Posted on 01/04/2004 4:43:47 PM PST by Recovering_Democrat
Look, I am sick and tired of the press, the Democrat Party Operatives, and snobby "professors" making all this fuss about the lack of WMDs (so far) and why we went to war with Iraq.
The President's case was strong enough for going to war with Iraq, but there was certainly one reason (legally speaking) for forcing Saddam's hand:
Now I think the U.N. is as worthless an organization as the PLO, the DNC or the NEA. Maybe even more so. But no one seriously contends that Saddam was abiding by the 12 or 13 resolutions passed against him in 11 years. He was violating the "will" of the world.
He should've been whacked years ago, the pundits said before the war. NOW people like Scott Ritter and Al Sharpton and Howard Dean are saying we shouldn't have gone in. When the President went to war, he justifiably went in for plenty of reasons. But among them was Saddam's willful violation of the U.N. Resolutions he had promised to obey.
So screw you, peaceniks and Democrats and flower children and mainstream press apparatchiks of the liberals. I for one am glad we got that SOB out of power, and I don't think we're finished yet. You people may yearn for more totalitarianism in the Middle East: the people of that region deserve better, though. And it'll make our world and nation a safer place.
Sign me:
Sick of the idiotic criticism,
Recovering_Democrat
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough for you in my original post. I'll try again. :) There were scads of reasons for going into Iraq, in my opinion. But those ninnies screaming now about the supposed lack of WMDs are saying that was the only justification for going into Iraq, and without WMDs, there was a sinister Bush reason for doing so. They are wrong, even by their own standard of "doing it by the U.N.". U.N. Resolution 1441 was being breached by Iraq. The President, authorized by the declaration of Congress and by 1441 itself (the "serious consequences" clause) enforced the U.N. Resolutions dating back to 1991.
If every nation in the world had a few people in Iraq, that does not change the reality that we led the charge without UN approval.
Show me where the U.N. disapproved of our action. What vote of the Security Council passed such a disapproval?
I am not saying that our action was wrong. But to justify it on the sole basis of the UN Resolution is to hide behind something for which we had no respect in the first place.
You should understand now this is not the sole basis of our action, at least in my opinion. But it is a sufficient basis.
If the UN is only a useful tool for US aggression, we then contribute to its impotence if we are heard to justify our actions on the basis of its Resolutions.
Balderdash. What contributes to the U.N.'s "impotence" is the weak-kneed "leaders" who infiltrate and populate that institution, refusing to take a stand against the human rights abusers and terrorists of this world. Enforcing the will of the world (in this case, Iraq's complete compliance with a score of Resolutions) creates legitimacy for the U.N.
So do I.
I think he would like to be reelected, but not at the expense of his country.
Had that been the case, a president with a "D" after his name, there wouldn't be any parades because Saddam Hussein and his sons would still be in charge of Iraq.
Oh, yes. And is there any other candidate we can say that of?
I'll be heading down to the local GOP HQs to see if there's anything I can do very shortly. I hope they don't write off even the leftmost states this year; GWB has money, so I hope he can start tugging some of the unknowing farther to the right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.