Replies

Unless we had a credible WMD/terrorism threat, in addition to the U.N. resolutions, we had a slim pretext for war.

I don't agree, and Congress didn't either. You can hold this opinion but yours was the losing end of the argument.

But if we maintain that Saddam was a 'gathering threat' and that justifies our invasion, even against world opinion, then we have accorded ourselves the right to invade anyone anywhere any time they make us a little nervous.

"make us a little nervous" = support and harbor terrorists, try to develop mass-deaeth weapons, and invade another country and then violate the ceasefire after we kick them out?

I guess so, then.

We have to ask exactly why the rest of the world should trust us when the situation is reversed.

I don't give a rat's ass about "the rest of the world" "trusting" us. They are not going to no matter what we do. Your assumption seems to be that our primary concern in all this is or ought to be whether "the rest of the world" "trusts" us. Some of us have different priorities than that.

I don't agree, and Congress didn't either. You can hold this opinion but yours was the losing end of the argument.

In fact, it is the Congress and both parties that want answers. That is why Bush is announcing the independent probe. Republicans want some better answers. Not just Democrats.

I don't give a rat's ass about "the rest of the world" "trusting" us. They are not going to no matter what we do. Your assumption seems to be that our primary concern in all this is or ought to be whether "the rest of the world" "trusts" us. Some of us have different priorities than that.

Short-sighted jingoism. It's all good and fine to be the last superpower, capable of outspending the rest of the world combined on arms and with the finest technology. But, in the end, we have to have friends and allies. We simply can't go it alone.

If we cannot provide a strong proof and justification for Iraq, the next time we have to deal with a real threat, like North Korea or Iran or even Syria, we'll stand on pretty weak grounds when we try to recruit a coalition of partners. We could, at the least, see Blair and Berlusconi gone from office over this. And there are other leaders who risked a lot to back us. I don't think there are others in real danger of parliamentary defeat. The Spaniards were pretty opposed but somehow Agca (is that his name?) has held them together quite well. He has proven a far more adept national leader than he has been given credit for.

You may not think it's important. But I'm glad we have some grownups in charge of foreign policy, however much I might occasionally dissent from their methods.