[Chi-townChief]

Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, Sudan, Syria ...

You just gotta love it when these so-called anti-war peaceniks like this bozo Greeley (forgetful of their UN commitments) start telling us who we should have attacked.

[narby]

Why did the administration pick Iraq as a target for the war it needed and wanted?

The fact that Iraq was shooting at our airplanes on a regular basis is enough for me. The cease fire from the 91 war was broken, and we finished what we started then.

All the other issues Bush brought up were valid, but the above was enough to go back to war all on it's own.

Next question.

[Fenris6]

What an idiot, I don't even know where to begin, or why I should bother.

[vbmoneyspender]

The proper question is, of all the bad people in the world, why was Saddam Hussein targeted? The president's charges could be leveled against many of the sociopaths on the loose in Asia, Africa and South America.

Out of all those bad people, who among them was routinely firing missiles at our pilots. Figure that one out Mr. Greeley and you will have your answer as to why we responded to Hussein's acts of war against us by going to war against him.

[Fenris6]

Many Americans are willing even now to swallow such obfuscation even though it is a cover-up for the phony rationale propounded two years ago.

Although I don't understand what a blurb about altar boy molestation is doing in an anti-war prop piece...

[Petronski]

Greeley is a scumbag, a blight on the Roman Catholic Church.

[roses of sharon]

Its especially funny that to Greeley its OK for Saddam and Sons to disavow the Gulf War surrender agreements, causing the immoral sanctions that kept millions living under tyranny, to be extended for 13 years.

Did Greeley want those sanctions lifted? Did he know of Saddam and Sons graft, the UN corruption under the Oil for Food sanctions?

And would Greeley trust a madman and sons when those sanctions were lifted? Could he trust that Saddam and Sons would not have interfered with Afghanistan's struggle for a civilized society?

Of course, those answers will never come, because he will never have the security of the US as his main objective or responsibility.

[evad]

However, he goes on to say that the removal of Saddam Hussein was the "right" thing to do. Saddam is a bad man. He has killed his own people. He caused instability in that part of the world. He hates America. He was always a threat. We had to get rid of him.

This guy's reasoning is like a Michael Moore movie. Sprinkle a fact or two amongst a slew of lies and misrepresentations and you've got yourself a "documentary".

Fact is, Bush never went to war because Saddam killed his own people or because he hates America. Keeerist, if that were justification we should invade France.

[Raycpa]

It might be just me but shouldn't we finish one war before we start another? The gulf war had never finished. It wasn't over until Saddam followed through with the terms of his surrender.

[Raycpa]

The first reason is that the administration needed a war as an excuse

Well, Bush still could have chosen any of those aforementioned. This reason fails to provide a reason for choosing Iraq.

[claudiustg]

Greeley evidently doesn't believe in the saving power of good works. Is he a closet Protestant , I wonder?

[ex-snook]

Why? Neo-cons convinced Bush [willingly?] that the road to peace went through Baghdad and it was a 'doable' cakewalk. Are we there yet?

[A.A. Cunningham]

I wonder how Randy Andy can find the time to crank out these columns considering his dedication to writing soft core porn, appearing on the Today Show, saying Mass, hearing confessions, visiting hospitals and nursing homes to administer the Sacraments, helping the homeless, teaching RCIA classes, et al.

[Doctor Raoul]

THe Padre is dumb enough to be Al Franken.

[RightWhale]

The author does not know why Iraq was invaded. Good. Leave it that way. He has lost the clue he was assigned at birth and it is far too late now.

[Steel Wolf]

Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, Sudan, Syria ... You just gotta love it when these so-called anti-war peaceniks like this bozo Greeley (forgetful of their UN commitments) start telling us who we should have attacked.

So is his point thatt we have a green light to go after these guys? Careful what you wish for, Padre.

Wishing thinking aside, his argument is as transparent as it is juvenile. If we had attacked Cuba, for instance, he'd have written the exact same article, but switched the placement of the words 'Iraq' and 'Cuba'.

[angkor]

Andrew Greely prefers embracing his own fanstasies to Googling 30 seconds for the answers.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/sept_11/sjres23_eb.htm

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.4655.ENR:

[operation clinton cleanup]

Why did we invade Italy and North Africa in WWII?

[68skylark]

Who but far-out liberals would object to an attack on Fidel Castro? Or, more recently, Hugo Chavez? What about Kim Jong Il, of Korea? Surely he is a greater threat to the United States than Saddam. Or the Muslim Arabs in Khartoum who have been practicing genocide against black Christians in southern Sudan and black Muslims in Darfur? Or the Shiite Grand Ayatollahs in Iran? Or the shifty Syrians who have been stirring up trouble for 30 years?

Greeley is actually making some sense here -- if he wants us to think out regime change in some of these countries, I'm with him. I vote for going after North Korea, or maybe Iran, or maybe Syria. Cuba would be fine with me also.

I don't know if he's really advocating an attack on one of these countries, but if he is that sounds good to me.

[Racehorse]

The proper question is, of all the bad people in the world, why was Saddam Hussein targeted?

22 September 1980 - Iraq invades invades Iran.  Objective:  control of  the Shatt al-Arab waterway through which both countries transported oil.  Iraq claimed a historical right to the waterway and (oil rich) adjacent land.

2 August 1990 - Iraq invades Kuwait.  Objective: reclaim sovereignty over Iraq's (oil rich) 19th Provence.

The proper question is, why did Saudi Arabia permit the infidel army on sacred Muslim soil to deal with Saddam?  My answer:  they were next.  With Kuwait and Saudi Arabia in his pocket or under his thumb, Saddam would control two-thirds of the world's future energy in the form of oil.  World conquest need not be by the sword.  Saddam may well have pulled it off at the well head.

The man was a first rank threat to the world.

But was Saddam a threat a couple of years ago? The president says he was, but where is the evidence that Iraqi terror was aimed at the United States?

May be here:

Saddam's Terror Training Camps

As reliable as anything Greeley pontificates.

So Iraq was the obvious target for another "war on terrorism" even though the evidence that Iraq had cooperated in terror against the United States or was even planning on it was thin — and we know now nonexistent.

But were they nonexistent?

New Documents Reveal Saddam Hid WMD, Was Tied to Al Qaida

[Diana in Wisconsin]

Don't worry your mushy little head about it, Mr. Greely. We'll get rid of the rest of them at a time of OUR choosing, or through the spread of Democracy...whichever happens to come first. :)