Replies

What is your definition of appeasement?

No Western intelligence agency has been able to link al-Qaeda to Iraq in regards to 9/11 or anything else. If you are privy to this information, please provide your President with it post haste so he can stop relying on Wilsonian arguments to justify American involvement. Circumstantial evidence, perhaps, exists, but Christians do not go around killing people based on such things.

There are two position as far as I can tell between the conservatives and the liberals:

The Conservative position
1) Too much intervention led to terrorism.

The Wilsonian liberals position
2) Not enough intervention (we should have taken out Saddam in 1991) led to terrorism.

Both are, I guess, defensible positions, but one is conservative the other liberal, and yes it does matter. Since you have repudiated the only Conservative argument for war with Iraq, perhaps you would be more at home at the New Republic website?

I tend to take the libertarian position that 9/11 was a result of the CIA not taking care of loose ends after the Cold War and a grossly incompetent trillion dollar central intelligence apparatus (not one high level resignation after 9/11) coupled with a disarmed public.

Excuse me, we had 3,000 people killed when four airliners were turned into ad hoc cruise missiles.

We KNOW some of these folks were also asking about crop-dusters. Now, what might a terrorist use a cropduster for? I can think of two items: Chemical weapons or biological weapons. Hit a stadium with a major league baseball or football game, and you'll easily top the 9/11 death toll. You might even top the death toll of Anitetam, considered the bloodiest day in American history.

Saddam Hussein has the type of track record that makes it impossible for me in good conscience, to support any policy that leaves the risk in place that he might give chemical or biological weapons to a terrorist group.

Quite frankly, your position is morally indefensible. You're trusting the likes of Saddam Hussein with the lives of tens of thousands of American citizens. The most charitable word for such thinking is naive.