[Mike4Freedom]

Were you willing to bet your family's lives on your certainty of Saddam's impotence?

Ah, the Bush doctrine of pre-emption. If in doubt, shoot first and search for excuses later. Is that the type of country you want to live in? I guess we learned if from the rogue police that shoot first if they think that someone is a drug user/dealer and then provide the drop gun as an excuse after the fact.

Pre-emption is wrong in both the individual and national case. It is wrong just because you just might be mistaken. That is why our highest law, the constitution, calls for due process. No one is to be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. I think that 6,000 dead Iraqis were also entitled to due process, or at least a little better evidence of wrong doing before we dropped bombs on them.

So YES, I would have taken the risk of doing nothing until I was sure I was attacking a nation that was actually going to do something to us.

[alnick]

I think that 6,000 dead Iraqis were also entitled to due process, or at least a little better evidence of wrong doing before we dropped bombs on them.

Your concern about 6,000 dead Iraqis is proven to be false concern by the fact that the number of dead Iraqis would be far, far higher had we not taken SH out of power.

[optimistically_conservative]

... No one is to be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. I think that 6,000 dead Iraqis were also entitled to due process, or at least a little better evidence of wrong doing before we dropped bombs on them.

12 years due process began the day the cease fire was signed.

[laredo44]

So YES, I would have taken the risk of doing nothing until I was sure I was attacking a nation that was actually going to do something to us.

So, even though the vast majority of the world agreed that Hussein had WMD and was a threat, you, offering no evidence, choose to adopt a "I'm not convinced" stance. Even though the US Congress believed Hussein a threat and said so, you, offering no evidence, choose to side with those who have proven again and again to seek political advantage in every situation. Even though Bill Clinton offered the same assessment of the Iraqi situation when he chose to bomb, you, offering no evidence, choose to believe we are simply cowboys shooting first and asking questions later.

Pre-emption is wrong in both the individual and national case. It is wrong just because you just might be mistaken. That is why our highest law, the constitution, calls for due process.

Just pathethic. UN resolutions authorized us. US Congress resolutions authotized us.

[Sofa King]

>I think that 6,000 dead Iraqis were also entitled to due process, or at least a little better evidence of wrong doing before we dropped bombs on them.

You do realize, don't you, that most of those Iraqi civilian casualties were never proven to be the result of American fire? Considering the mass graves found, it's not much of a stretch to say that Saddam might have been the one responsible for killing them.

[Republican Wildcat]

Are you lying, or just insane?