[r9etb]

The President has given consistent reasons for invading Iraq from beginning to end. In short, take out a dangerous regime and replace it with a state that upholds the rule of law as part of transforming the Middle East.

All excellent overt reasons for dealing with Iraq. But as current events have shown, the larger strategic value of having large forces in Iraq -- right next to Syria and Iran -- cannot be ignored.

From a long-term strategy perspective, it has become obvious that something has to be done about the dangers posed by Islamic governments in the Middle East. It will inevitably mean military action. We had to grab a bridgehead someplace, and Iraq has a wonderfully strategic location for that, which just happened to coincide with the fact that Saddam's Iraq needed dealing with anyway.

[P-40]

which just happened to coincide with the fact that Saddam's Iraq needed dealing with anyway.

And of course if we had given a whimpy response after 9/11 we would be paying for it forever. Before 9/11 we fought terrorism as a criminal matter, now it is a military one...as it should be.

And for those that say we can't fight terrorism because we are in Iraq, which is where we are catching the terrorists now, if all the troops were home doing nothing...how would we be catching the terrorists? We would be back to asking other countries to hand them over. When they refused, we would ask them again, and again. Not a good plan.