It’s not an either-or proposition. The war was unjustified according to the grounds stated by the administration IMO, because 1) there was no plausible case made that Iraq was an immediate and significant threat to any neighboring country, much less the US directly; 2) there was no plausible case made for a link between the Ba’athist regime and everyone’s favorite bogeyman, al-Qaeda.
Finding WMDs, after the fact, would not have justified the war. Use of WMDs by Iraq against a neighbor, or the US, could have justified an invasion, but this did not happen and postwar, there are no signs that this was a significant risk.
I really don’t see what’s so hard to understand here. Also, if you, a person who knows nothing at all about me, would like to claim that I opposed the war solely because I was following a partisan political agenda, go ahead and say so and I’ll set you straight.
Wow, so much bluster and so little substance. You are what I like to think of as a “Black Knight” poster after the John Cleese character in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. No matter how badly a Black Knight poster is getting sliced up (and you are getting masscred, make no mistake) he still thinks it’s only a scratch.
4th Amendment. Look it up.
What was Bush “risking?” He pulled them out because he wanted his invasion and he wasn’t going to let the failure to find an imminent threat rob him of his war. The only one playing games was Shrubya. Hussein was fully cooperative.
WTF are you talking about? There wasn’t any alliance between Iraq and al Qaeda. That’s exactly why we have treaties like the UN Charter and why we have to prove stuff instead of just letting some drug pickled president follow the voices in his head.
It was “random” in that it was a completely capricious choice which served no purpose and had nothing to do with 9/11. It was reckless, illegal and massively ill conceived.
Because it’s a perfectly legitimate analogy. The US had no right to invade another country without UN approval just like the cops don’t have the authority to raid a crackhouse without a warrant.
Sure I do. I know that the UN inspectors said the weapons were destroyed after the first Gulf war, that the Iraqis say the same and that no shred of evidence has been found to contradict that. There isn’t any evidence that Iraq resumed any weapons programs after GWI.
You’d be wrong on the law. The cops can’t just bust into a house without a warrant. It doesn’t matter what they think or what they think they know. They have to get a judge to sign off. If I decipher your clumsy ad hominem correctly you are suggesting that I must be on crack because I made a typo while posting at two AM. Ha ha. How clever.
Once again, the cops would have to get a judge to sign a warrant before they could raid a house, no matter what they suspect. You really are clueless about the 4th Amendment, aren’t you?
Res ipsa loquitor, man. Dude makes up story about WMDs aimed at America. Dude invades. Dude can’t find any WMDs. He said he knew for a ceratinty that an imminent threat existed when it didn’t. Is it your position that he didn’t say a threat existed or that a threat did, in fact, exist?
Man, what profound denial you Bushies are in. Shrub said he knew where the labs were. They weren’t where he said they were. They weren’t moved, they weren’t buried, they never fucking existed. That’s what the Kay report said, that’s what a year of interrogation by torture says, and that’s the end of it. You really, really need to give up on this fantasy that the WMDs really existed and may someday be found. It just makes you look desperate. Do what so many of the rest of the Bushies have done, change your story and claim the invasion was really about something else. The WMD dog won’t even lick its balls any more, much less hunt.
He wasn’t told that the images definitely represented weapons labs but that they might. Bush took every “could be” and “maybe” that was presented to him and spun it into a “definitely.” That makes him a liar.
I wasn’t on the board back then but yes, I did criticize it. Still, it wasn’t on anywhere near the scale of evil that a all out invasion and occupation is.
Exactly…except he was actually a failure as a “businessman,” and he wasn’t really a fighter pilot in the sense of anyone who actually fights anything. he took a few flying lessons to get out of the war is what he did. I won’t be so crass as to bring up his embarrassing gounding for skipping out on a drug test and I also have enough class not mention his year-long AWOL status. It’s true he went to Yale as a legacy with a C average. He’s far from the first intellectual middleweight to get into an ivy league school because of family connections. It’s also true that he was a figurehead governor of Texas. Family name again, and it’s a pretty hands-off job in Texas. He still managed to come away with impressive records for executions and massive environmental damage. The “petulant child” part, though is dead on.
As a registered Republican, I slam Bush because he is IMO a lousy Republican and a lousy conservative based on legislation that he’s supported and hasn’t supported. Spending out of control, proponet of a extremely powerful federal government, pro-assault weapons ban, pro-animal rights legislation ( S. 736 ), the loathsome anti-civil liberties Patriot Act that he wants made permanent, etc.
