Posted on 09/04/2006 6:54:49 PM PDT by doug from upland
The conditions were that the inspectors could go anywhere they wanted. From a PR vantage, they should have tried and been rebuffed by Saddam. As it was, they were ordered to withdraw by our government, handing the critics a talking point.
Amazing, for all everyone talks about how great this admin. is with the PR and spin, how actually bad they are at making their case.
Spot On! Nothing needs to be added.
Forget about Lardball doing anything for any Republican.... Ever! Unless it's a Rino, like a McCain. He's a democrat apologist and propagandist, through and through.
Hussein was routinely firing missiles at our pilots in the leadup to the war. In fact, thousands of missiles were fired at our pilots prior to the start of the war. Doesn't that count as an imminent threat? Or do we only consider attacks to constitute imminent threats when they against people who are not in the military?
Here is the bottom line. If W hadn't gone into Iraq and we had been attacked by terrorists again, the stupids would have attacked W because he didn't attack Iraq.
They'd say the same thing for not catching OBL if we're attacked again. No win here.
True, although the facts would indicate that Clinton had plenty of warnings, and even wasted a few missiles (worth millions) to blow up some empty tents as evidence that he had warnings...unless they want to claim he attacked without provocation and justification.
>signed into law by President Bush on October 16, 2002.
Doug,
Thanks for this summary of actual casus belli. If I recall, after that 10/16, there was a continual, relentles drumbeat from the left: Go to the UN, that's not enough, send the inspectors back in, quagmire, xxx,000 body bags, blah blah, Bush lied. I remember trying to tell my friends, "they were wrong every step of the way, they're wrong now." I still say that. It was always the usual suspects, with the great decorated Marine named Murtha added to the list more recently. I would love to see someone in media recapitulte, week by week, that drumbeat of negativity in one place, naming names. It has cost American lives each step of the way. Is it just a great book five years from now? Do we have that long?
I did not miss the human rights aspect of this war. I made friends with two Iraqi men while in college right after the 91 war to remove Iraq from Kuwait. They shared stories of what Saddam's regime had done to several members of their family, both men and women. Many were taken away never to be heard from again. Others were beaten severly. No, I had no problem with invading Iraq, even if no WMD's had ever been in their arsenal. These stories were enough to convince me.
Dems act like they care about social issues, but when it comes down to putting their $ where their mouths are, they're bankrupt.
The damage the Dems have done to the war effort is incalculable. They emboldened the enemy and gave they the idea that they just had to hold on. How much better would we be if we had a total united front? It would have made a big difference.
bump!
Take that sentence and replace 'Saddam Hussein' with 'Mahmoud Ahmadinejad'. That just fast-forwards us to this day in history. Except that Ahmadinejad has announced his country's intentions, politely putting us on notice before it strikes.
Pray for W. The weight of the world is truly on his shoulders.
What I love about this statement is that the left is always whining that they see things in various shades of gray... but yet they see things so black and white when it comes to WMD's and Iraq.
Pray for W. The weight of the world is truly on his shoulders.
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.