| Author | Message | ||
     Heybub Citizen Username: Heybub Post Number: 392 Registered: 2-2004  |
A liberal laments. http://www.suntimes.com/output/brown/cst-nws-brown01.html | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 5321 Registered: 1-2003  |
Nothing wrong with admitting you may have been wrong. When I see something bad happening (or about to happen), I LIKE learning I'm wrong. | ||
| Albatross Citizen Username: Albatross Post Number: 470 Registered: 9-2004  |
I agree with Tom: I'd love to see the situation resolved in the best manner for all parties concerned, but I would add this: success does not excuse action. | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 1018 Registered: 8-2003  |
admitting W was right "all along" would of course mean conveniently forgetting about those pesky non-existent WMD. | ||
| ffof Citizen Username: Ffof Post Number: 3298 Registered: 5-2001  |
ends does not justify the means. Did we go to war for free elections in Iraq? Not that there's anything wrong with that outcome, but I thought we went to war cuz they wouldn't give up WMD. | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 4424 Registered: 10-2001  |
success does not excuse action whatever that means. Actually, it means nothing. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 3059 Registered: 8-2003 |
We went to war over violations of 12+ UN resolutions and the failure of Saddam Hussein to give us evidence of what he said was a destroyed WMD stockpile that all knew existed in 1998, along with (included in those resolutions) the persecution and repression of political opponents, including but not limited to genocide. In the process, the Iraqi people would be liberated and allowed to engage in self-determination. All those reasons were given. | ||
| Albatross Citizen Username: Albatross Post Number: 473 Registered: 9-2004 |
Success in Iraq does not excuse A) poor planning, B) changing rationale, C) NOT finding WMD or a WMD program and D) any possible false statements How's that? cjc: to whom and when? I forgot the part where Colin Powell told the UN that Saddam Hussein was guilty of human rights violations. I forgot the part where he said that this fact alone was sufficient basis for intervention. I'm not saying it's not, but the Administration chose to define the situation as one of imminent threat from Iraqi military action. EDIT: oh, BTW, why is Clinton trustworthy now? | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 1019 Registered: 8-2003 |
as a sole justification for war (and it's the only one still operational at this point in time) liberating the Iraqi people and allowing them to engage in self-determination would never have passed muster with the vast majority of Americans. | ||
| ffof Citizen Username: Ffof Post Number: 3300 Registered: 5-2001 |
so we had to be lied to? It was for the world's own good? | ||
| Phenixrising Citizen Username: Phenixrising Post Number: 385 Registered: 9-2004 |
I agree with Tom. "Nothing wrong with admitting you may have been wrong." But W Right? He couldn't even admit his mistakes. Misleading the American public on WMD's (I thought that this was the WHOLE point of the invasion) Mission Accomplished? ( Didn't plan on the insurgents.) Lost lives A hefty price to pay for being right. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 1983 Registered: 5-2001  |
Although the article was apparently penned by a Democrat, the question posed smacks of classic neocon black-and-white polarity. What if Bush was right about Iraq? Huh? Right to invade? Right about the imminent threat? Right that Saddam deserved to go? Right to forge ahead with minimal international support? Right to use the number of troops that were involved? Right to hold elections on January 30? | ||
| Phenixrising Citizen Username: Phenixrising Post Number: 386 Registered: 9-2004 |
Albatross… good point I forgot the part where Colin Powell told the UN that Saddam Hussein was guilty of human rights violations. I forgot the part where he said that this fact alone was sufficient basis for intervention. if thats the case…add China, North Korea et al and whats happening in the Sudan. They're guilty of human rights violations. Why not invade these countries. | ||
| Guy Supporter Username: Vandalay Post Number: 517 Registered: 8-2004 |
Right to Invade - YES Right about imminent threat- Never said it Right Saddam needed to go- YES Right to forge ahead with minimal support-Yes it wasn't coming anyway. Right to use the number of troops - Yes Right to hold elections - Jan 30-----YES. This is easy. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 1986 Registered: 5-2001 |
Guy, yes it's easy. I just think it does need to be broken down. You can't just say, "ahhhh, W was RIGHT!" I'm not aware of anyone here who wouldn't be happy to see Iraq free, peaceful, and self-determining. But Bush was wrong and/or deceitful about many things, and many mistakes have been made. | ||
| Bobkat Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 7435 Registered: 5-2001 |
Yah mean they found WMD? Anyone who thinks the Senate would have passed the war measure without WMD has been smoking those funny cigarettes again. Jeezz | ||
| Guy Supporter Username: Vandalay Post Number: 518 Registered: 8-2004 |
Notey, political and military mistakes have been made in Iraq as with any war. It was a noble effort going in and continues to be a noble effort even with the tactical mistakes. In the end if Iraq becomes a democratic ally and if other countries in the region follow suit then you can say W was right. Bobk, here is the resolution that the Senate signed. WMD capabilities is only one part of a larger list. http://hnn.us/articles/1282.html | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 5322 Registered: 1-2003 |
Guy, for the eleventeenth time, right, Bush didn't say "imminent threat" but he said words to that very effect. He did, he did, he did. So nyah. And he was wrong about it. | ||
| CageyD Citizen Username: Cageyd Post Number: 220 Registered: 6-2003 |
Guy, as federal funds for our highways are cut becuase of the cost of Iraq ask yourself was Bush right. As federal aid to middle class kids going to college is cut or eliminated because of the cost of Iraq ask yourself was Bush right. As the federal portion of education funding is further eroded because of the cost of Iraq ask yourself, was Bush right. As our 360+ ports remain largely unprotected from terrorism because of inadequate funding ask yourself - was Bush right. As the Russian stockpile of nuclear missiles sits largely unprotected because the Bush adminstration cut funding to help the Russians decommission these weapons and prevent them from getting into the hands of terrorists ask yourself was Bush right. So many of you Bush supporters celebrate his actions because you view them individually and not as part of total state of our nation. The Iraqi's came out and voted - Hooray - was it worth all of the above and more? My vote is probably not. And need we remind anybody of the "Mission Accomplished" sign Bush stood in front of so long ago. This process isn't over by a long shot. | ||
| Bobkat Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 7436 Registered: 5-2001 |
Guy, I repeat, without the WMD threat the resolution wouldn't have passed. The rest of the items are basically a laundry list. |