Iraq is just icing on the cake. It was done for such ludacris sounding excuses that I amazed that fellow Republicans fell for it. I’ve always thought that we, Republicans, were the ‘smarter’ bunch. It’s put us in more danger, not less. Took away valuable resources from actually going after Al Quaeda. With the treatment at GITMO and Abu Ghraib, along with the massive civillian bombing and non-chalant attitude toward civillian shootings, it’s removed us the high road in our fight over there (Muslim World).
Oddly enough some of the stuff that I most feared in the Clinton regime has come true in the Bush regime. Simpy put, the Conneticut born Yankee from Maine is a huge fuck up. Fortunately for him, Kerry is still worse by being thoroughly liberal. Though I might vote for the SOB in order to save the party but cutting out it’s neo-conservative cancer.
I have no problem with people who are “just flat out against the war”, I maintain they position is at least as valid as mine pro-war position. I have a huge problem with people trashing Bush because of Iraq invasion, using all sorts of excuses. Two things are going to come out of this: either they succeed in discrediting Bush without offering any coherent alternative and thus bring about a long period of political uncertainty; or they will fail miserably and Bush will emerge stronger than ever, which might be even worse. I think the smart thing to do for Democrats would be to establish themselves as watchdogs of the whole war effort and keep pressure on Bush to minimize any negative effects of war (such as bad detainee management, attacks on civilians etc.), while constantly advocating the change of president on the basis that their candidate can finish the war better than Bush.
Let’s get our facts straight, shall we? The inspectors were not kicked out in 1998; rather they were pulled out by the UN so the U.S. and Britain could launch air strikes to punish Iraq for not being very cooperative with the inspectors. Now, you may argue that this is not much of a distinction since there was still a lack of cooperation. However, Iraq’s justification for not cooperating was an allegation that the UNSCOM team was being used by the U.S. and Britain to spy on Iraq. And this allegation was subsequently reported to be true in newspapers such as The New York Times, the Boston Globe, and the Washington Post based on anonymous sources within both the U.N. and U.S. government. Hans Blix also recently stated it as fact in an interview on “Fresh Air”. (He basically said that he was determined not to let the current inspection regime be used by the U.S. and Britain to spy on Iraq like had happened under UNSCOM.)
Of course, you can be excused of being completely ignorant of this history since it was rewritten by the “liberal media” in the lead-up to the Iraq war. Not only did the media often make the claim that the inspectors were kicked out of Iraq, but even when they correctly stated that the inspectors were pulled out they often cited Saddam’s non-cooperation and allegations that the inspectors were spying on Iraq without bothering to note that these allegations weresubsequently reported in reputable places to be true, thus making it appear that they were the wild allegations of a ruthless dictator rather than facts basically known to be true. Amazingly, this reporting occurred even in the very papers that had broken the spying story back in 1999!
Of course, this sort of sloppy reporting contributed to allowing people like you to conclude that Saddam must be hiding something big when in fact we pretty much know now that he wasn’t.
In fact, as Hans Blix was reporting in March, the Iraqis were being quite open and cooperative and even in some ways “pro-active”. Were they giving perfect cooperation? No, of course not. But, there are plenty of reasons why one could imagine a lack of such perfect cooperation short of him having anything major to hide. After all, here in the U.S. we probably wouldn’t want the U.N., including members of enemy countries, ramaging around our defense labs. One can imagine that this desire for secrecy is even more pronounced in militaristic dictatorships than it is in democracies.
In fact, it is not ourselves who should be justifying our position to you guys. It is you guys who guessed so completely wrong who should be justifying why you were so sure that he had significant WMD when it turns out that he did not.
Actually, if you go to the NPR “Fresh Air” website and listen to the Hans Blix interview, you can hear him explain how his thinking evolved. He admits that at the beginning of the inspections process, he thought that Saddam probably did have WMD, mainly because he (like many others) thought that if the U.S. was saying we were sure he had them, we must have good reasons. However, as they visited more and more places that U.S. intelligence told them to look at and kept finding absolutely nothing, he became more and more doubtful. And, in fact, he expressed these doubts to the Bush Administration…to Rice in particular, as I recall.
