September 17, 2003

Slow day, huh? Nothing else to do but imply that everyone you disagree with is easily mistaken for Saddam Hussein. (BORing. BORing. BORing...)

Yes, I distinctly remember how Bush emphasized the humanitarian aspects of liberating Iraq, and the standing ovation during the State of the Union address when he made that point emphatically.

Thank God he didn't emphasize the WMD, as that would've made us Americans look foolish and stupid, especially if administration officials had told us before the war that they knew that Saddam had them and that they knew where they were. We really dodged a bullet there!

Dark Avenger, let's be fair, the POTUS did mention the humanitarian aspects in the Cincinnati speech. Brieflly, that is, and he only said it matterd because his abuses were combined with the presence of WMDs (i.e., he could abide the abuses, I guess, if he didn't have WMDs).

Taking off the sarcasm, I think it's sad that conservatives don't openly say they were misled on the WMDs. This blog itself questioned whether or not it would take a Manhattan mushroom cloud for me to come to my senses.

The sadder conclusion is that when our leaders — who work for us, and are the caretakers of our sovereignty — don't correct their misstatements in time (anyone think we would have invaded Iraq had they gone on the record about Iraq & 9/11 back in March?), the government is slouching towards tyranny. It was clearly advantageous for the Administration to not correct the record; a reasonable person has to surmise the reasons why they chose not to.

Note that I said towards tyranny. I am not making a moral equivalence argument, I am merely saying that this is not how democracies & republics are supposed to run.

The anti-Bush comments I'm reading here are just sad in their shrillness and their inability to see the forest for the trees.

You would think that "liberals" would applaud the deposition of a ruthless dictator. Apparently it's only okay to do that, though, when the dictator is some guy who really ISN'T a threat to the US, and is ethnically cleansing Serbs. Oh yeah, and the President who removes him has to be a Democrat. Then it's okay.

But heaven forbid that a Republican should strike a major blow in favor of liberty! Then the "liberals" get stinking mad.

I'm all in favor of deposing tyrants, but am realistic to realize that we can't go around the world doing so, even when they violate human rights.

Bush sold us a bill of goods based on the premise that not ONLY was Saddam a ruthless tyrant who'd killed hundreds of thousands of his own people, using chemical weapons on some of them, but that he POSSESSED WMD, and given the wake-up call of 9/11, we couldn't afford to let him stay in power as a possible threat to us and other nations in the Middle East.

Everyday, it seems clearer and clearer that while Saddam was guilty of many things, having an active WMD program, let alone any WMD, wasn't one of them.

I am happy that Saddam is cowering somewhere in Tikrit or one of his bunkers underground, unable to inflict misery anymore.

I am unhappy that the Iraqi people are suffering from lawlessness, lack of basic utilities and services. I don't like the apparent lack of planning on the part of the American policy makers as to what to do after the war was won.

I wouldn't be just unhappy with the present Iraq situation were it a Democrat sitting in the White House. Hell, I really be pissed off, because he would be acting against traditions of Democratic Presidents like FDR, Carter, Clinton, etc.
At least Bush is acting as a Republican could be expected to act, so inconsistancy isn't a charge that can be made to stick with him.

Good evading of the points that Frank made, I'll give you that.

Omedalus, you need to understand that there are liberals (i'm one of them) who would have supported the invasion of Iraq for humanitarian reasons. The difference is that the Administration's public campaign emphasized a completely different rationale (WMDs), and led us all to believe that Iraq was a threat to the US. If we find WMDs, fine, then the rationale was fair. Otherwise, the people supported a war for a sham reason, and were never asked the right questions. Don't you feel a little queasy about the government making a war decision on a shaky premise?

Communism has nothing to do with love. Communism is an excellent hammer which we use to destroy our enemy.

Gratitude is not only the greatest of virtues, but the parent of all others.