Why We Went to War

The Weekly Standard ^ | 10/20/03 | Robert Kagan & William Kristol

[Clara Lou]

So I ask tough questions and voice my opinions.
Gee, O'Reilly, you bless us with your presence.

[Peach]

Thanks for the ping. I read that article this morning and sent it to some friends.

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

Thanks, Julie. Stubborn facts are ignored by the left.

If you have a chance, read this essay from a Sgt. who makes the case for America's being in Iraq.

Soldier heroes who risk their lives to liberate stranger/victims from serious evildoers know why they fight. Pundits and pols should ask them more often.

Protests From Those Who Don't Know Ring Hollow ~ Austin American Statesman  | 10/9/03 | Sgt N.J. Todd

[risk]

This is all happening before our very eyes and I am so very proud of my Commander-in-Chief in Time of War.

Yes, when I heard this yesterday, tears came to my eyes:

PRESIDENT BUSH: So today we are confident that no matter what the dictator intends or plans, Cuba sera pronto libre. De nuevo, Cuba libre. Thank you all.

[dixie sass]

This was excellent! Obviously the information contained here is such that the liberal media will never disclose it to the American public and of course the majority of Americans aren't even interested other than how it might affect their time in front of the tv.

[dixie sass]

Thanks for the ping!

[MEG33]

Good post!

[dirtboy]

So instead of having any real critical discussion of important issues

Which is only possible when critics stop distorting the ground truth, such as saying that Kay's report shows no justification of the claims made prior to the war or that Bush claimed that the threat from Saddam was imminent. It's a two-way street.

[dixie sass]

Excellent article.

[dirtboy]

I know how cynical and mendacious Bill Clinton is and was...yet I don't believe he lacked specific target info. After all, he hit the Afgan al Qaeda training camps, and that Asprin factory in Khartom.

It was a rush job. That's what happens when the military planning cycle is trumped by the news cycle.

However, on the larger picture of Saddam and WMDs, just about everyone believed he had them and he never gave us a single reason to trust him - and the Kay report justifies that cynicism. The Dems months ago laid the groundwork for discounting the Kay report, as if they knew something like it would be coming out (and some probably used leaked preliminary intel to structure this approach). Remember that about six weeks ago Dems all over the place starting saying that Bush claimed the threat from Saddam was imminent - when Bush said nothing of the sort, and instead had asked if we should wait until the threat was imminent? If Saddam had a just-in-time approach for chemical and biological weapons, the threat would not be imminent - it would take him a few months to create agents - so it was necessary for the Dems to distort Bush's position. The just-in-time WMD approach is much more in line with the type of threat that Bush was talking about all along.

[dixie sass]

Until people start using their heads and stop listening to other people's interpretations of the news - aw phooey - well, we'll just have the same old, same old...

[arete]

Which is only possible when critics stop distorting the ground truth, such as saying that Kay's report shows no justification of the claims made prior to the war or that Bush claimed that the threat from Saddam was imminent. It's a two-way street.

Nothing is being distorted by the critics. Kay's report was paper opinion and speculation. The critics want to see actual proof -- solid physical evidence which somehow cannot be produced. What does that tell you? Maybe Kay's report is based on British intelligence. LOL

Richard W.

[ChadGore]

Re: So I ask tough questions and voice my opinions.

Interesting, but freedom of speech is not a safe harbor for fabrication.

[ChadGore]

Re: The responsibility sits on the heads . . False. They are you're assertions, the onus is upon you, my good friend.

[dirtboy]

Nothing is being distorted by the critics.

Maybe in your little world. Not in the real world that the rest of us live in.

Kay's report was paper opinion and speculation.

Hardly. The equipment, programs and documentation are all in place.

The critics want to see actual proof

Of what? That Saddam had WMDs? He had a program in place to manufacture them on a very short notice. Which means he could have been a threat within a year or so. Once again, just about everyone in the world believed Saddam had the weapons, and Saddam gave no reason for them to believe otherwise. And the Kay Report shows that skepticism to be justified.

[ChadGore]

Re: What does that tell you?

That some of us take a more enlightened world view on Iraq instead of burying our heads in the sand and becoming a one issue person. The WMDs have been seperated from the hands of the tyranical, didpotic, dictitorial socialist regime that is the declared enemy of my nation, these United States.

THANK YOU GWB :)

The larger question is why you feel compelled to shill for a, now deposed, socialist dictator ? Other than yourself, who other allies did Saddams Iraq have?

[ChadGore]

you're your

[arete]

Your idol, GW, mislead the American people and has the blood of American sons and daughters on his hands. Saddam was no threat to us. You can yell that evil-doer nonsense until your blue in the face. I'll worry about the enemy of the constitution and freedoms of the citizens coming from Washington, not some two bit dictator half a world away.

Richard W.

[risk]

Your idol, GW, mislead the American people and has the blood of American sons and daughters on his hands.

So what would you have done after 9/11 that wouldn't have involved American troops putting themselves in harm's way?

[Carolinamom]

That "half a world away" dictator is evil incarnate. It is a good thing to eradicate such evil for humanity's sake and for our own protection. Were you against destroying Hitler since he was in Europe, not here?