Current Events — HabitableZone

Current Events » in reply to We're going to have to agree to disagree on Iraq

re: We're going to have to agree to disagree on Iraq
Marsby — (archived)

I'm not saying no data was fudged. I'm saying the conclusion was reached before the data was fudged. The Clintons admitted they also thought Saddam had WMD. Most of the fudging I've heard reasonable evidence for was after the Congress passed their resolution. I strongly believe that the case for war was strong enough based primarily on Saddam's own actions. I believe the world needs to look at all the recent genocides and history of WW2 as context not just the fact that we were wrong in this instance when judging how much to tolerate from a tyrant who has already used wmd and invaded another country to steal resources.

Bush lied is an excuse by the left to cover for the fact that they believed in wmd before the faulty evidence was ever aired and voted on that basis. If they made a snap judgement after 10 years of dealing with inspections and obstructions from Saddam, shame on them. They were motivated by the fact that Clinton allowed Al-queida to grow and were terrified of looking weak on terror by continuing to turn a blind eye to Saddam. There was never more than a faint possibility of a link mentioned between Saddam and Al-queida. The issue was a 10 year history of animosity between Saddam and the US as well as his support for terrorism in Israel which suggested he might supply wmd to terrorists to attack us. It's not like he didn't make threats. That's all related to frame of mind however. The actual basis for the invasion was directly based on Saddam's failure to comply with UN required inspections not a link to Al-queida which did not exist. We should have gone in years before on that basis. It was the change in frame of mind that made us unwillling to play his game any more.

I was happy with Clinton domestic policy in general, but infuriated with his weak responses to Al-queida and Iraq. I find believing Saddam had wmd and doing next to nothing to be far more reprehensible than throwing in every bit of data you have to make a case he does even if some of it is questionable.

I can also say Bush screwed up royally on troup levels, but I didn't know that until the surge worked. I was worried more troups might just mean more friction. Making war decisions is not some easy exact science. I believe Bush made a lot of mistakes but very sincerely wanted to protect the US and did what he thought was best even if he didn't always think clearly. It bothers me a lot to see him demonized by people who give clinton a pass for being more interested in blow jobs than protectiing our country. I respect a man a lot more that tries and fails to lead than one that takes the easy path following polls. We really need someone who will lead and has wisdom. Clinton was a good caretaker president, but not a crisis leader.

Regards,
Mark

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (86 posts)