no. Since we spent most of the money and set the game plan for the war, does it mean that we were responsible? Yes. That's what people are talking about when they say we acted unilaterialy. The case was made to the American people, and it was a poor case, yet we went to war any way. Now we are being told we went to war for other reasons, it just doesn't fly.
To get back on track, comparing Bosnia and Iraq just doesn't work because the situations were so vastly different. Again, I'm not voting for Dean, but out of all of his 'blunders', this one doesn't hold up too much.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Kyoto again? So how well is the EU doing on that score?
Not that it's relevant to the thread, but infinitely better than the US given that the EU produces half the CO2 emissions you do for a population a third as big again.
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to raise your country's appalling environmental policy, though. Appreciated.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Kyoto again? So how well is the EU doing on that score?
Well, I believe. The EU ratified (CNN) the treaty 18 months ago. Check out the full list (PDF) of signatories and ratifications to the Kyoto Protocol. In my view, the United States' omission is...rather...embarrassing. Right up there with Egypt, Indonesia, Niger, Russia, and Zambia among few others.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Well, I believe. The EU ratified (CNN) the treaty 18 months ago. Check out the full list (PDF) of signatories and ratifications to the Kyoto Protocol. In my view, the United States' omission is...rather...embarrassing. Right up there with Egypt, Indonesia, Niger, Russia, and Zambia among few others.
The Kyoto treaty is pile. It would NEVER have gotten Senate approval.
If you are referring to the 'weapons' found in Southern Iraq, it was recently said that while there was some kind of agent detected near them sometimes used in chemical weapons, that the weapons found were not WMDs as was originally thought. If you're talking about something else, I haven't heard about it. One would think that finding WMDs in Iraq would be a *huge* news story, and no such story seems to have broken.
But they did exist. We even found chemical shells before the war. Yes, they were leftover....but Iraq said it had NONE. The ones found prior to war were described as being in "excellent" condition. What we haven't found is a stockpile of weapons....or massive facilities for their production. But, we have found evidence of clear intent to restart these programs. And, there is great suspicion as to whether Saddam shipped weapons out of the country to avoid detection. We certainly know he deceived inspectors, lied to them, and generally frustrated them in every way. Why would he do that? We simply cannot say that Iraq did not have any WMD at this time. There are just too many possible explanations.
The point is that this is not why President Bush said we should have gone to war against Iraq. Also, as horrific as these discoveries are, most of these mass graves are from the 80s or immediately following the first Gulf War (under Bush #41's watch). These types of mass killings were not happening recently, whereas a massive civil war was under way in Bosnia when action was taken. Remember these graves were around in 1991 and nothing was done then.
First, Bush stated many reasons...though I agree he focused on WMD. I think a more straightforward and multi-facted argument would have been better, because there were numerous reasons to go in.
As far as your comment about Bush 41, I think that's a cheap shot. What is the point of that comment? I agree he made mistakes, particularly encouraging an uprising and then not supporting it. But I'm not sure of your point. And these mass killings....how do you know they were not happening recently? Prove it. And yes, I remember that these graves were discovered in 1991...but what should we have done? Should we have finished the job? I seem to remember the Left going crazy about the War we DID conduct. You mean we should have taken him out then? I just don't follow you.
The famous quote went something like, "How long should we wait to act? When there's a mushroom cloud in Detroit?" The problem is that we were led to believe that Iraq was creating chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and there has been no evidence that such weapons programs were underway.
We were led to believe? I'm not sure about that. As I said...there are a lot of questions..I agree with that. But we know for sure Saddam once had an active program...and used the weapons. We know he pursued a nuclear program in the past. So he just gave those up after 1991, then? I just can't believe that, can you?
And finally: I agree we are now "responsible" for Iraq. We're on the same page there. I do disagree about the case for war. In my opinion, there was a solid case for war...particularly Iraq's non-compliance with existing UN resolutions. Whether the Bush administration made the argument well or not is a different issue.