So why is no WMD so bad anyway?
OFF THE TABLE: "Bare and Valanced" Discussion
John Gibson posted a nice, but stinging, piece today on foxnews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134811,00.html).
The gist of his column: No WMD's? We must have gotten there just in time.
It never ceases to amaze me that Democrats want to ignore the fact that when Kerry and Edwards voted for the war, prior to voting against the additional and necessary funding, it was perfectly clear that our intention was to invade Iraq. Sure Kerry would love to spin that situation now, and claim that he would not have invaded (at least not so quickly), but that is a hard claim to really back up. If we want to be honest with ourselves and each other, then I think we need to recognize the fact that the authorization to go to war was intended for just that purpose.
Kerry, in the last and first debate, said he would have given inspectors more time. My question is how much more time? As if 12+ years wasn't enough time for Saddam to come clean and account for the missing WMD's? Let's not forget... there has yet to be given a clear accounting of the WMD's he once had. Saddam and his regime simply ignored this fact anytime they dumped more worthless documents on the international community.
Going back to Gibson's column from today. I agree, we must assume that we got there in the nick of time!
What we do know at this point in time is that Saddam once had WMD's. Saddam used WMD's on several occasions. Saddam consistently led inspectors on a goose chase when they were in Iraq. Saddam kicked them out. Saddam did not clearly account for his WMD's (for all I know it could just be that they were totally disorganized and had no clue of where this stuff was... the could have said that though...). Saddam retained the capability to start building them in the future. Some of his loyalists and scientists have admitted that he wanted to start making them again when focus on his country was less intense.
As a person who voted for Bush in 2000, and plans to vote for Bush in 2004 am I disappointed with our intelligence community's failures? ABSOLUTELY! Do I even feel skeptical at times that we couldn't have understood the situation better than we claimed to have understood it? ABSOLUTELY! Do I still feel that it is a good thing to have Saddam out of power, and those capabilities seized? ABSO-FREAKIN-LUTELY!
I am a supporter of the Bush doctrine, meaning if countries harbor or support terrorism in any way, they are against the United States (and frankly, the free world at large). In my opinion, Iraq's known terrorist training camps in the north of the country, Saddam's support of Palestinian suicide bombers, and yes, even Iraq's vague ties to Al Qaida is enough to put them on that enemy list.
Finally, let's not forget the 12 or 13 UN resolutions this guy essentially crapped on while in power. He had little respect for the agreements he made, let alone the sanctions put on his country by the international community.
Leaving him in power would have been about as responsible as leaving your own child with a "supposedly" reformed pedophile. You never trust a psycho (reformed or not) with your or your loved ones' own safety.
So, in my opinion, Gibson got it right today when he said we must have gotten there in the nick of time!
John Gibson posted a nice, but stinging, piece today on foxnews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134811,00.html).
The gist of his column: No WMD's? We must have gotten there just in time.
It never ceases to amaze me that Democrats want to ignore the fact that when Kerry and Edwards voted for the war, prior to voting against the additional and necessary funding, it was perfectly clear that our intention was to invade Iraq. Sure Kerry would love to spin that situation now, and claim that he would not have invaded (at least not so quickly), but that is a hard claim to really back up. If we want to be honest with ourselves and each other, then I think we need to recognize the fact that the authorization to go to war was intended for just that purpose.
Kerry, in the last and first debate, said he would have given inspectors more time. My question is how much more time? As if 12+ years wasn't enough time for Saddam to come clean and account for the missing WMD's? Let's not forget... there has yet to be given a clear accounting of the WMD's he once had. Saddam and his regime simply ignored this fact anytime they dumped more worthless documents on the international community.
Going back to Gibson's column from today. I agree, we must assume that we got there in the nick of time!
What we do know at this point in time is that Saddam once had WMD's. Saddam used WMD's on several occasions. Saddam consistently led inspectors on a goose chase when they were in Iraq. Saddam kicked them out. Saddam did not clearly account for his WMD's (for all I know it could just be that they were totally disorganized and had no clue of where this stuff was... the could have said that though...). Saddam retained the capability to start building them in the future. Some of his loyalists and scientists have admitted that he wanted to start making them again when focus on his country was less intense.
As a person who voted for Bush in 2000, and plans to vote for Bush in 2004 am I disappointed with our intelligence community's failures? ABSOLUTELY! Do I even feel skeptical at times that we couldn't have understood the situation better than we claimed to have understood it? ABSOLUTELY! Do I still feel that it is a good thing to have Saddam out of power, and those capabilities seized? ABSO-FREAKIN-LUTELY!