Well, actually, people in the U.S. intelligence service who are paid to understand the mindset of these types of people actually usually make the argument the other way. It is not that Osama wouldn’t want to get a WMDs from Saddam. It is that a megalomanic like Saddam, who is used to having absolute control, is not about to give or sell WMDs to Bin Laden since this then puts him in the position of having zero-control over something that very likely will effect his very fate. And, he has surrendered that control to someone who he no-doubt views as being a nutty fanatic, even if they do share a common enemy.
Except he Saddam didn’t have any NCBs. (God, I hate the term WMDs … it encourages fuzzy thinking.) And he had only a glancing connection with Al Qaeda. Jeez, George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld both had stronger ties to Osama Bin Ladin than Saddam Hussein did.
So invading Iraq to prevent Al Qaeda from getting NCBs makes about as much sense as invading Jamaica. But of course we have to make damn sure than no Jamaican WMDs make it into Al Qaeda hands … . :rolleyes:
If you love the United States and you care about fighting and defeating its enemies, the invasion of Iraq should appall you. Take off your right-wing political blinders and open your eyes. We’re in a fight for our lives here and you’re getting in the way.
No, “hair splitting” refers to the threadworn tactic of Bush apologists (such as yourself) to absolve George of the Iraqi WMD issue, to wit:
Bush Apologist: “You can’t prove that Bush lied about WMDs!”
Intelligent Dopers: “Bush said Iraq had WMDs on this date, Bush said Saddam had nukes here, Bush said Saddam and Al Qaeda were allied here. Now will you concede you were wrong?”
Bush Apologist: “Those quotes don’t prove anything! For all we know, Bush sincerely believed the bogus data he got from the FBI. You can’t prove that he was deceiving us!”
Intelligent Dopers: :rolleyes:
It’s hair-splitting, and it’s what you and the other apologists continue to do.
I guess time will tell on this. I just got my latest EXTRA! magazine from FAIR and in it they have a piece about how this “bluff” thing or the related “Saddam’s underlyings were lying to him so he thought he had WMD when he didn’t” are both hypotheses based on pretty flimsy evidence. And, in fact, if you look at the record, Iraq was trying quite hard to claim and show that they did not have WMD. The problem they claimed (and of which I don’t think there is any counterevidence) was that at the same time that they destroyed the WMDs, they also destroyed the records of the programs in order to destroy any evidence that these programs ever existed…which they admitted in retrospect was a mistake. (In fact, this came from a fairly direct and frank [if it was in fact true] quote from the Iraqi envoy to the U.N. that I had never seen reported before in the media.)
At any rate, I am not sure that I completely believe that FAIR is correct on all aspects of this (since I for one can imagine why Iraq might have wanted to keep its neighbors, and perhaps even the U.S., guessing). But, it does seem true that the case that Iraq was trying to make it look like they did in fact have WMD has not really been made very convincingly and that the considerable attempts that Iraq made to argue that they did not have WMD have been dismissed…and largely ignored in the press.
You don’t get to make the rules, SA. As you can see, your understanding of the non-bush worshipping position is not quite what you think it is.
Bush lied and now more people are dead every day.
I don’t care what they ever find or would have found, going to war with Iraq was something Bush wanted to do before he ever took office, for reasons of his own that had absolutely zero to do with our security, and he used the deaths of 3000 Americans at the murdering hands of Saudi Arabian nutjobs as an excuse to do it. And that is the most reprehensible, unforgivable, and perfectly horrifying thing I think anyone in the Oval office has ever done.
Uh, what WMDs? Have you read the papers? There aren’t any, and all the “evidence” Bush presented to suggest that they existed, has turned out to be bogus.
See above. Nobody thought Iraq was an imminent threat to the U.S. - Hell, even Bush is now furiously backpedaling to claim that he never suggested they were. Your argument that we HAD to invade because of an immediate threat fails, because there WAS no immediate threat. Even Bush admits it.
Failed businessman.
Draft dodger.
What’d he have, a ‘C’ average or something?
Who was positively exhuberant every time he got to execute someone.
Yep, that’s pretty much it.
Oh, he aged - well that PROVES it, then. :rolleyes:
Don’tcha love the, “I don’t understand it, therefore it is not understandable” line of thinking? I’m telling you, their world ends 5" in front of their faces.
