Replies

I'm glad I wasn't on the TITANIC with you.....instead of saving SOME of them, you would have seen it as NOT part of the CONSTITUTION to SAVE ANYONE.....Use LIFEBOATS???

Not sure I understand what the Titanic has to do with the Constitution. The question that remains is this. Did Hussein at any time after the Gulf War represent a clear and present danger to the borders of this nation of states anymore so than any other third world dictator? If the WMDs are there, you may have an argument (albeit a very limited one). If he did not then he represented no more of a threat than any other nation that supplies and arms terrorists, say like Saudi Arabia, who our government calls an 'ally'.

The Constitution was not written with the intent of pre-emptive action against any nation that may in the future present a threat. Thought processes such as that came from those that hold Wilson's interference in WWI and FDR in high regard, namely the neocons

I recently asked someone how many more months or years of unsuccessfully searching for WMD would it take before she'd think it reasonable to conclude there were none.

She thought 10 years.

I think she might have been low-balling me. I suspect a fair number of Freepers will die believing there were WMD in Iraq, and we just never found them.

And why not? They have good role models.

Because no matter what the issue, we'll never hear this President or Vice-President say "I was wrong".

That's just blatantly false and only your opinion. The Constitution said "protect and preserve" the United States and you are just interpreting that they way you want to.

And yes, Iraq posed a direct threat to our country in that they declared war on us more than once, invaded their neighbors and threatened to destabilize the region (which would threaten our security) and were far more involved in supporting terrorism and use of WMD's than any other country other than Iran and North Korea who, along with Iraq, are the Axis of Evil.

To say at threat has to be against our country within in our borders is to ignore the facts of how the world exists in this day. Making that statement, you obviously don't think blowing up an American plane full of Americans flying out of, say, India is an attack on us. That's naive beyond belief and not what our founding fathers thought. Even Jefferson sent the Marines to kill pirates in Tripoli because of their attacks on our merchant ships at sea. According to you, he was a neocon and the pirates weren't attacking our nation within our borders so he was wrong.

Fortunately, thinking like yours is in the minority.

The Constitution states that the top priority of the government is to defend her citizens. This was totally constitutional. The danger was Iraq constant disregard for fullfilling any of the 17 resolutions the most important being 681, the ceasefire. We've been in a perpetual ceasefire since 91. The s!*t had to go down at some point.

1441 (and previous resolutions) put the onus on Iraq and Hussein to prove that they we're "clean." There was no presumption of innocence to be had by Hussein and Iraq because they have been on probation since 91. If he pulled a huge bluff then he lost.

The fact is that if we get attacked again we are in prime position to respond. No arguments with Saudi Arabia or Turkey about use of bases for launching points.

In the final analysis, we got rid of the guy, have given 28 million people the chance to have an open government (if they eventually can keep it), free press, freedom of speech, freedom to live without fear of torture, execution, proved the UN is inept and corrupt along with France, Germany and Russia and have a launching point for further action (can anyone say Syria?) if necessary. Slam dunk by this patriot's count.