My concern is exemplified in your line ” . . .to our satisfaction.” If the Administration wanted to get him before 9/11 (which it seems pretty clear they did), were they looking at the information objectively, or through “kill Saddam” tinted glasses?

What sets off my “lying antenna” is after we invaded. As the lack of WMDs became clear, the administration (Cheney, Rummy) kept deflecting questions with versions of “we are absolutely sure the WMDs are there.” At the time, I assumed that they had super-secret-ninja intelligence that overrode what we in the public saw. In hindsight, they clearly did not — they were just so determined to invade that if Saddam ordered Twinkies from a deli they would have interpreted it as code to kill Americans.

It reminds me of when I drink. Alcahol doesn’t effect me. I can drink all I want, and I stay the same. Everybody around me, however, turns into an argumentatve bastard. Now, most people say I’m the one that is drunk, but since I know I’m completely unaffected, they all must be wrong. If the Administration wanted to invade (regardless of cause), then they were going to see cause (even if everybody else who looked at the evidence didn’t see squat).

This, to me, is why I can’t believe the Admin on pretty much anything. IMO, they decide the “right” thing to do, then look at the facts with their “I’ve already decided” glasses on. Since there is no global warming, all reports that say it exists are rife with inaccuracy (even if they have to edit them to make it clear), and any reports debunking it are pure gold (even if the peer community disagrees). Since Republicans are the Party of Good, pressuring governmental agencies to help Republicans (even though blatantly illegal) is justified. Since overthrowing Saddam will not only cause Democracy to flower in the Mideast but get some payback for the failed GW assination attempt (dead or alive, baby!) then he must be the biggest threat of all dictators.

If we invaded for self-defense (which is what we claimed at the beginning), then the Administration decided “well, since we have to go in anyways, lets start democracy, spread freedom, and create a better world”, then I’m disgusted. You fight a war for one purpose: to win and end it. Its not a classroom exercise — you don’t send college interns to run the CPA, you send the best.

Two possible fact patterns: either (a) the CIA ran to the Administration and said “Saddam’s getting active! We gotta take him out now!!” or (b) the Administration went to the CIA and said “We gotta take him out now! He’s getting active, right?” If its the latter, then by definition he wasn’t the biggest threat; he was a target of opportunity.

Anyways, thats my two cents. It seems to be a judgement call, so I don’t think either of can be “right”, but I certainly respect your position and appreciate the discussion.

What did distinguish Hussein from the others is that (1) he had and had used WMDs, (2) he was definitely hostile to the United States, (3) a supporter of terrorism, and (4) had many chances to totally open up but never did to our satisfaction… and thus, ‘deserved’ what happened to him and moved him to the top of the list of all those who are giving us the evil eye. Of course as I wrote above, taking care of Hussein quickly and getting out was supposed to deter those giving us the evil eye. Unfortunately, Bush’s screwing things up has emboldened them. I doubt Iran would be pushing ahead if we didn’t have 100,000 troops bogged down in Iraq, nor would Musharaff have given refuge to the Taliban.

Oh well,

Hmmmm . . . if you take out “he’s got anthrax tipped missles ready to go right now!” argument for invasion (which, given what I was told by this administration, I heartily agreed with), I don’t see the other reasons distinguishing him from any other dictator. He supported terrorists who hate us? So do dozens of countries, as far as I know the biggest one being Saudi Arabia. Heck, the Provos in Ireland were primarily funded by citizens in the United States. The US funded the Afgan resistance fighters (now today’s terrorist). We’ve worked with “terrorist groups” in Central America, the mideast, etc. for decades.

Saddam hated us (after we worked together in the Iran-Iraq war) for good reason — we wouldn’t let him grow in the MidEast, and spanked him hard when he tried. While he may have supported some terrorists (definitely NOT Bin Laden and company), he wasn’t (IMO) trying to attack us. I’m sure he was pleased as punch when we were attacked, but if the worst he did against us was support people who may eventually attack us on their own, well, as I said before we did that too, since we signed Bin Laden’s paycheck all those years in Afganistan.

WMDs . . . again, I’m sure he wanted them, but so do lots of countries. In hindsight, its clear he wasn’t close to getting them, and its also clear that us flying F-16s over his airspace for a decade made it pretty difficult for him to do more than just wish for them real hard. Again, how is his dreaming of WMDs different from Quaddafi? Jong Il? Any of a host of sycopaths in Africa?