Just so. We need a legitimate, sane, and rational conservative party for legitimate, sane and rational conservatives. I’ve been on the conservative wing of the extreme left as long as I can remember. But I’m not fool enough to think I’m always right.
And don’t get me started about some of the loons. Was it Disraeli, something about how he could deal with his enemies, but his allies were going to be the death of him? When somebody advances a scheme to lose 100,000 jobs in order to protect the spotted greasy salamander, I want that idea shot full of holes, or at the very least rigorously examined. By a partisan, who will put the energy into it. Someone who has a dog in the fight, not someone who argues from an abstract basis in political science.
An honest and forthright Republican party would be a huge blessing to our country. If such a reform cost an election or two, what of it? They will never actually be run out of town on a rail, they will always retain enough power to make thier voices and criticisms heard, as they rightly should be.
An old-timey labor slogan might be very useful to our Tighty Righty brethren: Don’t agonize, organize! Run the nutbar theocrats right out! Let them go form thier own party, and perhaps Jesus will win some elections for them.
You have a valid case and worthy points to make, it is needful that you do so. But so long as this unholy alliance with religious reactionaries can determine your policies, you will always have more in common with Ozzie and Harriet than Barry Goldwater.
Fight hard, fight clean, and the best man win. Temporarily.
Just to start with, this impression is incorrect. Speaking for myself, at least, I’m not sure that the invasion would have been justified even if “WMD’s” had been located after the fall of Hussein’s regime.
First off, get rid of this useless and confusing acronym, “WMD.” Which sort of weapons are we really talking about, and what would it take for us to view them as a serious threat to US security?
I’m not an expert, but I doubt anyone in the continental US would feel seriously threatened if Iraq possessed a relatively small stockpile of chemical or biological munitions for battlefield use, primarily because Hussein would have no means of delivering these weapons abroad. While Bush and Powell sought to frighten the public with grave warnings that these weapons could kill “thousands,” the simple truth is that they are harmless if they cannot be delivered to their target. In order to convince me they represent such a profound threat that an invasion of Iraq is the only reasonable option, you would have to provide me with credible evidence that 1) Iraq could actually use these weapons against the US, and 2) Iraq would use these weapons against the US. (This is merely a restatement of Powell’s own equation of capability + intention = credible threat.)
Nuclear weapons are, on the other hand, another kettle of fish, but again, the mere possession of a nuclear weapon does not, in my book, suffice for a cassus belli, at least not unilaterally. There have been, and continue to be, many nuclear states which are also possessed of a modicum of animosity vis-à-vis the US. No one suggests that we invade China, or North Korea, simply because they have nuclear weapons – on the contrary. To see how illogical this argument really is we can simply turn it around. The US possesses nuclear weapons. Does this fact grant other states a moral right to invade the US and overthrow its government?
Even if Iraq did have a nuclear weapon, it is doubtful that it could be delivered to the US, or even Europe, since this requires a long-range ballistic missile system. So again, the mere possession of a nuclear weapon does not, in and of itself, justify an invasion, in my opinion.
The reason why anti-war posters “slam” Bush over the lack of “WMDs” in Iraq is not because we believe the war would necessarily have been justified had such weapons been found. We slam him because he claimed that he knew for sure, without a modicum of doubt, that Iraq possessed such weapons, and that he was also certain that Iraq’s possession of said weapons was a “grave and gathering threat” to US security. Bush went so far as to claim that Iraq “threatened the world” with its “WMDs.” Yet he failed to make the case for these ridiculous exaggerations. As it turns out, not only did Iraq not threaten the world, but it didn’t even have the weapons to make the threat in the first place.
I wouldn’t use the word “never,” myself, nor would I call someone who is worried over this possibility an “idiot.” Hell – better safe than sorry, especially when it comes to al-Qaida. On the other hand I would say that it seems extremely unlikely, and I would need to see some very solid evidence of such a purchase, or attempted purchase, before advocating such an extreme response as an unprovoked war of choice.
There is also the question of why Hussein would take the risk of providing a terrorist organization with weapons, particularly “WMDs.” In doing so he would lose command and control over the weapons himself, and would have no guarantees that they wouldn’t at some point be turned back against him. Given the adversarial relationship extant between al-Qaida and Iraq, that seems to me to be a distinct possibility, one that would argue against supplying such weapons to al-Qaida.
To my knowledge, that statement is true and also mitigates against the idea that they were sharing weapons, money, intelligence, and so on.