I am a supporter of the Bush doctrine, meaning if countries harbor or support terrorism in any way, they are against the United States (and frankly, the free world at large). In my opinion, Iraq's known terrorist training camps in the north of the country, Saddam's support of Palestinian suicide bombers, and yes, even Iraq's vague ties to Al Qaida is enough to put them on that enemy list.
Finally, let's not forget the 12 or 13 UN resolutions this guy essentially crapped on while in power. He had little respect for the agreements he made, let alone the sanctions put on his country by the international community.
Leaving him in power would have been about as responsible as leaving your own child with a "supposedly" reformed pedophile. You never trust a psycho (reformed or not) with your or your loved ones' own safety.
So, in my opinion, Gibson got it right today when he said we must have gotten there in the nick of time!
/ /
posted by Matt at 10:09 PM
7 Comments:
YESSSSSSSSSSS! :) I've been clicking on the "Next Blog" button at the top of the screen... searching for more good Bush-supporting blogs. FINALLY I've found one that I really like. :)
I totally agree with you on this. I too wish that our intelligence information would have been more accurate, but that does NOT mean that a world without Saddam is not a better place to live! He HAD to go. I think that what our troops are doing out there is so incredibly noble... bringing freedom to a country that has LONG been oppressed. And I get so tired of liberals whining about the cost of the war! First of all, monetarily speaking, we as Americans are spoiled rotten. It is about time that people that actually need our monetary assistance get it. Secondly, casualties of war (in terms of human life) are terribly unfortunate, but are nonetheless inevitable. Those soldiers died for a NOBLE and HONORABLE cause. I become infuriated at Democrats that suggest otherwise. That is so low. And relatively speaking, the 1,000 people we lost is low compared to how many people died in previous wars... not to mention... the more than half a BILLION babies that have been aborted in the U.S. alone since 1965. That is the REAL tragedy.
*sigh* It feels good to vent. :) That is what my blog is all about. Check it out if you have a chance. :)
http://dutch-ess.blogspot.com/God bless you and take care! I will bookmark this blog so I can keep checking back.
Whoa whoa whoa,
Let's make one thing perfectly clear here. This is not a "Bush supporting blog." While anyone is perfectly welcome to make a case for Bush on this blog - let it be known that most of the contributors here (as far as I know) do NOT support Bush for another 4 years. Don't get me wrong, there are a couple here who do, and they are as welcome to post their viewpoints as the next guy - but that is all they are: "their" viewpoints. When I get some more time - I will explain why (with all due respect) Brillo is wrong. And...so is the commentor above.
Bush supporters are NOT wrong. We have beliefs guided by morals, ethics, and the TRUTH. Try defending yourself against God and see how well you do. I don't care whether or not people (from all partisan groups) think there is a God. There IS... He is as real as the air we breathe. You do not need to believe He exists for Him to exist. He just DOES. I will NOT EVER support anyone who believes in abortion rights. Abortion is MURDER, plain and simple. And this issue of the war being wrong is ridiculous! This war IS NECESSARY BECAUSE WE ARE FREEING AN OPPRESSED PEOPLE AND THE RESULT OF OUR SUCCESSFUL VICTORY OVER THE WAR ON TERROR WILL MAKE THE ENTIRE WORLD A BETTER/SAFER PLACE TO LIVE. No one LIKES to go to war!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But to obtain world peace, we MUST fight for it. Simply "ignoring" the problem... and allowing Saddam to continually ignore complying with U.N. resolutions, over a period of YEARS during the Clinton administration, was never the way to obtain world peace. I am so disgusted by anti-war people who always flash their "peace" hand-signals and say cheesy stuff like "Make love, not war." The ONLY way to obtain world peace is to eliminate those who allow world peace to exist in the first place. This was is necessary... and the soldiers who are laying down their lives for us out there are NOT dying for an unworthy cause. HOW DARE ANYONE IMPLY OTHERWISE?????
President Bush will win because he is the only man for the job! 4-MORE-YEARS!!!
"The ONLY way to obtain world peace is to eliminate those who allow world peace to exist in the first place."
- That is a take I have never heard before. Eliminate those who allow world peace to gain peace? Does anyone else think this idea is slightly counter-intuitive? Yes it's those allowers of world peace that are the problem - Eliminate them!
Regarding the existence of God: I think everyone here accepts the existence of God. Calm down and get yourself a glass of water.
Regarding abortion: Not the topic of this thread - one right-wing attack at a time, please.
Regarding the excessive use of all-caps: The use of caps does not miraculously add weight/authority to one's assertions. In other words, they do not make up for a lack of supporting facts and reasoning. The only thing worse than a long list of unsupported assertions is a long list of unsupported assertions that are all over the map and overuse all-caps. Use of caps may be OK once in a while for emphasis, but not as de facto authority.
Doh! Did I really just devote this much space to responding to that comment? I think I've been duped.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
"..."The ONLY way to obtain world peace is to eliminate those who allow world peace to exist in the first place."
