Posted on 06/29/2004 7:00:20 PM PDT by churchillbuff
Well, Winston, as a fellow freeper I got to warn you - I wouldn't hang your hat with these guys. Why, the best proof is Kerry's dropping of the WMD issue in the past two months. He should know, one of his closest advisor's wife is a CIA WMD analyst.
Buckley is an interesting mix of self conscious upper class tolerance of personal eccentricity (thus there the libertarian instinct), with perhaps a waning pre Vatican II traditional Catholicism. One cannot tar Buckley with the antisemitism brush. He had Churchill's sensibilities on that one. It offended him to his core, and he would have none of it. Indeed, one of the main reasons he founded the National Review, is that the conservative rags of the 50's, were mired in antisemitism.
This article is filled with a multitude of distortions and lies.
Saddam had been trying to gather WMD's for years prior to the invasion. This is simply a fact and there is no disputing it. Iraqi defectors told the story. We found a sarin-filled artillery shell and, I believe, evidence of mustard gas as well. No one produces one sarin-filled shell. You produce thousands.
Saddam tried to assassinate the former President Bush.
Saddam had multiple links with Islamist terrorist groups, allowed them sanctuary and funded them.
Saddam was a direct threat to our security - and I just don't see the case that "we should have left him alone" - as legitimate.
You're an insufferable cynic, AC. You and Moore ought to get a room.
Right you are! And this is no time to go wobbly.
Hold it. I'm 1) a Republican 2) who disapproves of the Iraq invasion 3) but don't "hate Bush" and will definitely vote for his reelection. Taxes, judges, pro-life are the issues for me. It's hand's down for Bush on those issues. My worry is that his bonehead Iraq policy will get him voted out - - - and we'll all lose with a liberal Democrat in the White House.
Only back to 2001.
"We fight our enemies because our enemies are fighting us, quite apart from whether we should have gotten ourselves into the quarrel in the first place."
He must have some senior moments about that war of attrition (one-sided) we were having with Saddam since 1991.
Will used to be one of the very few conservatives on the Sunday shows (in the 80's). He ain't the only game in town any more, and now that more have shown up on the scene, it really shows Will for what he is.....
"So he is holding a head, the head of a Serb that he cut off. So those are the 20.000 Mujahedin that were brought to the European theatre of war through Clinton's policy, and most of them remained there and some went to America and to other countries, and they went all around Europe."
"And then when they start beheading your own people in wars to come, then you will know what this is all about."
20-20 hindsight is grand, isn't it?
That's absurd. Nobody can make any kind of pronouncement like that. You can't even assure anyone that Great Britain would never be a threat to the U.S. vis-a-vis WMDs -- and I certainly don't expect you (on that basis alone) to suggest that we invade London tomorrow.
You've missed the whole point with regard to the war planning effort. Nothing I heard back in 2003 indicated that anyone underestimated the ability of the U.S. to topple the Hussein government in three weeks (which is a whole other issue, because it points to a clear consensus about Iraq's military ineptitude at the time). The real question people raised at the time was that the Bush administration had no idea what the hell it was getting into once Iraq had to be occupied. They were dead right about that one.
So what if no 9/11 bombers were Iraqis? Are we only supposed to go after Al-Qaeda and leave the tens of thousands of other terrorists alone? This is a War on Terror - everywhere.
Crap. we had an enemy in the cold war that could have destroyed us in an hour just as we could them. We have an enemy now that the old MAD strategy is not operable. Iraq was a looming problem in the WOT. It was and is just one battle. You tell me, what would be going on in Iraq right now had we just ignored it and what would we be doing any differently in the overall war?
What was the body count after your marriage fell apart?
If you're basing your opinion that the invasion was "wrong" entirely upon "what they said were the real reasons still haven't been proven......they appear to be empty threats........and it has all cost the lives of our soldiers and other innocents"......well friend, you picked the WRONG bases for your opinion.
Furthermosre, if I have to explain it to you........I'd literally be wasting my breath.
Bush did lose 3000. He made a decision that American policy would be to hunt down terrorists who would do it again and he also made the deicsion to equate those that harbor terrorists with terrorists.
Saddam Hussein was giving sanctuary to terrorists who had killed Americans. Noboys accusing you of being pro Saddam so put a match to that strawman.
I am accusing you of being willing to put your head under the covers while the murderers of Americans enjoy sanctuary in Baghdad, post 9/11, and I must say I find it reprehensible.
And there you have it.
It is very unpatriotic and almost treasonous to question the fact established by the polls of public opinion.
Who was right? Bush stated from the beginning that we would be in Iraq for years.
Do the research yourself. You'll find that the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" probably came up more frequently (by X-42 and his lackeys in the media) in the aftermath of Monica Lewinsky's grand jury testimony than it had ever been used in ten years before that.
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.