About Those Iraqi WMDs

FrontPageMagazine.com ^ | April 26, 2006 | Daniel Pipes

[NutCrackerBoy]

The neocons might have considered that before they invaded a country to try and force democracy on them.

Forget neocons. This country's leaders soberly decided to invade Iraq to effect a long-overdue regime change, based on a pressing need to "drain the swamp," if possible, of dangerous regimes with the means and desire to acquire, develop, use weapons, and sponsor terrorism. This was a rational next step in dealings with one particular rogue state, and a step in a long war against rising danger emanating from the failed states of the Islamic Middle East.

President Bush has explained all of this, but you apparently don't feel that explanation is something you should engage.

Do you have a map handy? This country is in the heart of the Middle East. You want to argue that reasonable security is possible without reform in the Middle East, or that regional reform would have been possible with Saddam and sons in power for the next fifty years? Try.

Saddam's Iraq had forfeited its legitimacy by annexing Kuwait and then not living up to cease-fire agreements. It cannot be right that those agreements don't matter. The rule of chaos is not acceptable.

[Thebaddog]

Kerry can't win and second tries rarely gather traction. Same for Gore if he has any brains at all. Condoleeza would force people to examine their consciences and I think that she would be a terrific candidate, but probably for Veep. McCain is too brittle and not that bright. Allen is a serious possibility and Evan Bayh is out there as a possibility for the democrats.

Hillary is going to run, but she is a horrible campaigner. Her numbers go down every time she opens her mouth. But she has the FBI files or their current generation and people know that she will use them.

Mitt might make a run. Biden is an idjet. Brownback is a candidate in his own mind only. Hagel would like to be president if he didn't have to work for it.

Now the real question is who will win?

[P-40]

But democracy never STARTS with the use of force.

A Democracy does not start when the people start to talk about it; it starts when people actually do something about it. And those in power that the Democracy is to replace tend to not go quietly.

As regards Kerry...he couldn't even run his own campaign...and you expected him to run a country? And would you have wanted Al Gore on 9/11, or today? If you want to run a candidate, have them have something to say.

And Iraq has a *chance* at Democracy now because someone was willing to use force. That should make you happy. Or were they just going to vote old Saddam out of office?