- That is a take I have never heard before. Eliminate those who allow world peace to gain peace? Does anyone else think this idea is slightly counter-intuitive? Yes it's those allowers of world peace that are the problem - Eliminate them!..."
Am I the only one who recognized from the context of Janna's post that she clearly meant: "...those who DON'T allow world peace..."?? Typical ploy of the left... run with anything you can get! ;)
"Regarding abortion: Not the topic of this thread - one right-wing attack at a time, please."
I think what you are seeing in Janna's post is a deep felt sentiment found in many conservatives. I, for one, admire many stances in the democrat platform. However, abortion alone keeps me out of the party. You're right though Wray... lets keep on topic. I'm positive abortion will eventually come up here, at which time we can show the follies of the democrats' ways. ;)
"Regarding the excessive use of all-caps: The use of caps does not miraculously add weight/authority to one's assertions...."
I know CAPS piss of people for a number of reasons, and maybe I'm not in sync with the majority of web users, but I, from time to time, use CAPS. When I use CAPS, I'm simply trying emphasise a point or specific word in my sentence to make sure people get the context of my post. I've never felt I'm inserting authority into the statement. Whether or not that was Janna's intent, I don't know, but I did not take it that way.
Alright Janna... you owe me one! ;) ha ha
Brillnizzle:
Umm, dude... Yes, I knew what Janna really meant from the context. I was just ceasing upon the opportunity to note the irony and further encourage drinking a nice, tall glass of cool water before spouting off a round of assertions in hot frenzy. Although there is something to be said for freudian slips. ;>
Deeply felt sentiment is great. The problem is that you can't rely on it alone when making a political argument, especially in a forum of debate. And when asserted in soapbox language, the only thing it accomplishes is polarization. That gets us all nowhere.
All-caps, when used sparingly, may be effective for emphasis when you're making a supported argument. I do not think typing entire sentences in caps qualifies as emphasis usage. See, when you emphasize your entire assertion, nothing is emphasized. Thus, it looks like a bunch of shouting. This is especially so when none of the assertions contain any supporting facts or reasoning. Hence, all-caps is basically a substitution for providing support.
E.g. "HOW DARE ANYONE IMPLY OTHERWISE?????" See, that is nothing but a poor attempt at Poker strategy. I think the motivation behind it goes something like this, "Since I haven't/don't feel like making a supported argument, I'll cap (pun intended) my assertion off with a disingenious statement that expresses such pious moral shock and disbelief that the respondent will cower in insecurity."
Sorry, but it ain't gonna happen here. Please don't take offense Janna, you're as welcome as anyone to comment here, but this isn't a forum where impassioned venting/SHOUTING will go uncritiqued.
"This was is necessary... and the soldiers who are laying down their lives for us out there are NOT dying for an unworthy cause. HOW DARE ANYONE IMPLY OTHERWISE?????"
---- I won't just imply otherwise; I'll clearly express otherwise. This war was not clearly necessary. I don't know if you've watched or read the news lately - but the WMD's, you know, the ones we had to keep out of terrorist hands, were not there. They haven't been there since 1991. And as far as any known link between Saddam and 9/11 - there is none. Known link between Saddam and Al Qaida - nothing to speak of. Your beloved President (whether knowingly or unknowingly) misled you into supporting the unprovoked invasion of another nation (albeit, one governed under tyranny; guess what - there's a ton of those). In the mean time - U.S. troops were PULLED from the efforts to find and punish the guy, Osama bin Laden, that actually attacked your country. Also in the mean time - Another tyrant, Kim Jong Il, has developed NUCLEAR WEAPONS. Do you not see the problems here? Your President majorly screwed up. Even if it was unwittingly - he is our Commander-in-Chief and must answer to his employers - i.e. us. His own Secretary of State, Colin Powell, says Iraq has now become a haven for terrorism (this is worse and less controllable than the Saddam problem). The world is safer without Saddam. The only problem is - there was no net gain in safety. Middle-Eastern hatred for America is growing and conditions for terrorism recruitment have only increased. The benefits of capturing Saddam are outweighed by the losses incurred in creating breeding grounds for terrorism. We lose more troops every month than the month before. The world, I reluctantly think, is not a safer place now.
Further, while the troops should be supported and solemnly honored for their sacrifice and service, their deaths do not somehow nullify Bush's bad judgment. They only drive deeper the awfulness of war, especially when it was, most likely, poorly concieved and poorly executed. The troops may not have died for an unworthy cause, but some have likely tragically died needlessly because, in part, the Commander-in-Chief did not take every precaution to fight the right enemy at the right time. It seems clear to me that it's time for a different approach.
Post a Comment
<< Home