Saddam Hussein may hate the US, and I have no doubt he has MWD. But the man has been in power for 30 years; it's a tough place to be in power that long, so he's not stupid. He is not going to attack the US. The only situation where he would use WMD against the US is if he sees American troops crossing his desert, charging toward Baghdad. So we're giving him the opportunity.
I would love to believe the Bush Administration has linked Saddam to the 9-11 attacks. But the fact that Bush is not using the authority granted him by Congress in fighting the War on Terrorism indicates to me that he has not been able to develop a link (and in fact, the Bush Administration has quit using this as an excuse).
A couple of tangential thoughts: it is amusing that so many that call themselves Conservatives rightly disparage the UN and all it stands for, but are more than happy to use violation of contrived UN agreements as an excuse to go to war.
I wish the war were about oil. If George W Bush were to say, "We're tired of dicking around with environmentalists in Alaska, and we were real pissed when Saddam switched to the Euro instead of the US Greenback as his preferred method of payment, and we want his oil, and we're going to come and take it." I would whole-heartedly support that.
First of all it's already known that he made an attempt on our President's life. In a similar vein you speak as if it is known that Saddam has had no involvement in various other terrorist attacks against us. Second, you're awfully confident for a person who is necessarily uninformed (as are we all). I do so hope that you're right. I don't think it's a good gamble, though.
But the fact that Bush is not using the authority granted him by Congress in fighting the War on Terrorism indicates to me that he has not been able to develop a link (and in fact, the Bush Administration has quit using this as an excuse).
I don't understand; in the fall Congress gave him a war powers resolution and if/when we attack it will be under those auspices, no? The fact that we haven't attacked yet doesn't necessarily mean Bush "can't" link Saddam to terror; it may just be an indication that the generals have told him the timing isn't quite right.
A couple of tangential thoughts: it is amusing that so many that call themselves Conservatives rightly disparage the UN and all it stands for, but are more than happy to use violation of contrived UN agreements as an excuse to go to war.
I agree. I'd just as soon see us attack Iraq with no reference to the UN whatsoever. Happy now?
Anyway, I still would like an answer to my actual query to you, which was about the supposed hypocrisy of a conservative disagreeing with the war against Yugoslavia but agreeing with potential war against Iraq. What do those two situations have in common, that I am logically required to support the former if I support the latter? Just wondering.
Really? And you know this how? If you don't think that Saddam would surrepticiously give bio or chem weapons to agents of terrorist organizations who would use them to attack the US, you are not thinking this through. What better way for him to accomplish his goal of punishing us without directly attacking us.