Why Bush's war to remove Saddam was a 'no brainer'

Chicago Sun-Times ^ | June 07 2004 | Michael Barone

[knighthawk]

Ping

[Semper Paratus]

In 5 years this take will be convential wisdom.

[JeeperFreeper]

Like the proverbial blind pig and acorn, the mainstream press allows reason to triumph liberal sentiment. Thanks for the post.

[Egregious Philbin]

Barone makes no mention of the 10 years we spent bombing Iraq before our decision to invade, or the silly inspections - the combination of the two would seem to have been a serious impediment to a large-scale weapons program.

He also does not ponder the tenuous connection a bunch of religious zealots might have with a secular tyrant.

And the "what if Clinton said it" point seems another argument entirely.

One can certainly make the case that we had to invade Iraq. Was the speed with which we went to war a 'no-brainer' though?

[FreedomPoster]

Bump. We all need to be talking up this book, and buying it to get it up the charts.

[Califelephant]

Was the speed with which we went to war a 'no-brainer' though?

What should we have been waiting for?

[bondjamesbond]

Was the speed with which we went to war a 'no-brainer' though?

Waiting 12 years seems quick to you?

What would further waiting have gained?

[TonyInOhio]

As usual, Michael Barone is spot on with his analysis.

I'm pleased that he is still a Fox news contributor; his knowledge of electoral politics is unsurpassed.

[Gid_29]

Just small factual correction: The shell containing the sarin/sarin mixture wasn't lobbed at coalition forces, it was rigged as part of a roadside bomb.

[muawiyah]

Regarding your statement: He also does not ponder the tenuous connection a bunch of religious zealots might have with a secular tyrant.

It is, of course, conjecture that Saddam Hussein was, in fact, "secular". The guy was building mosques left and right, and if anything, a late in life Mafia Don is a more appropriate comparison than "secular tyrant".

Seems to me that one of the things Saddam is going to be remembered for a few centuries from now is his construction of mosques. Specialists in Mesopotamia will also recall he rebuilt significant portions of the old city of Babylon.

So, Barone was probably correct in simply passing this part on by.

[My2Cents]

I think it will be conventional wisdom in about five months, as I suspect (or hope) there will be something of a formal report out of the Administration on Saddam's WMD program, and connections with al-Qaeda prior to the election.

[ghost of nixon]

The "Bush lied to trick us into going to war" crowd have failed to supply a reasonable motive for Bush doing so. If it was for purely political gain, it absolutely doesn't make sense. An Iraq war was, and is, a very risky political undertaking. No guarantee of a positive outcome within GWB's political time frame of 1 & 1/2 years. Politicians don't make moves like these with such an low potential payback and huge downside risks if their motive is political gain.

[FrankR]

Arresting bin laden either of the two times he was handed over to clinton was a no-brainer too. Perhaps if he could have let go of Monica and his johnson long enough, 9/11 would have never happened, and we might not be in Iraq.

What the hey! The "hate Bush" crowd talks in "ifs" and "maybes"...so can I.

[RaceBannon]

What speed??

This war took 9 months to start...What speed??

[Dems_R_Losers]

Not true. I know some serious Bush-haters and they think Bush had it out for Saddam because he tried to kill his Daddy; the neo-cons wanted Iraq neutered to help protect Israel; and Cheney wanted Halliburton to get all the oil contracts. They are totally serious too. Some of them are so nutty they even think Bush plotted the 9/11 attacks so he could justify invading Iraq!

[bayourod]

Kerry & company were forced by Howard Dean to take the wrong side of the issue on Iraq. The truth is filtering through the Old Media screens and within 4 months everyone will agree that Bush's Iraq policy was/is correct.

That's why Kerry is taking off a week to work on his new foreign policy positions. He's trying to find a way to make himself appear to be a stronger leader than Bush. "Let France and Germany do it" just won't work any longer.

Maybe a photo op of Kerry wearing a 10 gallon hat and Gucci cowboy boots while riding a steer.

[Christian4Bush]

bump for later

[Egregious Philbin]

Certainly an argument can be made that we had to remove Saddam, but Barone fails to mention 10 years of sanctions, inspections, and bombing - all of which did a good job of containing Saddam (even if the inspections were ineffectual and/or for show). Considering these things - what was the rush?

Waiting would have allowed us to better plan our exit strategy and reconsider our intelligence. We could've had more armor for our troops, more troops available, more foreign troops for support (though we might've lost support by waiting too...) I guess i'm advocating tempering the "Rumsfeld doctrine" with a bit of the "Powell doctrine."

Perhaps i'm wrong. I have read many mostly convincing arguments that removing Saddam was necessary, but I have read no arguments that have convinced me the speed with which we went to war was necessary.

[ravingnutter]

It is, of course, conjecture that Saddam Hussein was, in fact, "secular".

As evidenced in the thread "Saddam Torture Videos Viewed by Congress":

On the tape, versus from the Koran are quoted. There is a line about how this is being done in the name of Allah, and in another part, one of Saddam's soldiers explains what is about to happen to the next victim, who is about to have his arm cut off.