You don’t think this argument holds water?
I would say that Iraq’s mere possession of “WMDs,” taken in isolation, is not a strong argument for invading.
You have to understand that this is even the stance taken by the Bush administration. Again and again the administration has insisted that it is the possible combination of “WMDs” and terrorism that forces the US to adopt a policy of “preventative war.” (In his NSS, I believe Bush referred to it as the “crossroad” of high technology and terrorism.) That is why the entire issue of the connections between Iraq and al-Qaida continues to dominate the debate. In order for this administration to make the case that Iraq’s phantom “WMDs” were a potential threat to the US, they must tie them to a stateless, non-deterrable terrorist organization. Without the assumed connection between Iraq’s “WMDs” and the al-Qaida terrorist network, not even the most ardent supports of the war can reasonably claim that Iraq’s “WMDs” were a threat to the US in any real sense.
Like a lot of other respondents in this thread, I don’t understand how these two arguments contradict each other, or reflect any sort of hypocrisy.
Continuing:
Practically every piece of evidence publicly offered by the Bush administration prior to the invasion has been turned in and out ad infinitum on these boards. In my opinion none of those pieces of evidence were in any way conclusive – on the contrary.
This standard boilerplate list you post above is pretty vague and meaningless. I can link to long, very in-depth discussion of issues such as 1) the “yellowcake” claim; 2) the aluminum tubes; 3) the satellite photos; 4) the Zarqawi connection; 5) the mobile labs, and so forth. None of these pieces of evidence have withstood critical scrutiny.
As has already been pointed out, no one would seriously imply that Saddam is “innocent.” In addition, as has probably also already been pointed out, Saddam did open up his country to the inspections and cooperate all the way down the line. Because he did so, we knew at least two months prior to the invasion that he didn’t possess any “WMDs” of note. However, the US chose to interpret this lack of evidence as “proof” that Hussein had become an expert at hiding his “WMDs” from the inspectors.
A famous man once said, “History teaches that wars begin when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap.” I believe this current war is a case in point. I suspect that if Bush had a crystal ball two years ago, and could see where this policy was going to lead him, he would never have invaded Iraq.
But Bush thought this invasion could be done on the cheap. 135,000 troops, he thought. By this point in time, the US garrison in Iraq was supposed to have been reduced to between 30000 and 40000 troops. After all, the Iraqis were sure to greet the Americans as liberators, he was told. And as for the reconstruction? Iraqi oil, remember?
He didn’t do it because he wanted to be a cowboy. I think he did it because he believed he could get away with it, because he thought it would be cheap, because he thought that afterwards he would be seen as a hero and be a shoe-in for his second term. In short, he miscalculated, terribly.
Yeah, right! - or ist it, Yeah, left! - or whatever… Republicans will purge their party of their refuse and Democrats will purge their party of their refuse and we all will live happily ever after. Except, of course, the purged refuse will organize into a finally invincible third party (perhaps called “Refuse Party”) and establish a new political reality throughout the land. I prefer my present bi-polar political disorder to any monolithic “sound” state of mind, thank you very much for offering.
I, too, would like to see a better term, but it does suit its purpose. Naturally, different types of weapons pose different types of threats. But be they chemical, biologica or nuclear, they all have the postential to cause tremendous death and suffering.
I, and so far as I know, no one else, is concerned in the least that Iraq would attack the continental U.S. My sole concern regarding Iraq’s WMD program is the potential of these weapons falling into the hands of terrorists.
I must admit it’s amusing to watch people suddenly backing off from this aspect of their critisism now that I’ve raised the issue. Prior to starting this thread, the overwhelming majority of anti-Bush postings concerned the lack of WMD in Iraq, and although I’m sure it was unintended, the impression was that this was the primary reason for the outrage and disapproval expressed over our action in Iraq.
As I’ve pointed out before, Bush was not the only one to believe this. Most Middle East countries believed it, as did Europe, the CIA, the FBI, and even Bill Clinton. I believe Bush’s claim to “know for sure” that Iraq had WMD was about as positive as it could be short of his standing in the Iraqi desert and observing it personally as they were dug out of the ground. He “knew” it the same way presidents (and most people) “know” things…not by what he personally experienced but by what apparently credible sources informed him of. For example, I “know” the Empire State Building exists even though I’ve had no direct experience with it myself. If it were to suddenly disappear, I would have a hard time “proving” I had accurate knowledge of it.
