OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM: THE RIGHT WAR ANYWAY

Yahoo /NY Post ^ | July 10, 2004 | NY Post Op/Ed

[malia]

bttt

[Victoria Delsoul]

At the end of the day, though, the WMD issue is essentially peripheral.

The question before Americans at the moment is this:

Was the war justified?

The answer is: Unequivocally yes.

Indeed, Americans should feel good about Iraq. The work there isn't yet done, but success in Iraq will ultimately prove to be a key victory in the War on Terror.

And that's what counts.

Excellent article, Ernest. Bookmarked.

[nathanbedford]

I'm tired of of the whole WMD/no WMD arguing. I don't care what Saddam had 5 or 10 years ago. I cared about what he was going to have 5 years from now. Unless you believe Saddam only wanted to live in peace and had given up his quest for WMD taking him out was inevitable

Well said. No President responsible for the safety of his countrymen can deny the combustibility of Petro dollars and WMDs.

It is all very well to say that "the buck stops here" in the oval office but consider the crippling effect on a President's ability to wage war if every time the intelligence world gets it wrong the President must suffer a political defeat for acting to protect his people. This is precisely the dilemma currently being faced by Tony Blair who is under attack for relying on "faulty" intelligence.

What a terrible precedent we will set in both countries if we punish courage and incentivise pusillanimity in our leaders in this shadowy but perilous world war against terrorists bent on using weapons of mass murder in our homeland. What a distortion of a noble motto meant to express the courage which must be the emblem of a leader, "the buck stops here!"

Bush has indisputably conducted himself courageously and honorably in waging this war in Iraq. If he is to lose this election as a result of honorably discharging his oath, the drama will have assumed the nature of a Greek tragedy. And we as a people will have no right to expect Kerry to sacrifice himself to his oath; the man is not stupid, he can read the lessons of history too, and it is not in his character anyway and certainly not in the tradition of the party of Clinton.

If we inflict this damage on ourselves, the buck is likely not to stop next time in the oval office but in the homeland and in a mushroom cloud.

You have it absoultely right. If Bush had waited the sanctions would have been lifted and Saddam would have rearmed without constraint of pocket book or conscience. This talk we hear today from Democrats that Saddam was "contained" is preposterous even apart from the reality of the stunning fraud of the oil for food program. The political reality was that the sanctions could not have stood after Hans Blix gave Saddam a clean bill. "Containment" of terrorists and WMDs is an illusion that can kill.

There was no substitute for regime change - but not regime change at home.

[M Kehoe]

A ping just to mess with you.

;^)

5.56mm

[woofie]

I still want WMD to show up......and continue to think more will.

[Lancelot Jones]

It's one front of the war.

There will be many more fronts...God willing, not here.

Beauseant!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

The point is that while some individual reports MAY have been wrong -- we don't KNOW they actually were wrong, and neither does the Senate committee.

Absolutely right!

[World'sGoneInsane]

The irony of this report is that if the WMD's are no longer in Iraq, they are someplace else. In which case, they will be used elsewhere.

If the WMD's are no longer in Iraq, it is a bigger threat to us and the rest of the world. This report only justifies our actions, and these loony senators are second-guessing themselves. Doh!

That should be the next editorial.

[churchillbuff]

This doesn't "mess with" me - - - it "messes with" those Freepers who've been insinuating I'm a traitor because I've taken the same position as the Senate Committe (including all its Republicans) now take:

The CIA's assertions — that Iraq had stockpiles of banned weapons and was well on its way to making nukes — were wrong, the report said. Those claims were based on false or overstated analyses, it said. The committee's Republican chairman, Sen. Pat Roberts, termed the CIA conclusions "unreasonable" and "unsupportable." And yesterday's report was unanimous: Both Republican and Democratic committee members approved it.

THANKS FOR SHOWING I'M NOT A TRAITOR OR APPEASER, BUT INSTEAD SOMEBODY WHO INSISTS ON LOOKING AT ISSUES HONESTLY. ! Have a nice day !

[M Kehoe]

As you know, I have never called you a name or impugned your character. We just happen to disagree on this issue. And as I said on your thread, there will be more venues before all of this is over. T'is better to kill them there, than having to kill them here.

I hope you have a great rest of the weekend.

5.56mm

[TillyCimer]

I have a great idea for the Republican Party as a way to educate those who "just don't get it!" They should manufacture a 100 piece puzzle with all of the credible threat evidences that weighed in on the decision to go to war. That way the deadheads might figure it out as they put the pieces together for themselves.
The Republicans could could also publish a simple "CONNECT THE DOTS" paint by numbers sort of poster too; one way or another we might convince the liberals that it's a good time to go to war before the other guy smokes you. That suggests a word scramble game using the term "DEFENSE."