I will second that:
Posted on 10/08/2004 2:32:12 PM PDT by swilhelm73
Anyway, a point that is often ignored; it isn't those supporting the WoT who've changed their positions, but those who oppose the war.
In the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, the anti-war movement had two primary arguments;
1) Attacking Iraq will lead to the fall of "friendly" governments in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan.
2) If we attack Iraq, Hussein will use his WMDs on our troops and Israel.
Amazingly, the anti-war zealots now claim that we should have invaded some other country - like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, and that no one ever had reason to believe that Hussein had WMDs.
Pretty much every argument for the war has been proven to be correct save the last (for which the jury is still out);
1) Obviously Hussein was in violation of the terms of the cease fire.
2) Hussein had the capability and desire to build WMDs even if he did not have stockpiles.
3) Hussein had ties to terrorist groups.
4) Sanctions had little effect on Hussein's regime because France and Russia were still trading with him illegally.
5) Clearing out the cesspool of Arabic political culture is the only way to permanently end the threat of Islamist terror.
Excellent read, very concise.
bump for later
True.
I have a prediction.
Tonight John Kerry will announce that Bush took too long to fight Iraq.
However, it won't budge anybody on the left a whit. Logic has nothing to do with it. All they have is hatred...and an unquenchable thirst for power.
I don't know about anyone else here but I have reached DEFCON 1.
Bump for later.
"We can even use some of the extra money from the Oil-for-Food program to compensate him for the damage to his palaces and prisons.... Heck, if John Edwards weren't busy, he could represent him.+
This is awesome and hilarious. It really helped me get my hands around the situation. A comprehensive understanding has been eluding me. This situation requires more than a fifth grade education, which is all Kerry, Edwards and the Media want to assert.
BUMP article and post 1!
Here's what I don't get...2 things actually 1) Why isn't ANYONE mentioning the fact that if Saddam was so clean, had nothing going on, nothing to hide, why in the hell did he not come out in the final months before the war and say, look I'm clean, come on in and check it out, the sanctions would have been lifted, he would have been pitied by the left here and made into this downtrodden figure, beaten up by the mean Americans...there's more than just saying, "because he didn't think we'd attack", he knew he was dealing with Bush not ClinKerry...it's cuz he DID have some nasty stuff ready to brew and a plan to do it. 2) If Bush DIDN'T do what he did and go to Iraq, and he left Saddam and focused on Iran or whatever, here's what Kerry and Loons would be saying tonight... "This President let a sworn enemy sit and ignore threat after threat, resolution after resolution after I and others gave him the authority to attack...he's weak, misguided...blah...blah...freaking blah...".....Go W!!!
bttt
one of the best, if not THE best, articles I've read
"I don't know about anyone else here but I have reached DEFCON 1."
ditto...I am royally pissed and ready to rumble!
Shame, Shame, Shame 
Great points...Bush needs to come out firing tonight and I think he'll do it.
Yes, this was a great article, good job posting it. It is really written with a lot of feeling and it is damning in its charges.
BUMP for a great column, and your great analysis!
bflr
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.