Maybe a Saddam-nostalgic Dem candidate setting up a straw man to knock down?
Another cheap shot, just because someone disapproves of the war, or the way it was launched they are Saddam-nostalgic?
I agree that he was evil, but I do not think that in of its self is cause to launch a war.
I guess that makes me an uninformed, liberal, pinko commie in some eyes.

I knew you would come around p2, took some time, but i feel better now....

ps p2 how's the job hunt?

Job hunt is really not going anywhere. Think about going back to school to become a fund raiser. I am also tring to get my partner Carlos to consider moving from San Diego its becoming little LA

Hey P2, where would you move? How is SD becoming little LA? In what way? Good luck with the job hunt--it's very tough right now, but I hope something comes through.

----
(A divider and parentheses à la Blue...)

Back to Iraq:

"I think all foreigners should stop interfering in the internal affairs of Iraq."
--Paul Wolfowitz, July 21, 2003

The irony, the irony.... We know W has admitted he doesn't really think things through, but Wolfie too?

[ July 24, 2003, 08:08 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

San Diego is becoming over populated and dirty, I would like to move north to Santa Cruz.
Here is my bottom line take on Iraq;
1) We must not ever again allow the troops to be treated like the Nam vets. While I question the war I support our troops.
2) I would have prefered these two be taken alive and face the people they butchered. There are some who are saying we killed them to keep them quiet. We are also dealing with world opinion, we need to keep the world on our side if we are to win the larger war on terror.
3)We need to understand the depth of the intel failings both on 9/11 and the reports than lead to war

Cheap shot? Just keeping it real, as the kids would say.

Where would Saddam be today if the policy that seems to be advocated by most Dem presidential candidates, to the extent that each has a policy, had been implemented? Running Iraq, wouldn't he. So if the Dems want to turn back the clock to when Saddam was running the show in Baghdad, I would call that: "Saddam nostalgic".

In the Post today, Dick Cheney is quoted as saying "How could any responsible leader have ignored the Iraq threat?" It is a good question for two reasons.

1. The article also implies, but does not quote, Cheney as saying the danger from Saddam was that he had a program to build WMDs and could have made ties with terrorists. However, the rationale for the war was that Saddam HAD WMDs and was already in league with terrorists. Again, the Post did not quote Cheney, but it is implied that these were his words.

2. The first Bush administration very clearly failed to deal with Saddam in 1991, when we could have taken him out, and saved ourselves a lot of trouble. Certainly Cheney could be trying to tarnish Clinton yet again, by saying that he did not act, but the question remains - if Saddam was dangerous in 1998 or 2002, when he still had to, at least, reconstitute his weapons programs after the long and costly wars with Iran, Kuwait and the coalition, wasn't he a bigger threat in 1991? Shouldn't we have dealt with him more strongly then? What does that say about the administration where Cheney himself was Secretary of Defense?

Post interview with Cheney

I'll defend W's father on this one. George Bush had a mandate to get Iraq out of Kuwait; he didn't have a mandate to remove Saddam from power. That was the price of building a coalition. I also don't think anyone expected Hussein's regime to survive so long after it.

And as I've commented before, I actually do think the first Gulf War eliminated Saddam as a major threat. It was not the ideal outcome for the Iraqi people, obviously, but it wouldn't have been any easier to build a stable regime then than it is now.

There'd have been a hell of a lot fewer mass graves, though.

CPT_Doom, as I told you in D.C. your posts rock!

Read an interesting article in the paper today that questions why the bloodied and grusome faces of Sadaam's sons are being plastered all over the media as some sort of triumph... Yet when Iraqi soldiers displayed the faces and bodies of US PoWs and killed soldiers it was considered barbaric. It's barbaric if they do it, but OK if we do it?

Kind of reminds one of the days when the enemy's head was put on a stick in the town square.

[ July 25, 2003, 08:43 AM: Message edited by: canmark ]

The photos are not being displayed as an act of triumphalism. People in Iraq are terrified of the entire Saddam Hussein regime and have a hard time believing the tyrants are truly dead or disposed of. Thus the pictures serve as almost indisputable (excpet for the most stubborn) proof that these guys are dead as doornails.

But even so, we're America and they're not, so what we do is naturally better than what they do.

[url="http://www.nj.com/mets/ledger/index.ssf?/base/sports-0/1059026196242540.xml"]Mets Happy, Flight
Attendant Confused[/url]

Of course, playing for the Mets might have been an even worse punishment for the Hussein boys.

[ July 25, 2003, 02:17 PM: Message edited by: William1865 ]

I'd be pretty upset by this if it wasn't so true.

IMO there was a no win situation, and we did the best thing we could think of at the time.