I understand what he meant perfectly well. By developing WMD, and being the renegade he was, there was a very real risk of WMD falling into terrorist hands, and not only al-Qaesa’s terrorist hands. Terrorist groups are active all over the glove, and as any of them could conceiveably have obtained WMD from Hussein, the threat was indeed global.
Who knows? Maybe it did or maybe it didn’t. And even if it didn’t have them presently, there could be no assurance they wouldn’t be developed in the future, given that Hussein had already show a propensity to develop or acquire them, and a ready willingness to use them, as he did in Iran and the Kurds inside Iraq itself.
Yes, but you’re a more intelligent and thoughtful poster than most here. (I’m trying to insert a smilie her but it keeps going to the bottom of the post. Anyway, a smilie goes here.)
I couldn’t agree more, and therein lies the entire basis for my support of the action in Iraq.
And I would disagree quite stongly! By the time such evidence would arise, it would more than likely be way too late, and given the horrendous price that would be paid in suffering and lives lost should an attack be successfully carried out while we are cooling our heels waiting for evidence (and evidence that some very clever people were taking every effort to conceal), I would say better safe than sorry is the *only *option, and this is the one we’re following.
Well, given his lack of concern over the lives and well-being of his own people, I doubt he would even give it much thought unless he thought he himself were in danger. Secondarily, I would imagine it would be counter-productive for terrorists to turn the weapons on him. For one thing, they would lose a source of hugely powerful weaponry, and secondarily they would be shooting themselves in the foot among the Arab world they seek refuge in and look to for recruiting by attacking another Arab country with weapons it ostensibly obtained in order to attack the West.
It isn’t to me, at all. “The enemy of my enemy…” and all that.
You presuppose that Bush simply wanted to invade Iraq, no matter what, and deviously cooked up a scheme to mislead the American people into fearing a threat from Iraq and supporting going to war against it. I reject such a notion wholeheartedly. I percieved the very same threat shortly after 9/11 and before the drums of war against Iraq began to beat, and I’m sure many others did as well. People on these boards like to assume that those who agree with Bush are gullibly swallowing his propaganda. What they don’t realize is that there are millions of Americans who feel just like Bush does, and for the very same reasons, and that contrary to following Bush’s line, we actually feel he is perceiving the same things we are and is following the path we would have wanted him to follow to begin with. In other words, he is following *our *wishes, rather than the other way around.
The hypocrisy comes from the fact that so many posts were made in such a way as to imply that Bush lied to us about WMD, therefore the war is bogus. I would read this to mean that if Iraq had had WMD, the war would have been justified, and I wanted to know if the posters who had objected so strenuously on these grounds would have supported the war had WMD been found, or whether they were merely using the fact that they haven’t as a red herring for their real feelings which would be that they would be against the war under any circumstances, WMD’s or no. And I don’t believed I claimed hypocrisy outright, I asked if hypocrisy was at the root of using the lack of WMD to argue against an action that these posters felt was wrong, but that their genuine reasonings didn’t hold enough water to justify their true objections so they sieze upon the WMD issue to lend greater gravity to their opposition than it would otherwise have.
Continuing:Practically every piece of evidence publicly offered by the Bush administration prior to the invasion has been turned in and out ad infinitum on these boards. In my opinion none of those pieces of evidence were in any way conclusive – on the contrary.
Again, I have to disagree. It’s often said you can’t prove a negative. We didn’t “know” he had no WMD, and even according to your own analysis immediately above, all we would know is that he didn’t posess these *particular *WMD.
I really think you’re getting the cart before the horse here. No war goes strictly (or even very much) according to plan. Strategy changes and troop deployments are very common, and the assessment of Iraqi gratitude…such as it may or may not eventually be…is years away from settling down into what it will eventually become. But all of this is merely a sidebar, anyway. The important thing is to prevent Iraq, now and in the future, from being in a position to supply WMD to terrorists.
I don’t believe this for one second, although I can see how you would, given that I could easily suspect the same type of things of someone such as Clinton. My response to this is probably pretty much the same as yours would be regarding Clinton: I don’t believe for one second that this decent and caring man and father would deliberately send young American men and women off to die simply to get re-elected. I think such a notion is outrageous, and it diminishes you as a credible analyst that you would say such a thing.
