Sam Cree:
I, for one, agree with you. There were many strategic and military reasons to COMPLETE the job that Bush 1 SHOULD have completed and take out Saddam once and for all. But once Bush decided to accede to the Colin Powell path of going to the UN they had to find a rationale that would "fly" with the Security Council. US National security wouldnt fly... and the socio-political benefits of ridding the world of a terrorist tyrant like Saddam wouldnt fly.. and certainly his monetary and materiel support of Palestinian suicide bombers would NEVER fly in the UN..
So they fastened upon WMD as a "cause" even the Euro-weenies of France and Germany could support. I NEVER was comfortable with that as the main rationale for war, but since I like most others fully expected that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD around I said: OK, if that does it for the war effort fine.
We are 100% better off without Saddam. The war and its effort to bring a non-terrorist democrcay to the Middle East WAS worth it. The critics of the war are left-wing America hating appeasers, as far as I'm concerned.
But once Pres. Bush went the UN route the wheels came off the international effort. The French betrayed Powell. The Russians saw a wedge to stick it to Friend Bush over anti-democracy critiques. And the WMD became the only diplomatic "issue" we could try in the Sec. Council.
Feith is right. There were other, better reasons to oust Saddam, but the doggone U.N. path basically short circuited them all. Had Bush bypassed the UN altogether, the WMD issue would have been one, but hardly the main or only one, of the reasons to oust Saddam.
I think, of all politicians, Bush is the one who seems to understand most clearly that Islamic terror will, if not eradicated, sooner or later, maybe tomorrow, maybe in ten years, use WMD's on the United States. And, since America is the guarantor of freedom and the guarantor of the existence of Western civilization, then freedom and Western Civilization are at risk as long as Islamic terror exists. In any event, the evil entity of Islamic terror has to be eradicated.
In my mind, it's kind of hard to imagine eradicating Islamic terror without rooting it out of its breeding ground, the Middle East. Once we make that obvious decision, taking out Saddam's brutal, warlike and ambitioius regime is also an obvous move. His continued existence as ruler of Iraq is a clear impediment to peace and stability in the region. If regime change there is successful, there is suddenly yet another friendly Middle East nation, leaving only Syria and Iran in the hostile camp. The odds of the Iranian people overthrowing their fundamentalist rulers are suddenly much better, there is now a real possibility of relative peace in that unholy part of the world. Seen in these terms, Bush is nothing less than a visionary. Outrageously ambitious, yes. Taking a gamble, yes. But very likely a necessary gamble if we are not to abandon the world to the constant threat of terror and another age of darkness.
IMO, "liberals" hate Bush so much for exactly that reason, they sense the enormity of what he could accomplish. Trouble for them is that he's from the wrong side of the tracks, he's a Republican. That is what is unforgivable and that is why they are all so desperate to bring him down. Little monkey faced Georgie isn't supposed to be the one saving Western civilization, it's supposed to be one of the elite beautiful people on the Left side of the tracks.
For those who maintain that since Saddam didn't participate in 9/11, hitting him was beside the point, it's a certainty that Al Qaeda and Islamic terror don't share that view. Their desperate effort in Iraq, which parallels the American Left's effort here at home, makes that more than clear. And I notice that liberals making the above argument never use Saddam's name, they always refer not to him, but to "them," in an attempt to include the entire Iraqi people, as if freeing them from Saddam was not in their interest. It's fascinating that the self proclaimed saviors of the world's oppressed can support both terror and real oppression in what is nothing less than their own quest for power.
And to those who love the jingle, "when Clinton lied, nobody died" I would respond:
First, although IMO Bush can be accused of disingenuousness in allowing the WMD issue to take center stage, it's assured, as even Clinton agrees, that he did not lie. Congress cannot be excused in agreeing with him by saying that they were reluctant - they saw the same intel as the president did. In any case, reluctance is not a virtue in this case.
But the point and the correct reply to the jingle is that:
Bush was willing to risk his presidency to save civilization
Clinton risked his presidency to get a blow job from a kid.