I do agree that the idea of “sending a message to the other jerks” sounded like a good, albeit naive, idea on paper. Problem is, even if executed flawlessly thousands of people would have to die (not all of them black hats).

Another mideast war would be bad for us, but how was he going to attack when we had sorties going overhead every day? Everytime he thought about flexing his muscle, we blew something up.

If we’re gonna kill people because they threaten us, well and good. Self-defense is a long recognized principle. If we’re gonna kill people because we don’t like the way they’re eyeballing us, then I think we go to far as a nation, and there are WAY too many nations giving us the stinkeye for us to fight them all.

Yes, IF he was actively seeking WMDs, IF he was aggressively co-ordinating terrorists to act as proxies against us, IF he was attacking other Mideast countries, IF attacking him deterred future attacks by third parties . . . lots of ifs. Too many ifs, in my opinion.

I don’t think we should EVER start a war without cause. Cause to me is more than paranoia and mabyes. By the ifs, we should invade Pakistan (harbors terrorists, brutal regime, WMDs, instability). And Iran (WMDS, supports terrorists, send message, sway Mideast political landscape, etc.) And North Korea (he’s friggin’ insane). And Venezuela. Probably Lybia as well to be on the safe side. Chad. Sudan. Syria. And so forth. What made Saddam #1 on the list? Aside from “he tried to kill my daddy”?

Our military interventions need to be justified on the basis of improving America’s safety. To me, it was right to go into Iraq and getting rid of Hussein because: Hussein supported terrorists that struck at Americans and American allies (and I’m not saying he was connected to 9/11), because there was a serious concern he had or was developing WMDs that could very well be used against us or our allies (whether by him direct or by surrogate doesn’t matter, he was a threat to the region, so much so that our economy would have been threatened by another mideast war (and I note how well our economy has done in light of another mideast war) and in the hopes that our taking action against Iraq would ‘encourage’ others (such as Libya, Iran, Syria and so on) to stop screwing with us and our allies. Once we got rid of him and determined that there were in fact no WMDs, it was time for us to get out, let the Iraqis fight it out for control of their country, and we’d move on to whichever country was next on the list of threats to us (which, by the way, is Iran). Unfortunately, because Bush got on his sowing democracy seeds jag, we’ve spent way too much on Iraq, haven’t been able to deter or take action against anybody else.

It wasn’t Bush’s tough talk that got him into trouble. It was his lack of insight, his reliance on idiots for advice (see: Colin Powell) and his insistence on sticking around in Iraq long past the point at which we should have gotten out that got him - and us - in trouble.

This was the problem with the Administration’s “Tough Texan” talk. When they kept going on with “we’ve gotta invade Iraq becuase he’s a cruel dictator who hates us” talk, the obvious next question was “why this dictator?” In terms of evil bastards oppressing their citizens, he was kind of a garden variety bastard, and if we’re gonna do it for him, we’ve set a precedent for dozens of other countries. Either we invade everybody, or we look (again) like we just spout rhetoric when it suits us, but have no real beliefs or convictions.

Someone should email that transcript out to the entire righty blogosphere. Any takers, Rick?

We’re no more looking at an Iraq-style invasion in that scenario than we need to be looking at an Iraq-style invasion to deal with Iran. We don’t need to occupy an entire country and try to turn it into a garden of democratic eden to protect ourselves. We didn’t need to do what we’re doing in Iraq to get rid of Hussein and whatever WMDs he had, and we don’t need to occupy Iran/Pakistan to target their nukes, terror camps, military infrastructure and so on.

And, no offense, but why the infatuation with what the Islamic ’street’ does or cares about? The street doesn’t control the military, the generals do and it’s wrong to assume the next batch of generals would open their nuclear doors to the street. Perhaps a coup would be comprised of those sympathetic to the street, perhaps not.

But whether or not that is the case, my point remains: if Musharraf isn’t going to clamp down on those who want to kill us, we have the right to protect ourselves. And, unless you buy into the whole idea that our protecting ourselves only creates more terrorists, I see very little downside in striking at terrorists, no matter where they are.

“I think the president’s going to have to take military action there (Pakistan) over the next few weeks or months. … Bush has to disrupt that sanctuary.”

“I think, frankly, we won’t even tell Musharraf,” Kirstol continued. “We’ll do what we have to do in Western Pakistan and Musharraf can say, ‘Hey, they didn’t tell me.’”

would this be the same analyst who predicted flowers and music for our soldiers in Iraq?