[sup]Granted. But the little green peices of paper just drive me nuts.[/sup]
I don’t believe I could trust him to end the Al-Quaeda leadership. I fear he would have followed the earlier Clinton pattern of ignoring immediate security threats, or using only token responses. I fear he would have done something like firing random missiles in Afganistan, doing no damage, and not in any way, shape, or form affecting the A-Q or the Taliban.
2.) An illegal invasion founded on lies is necessary to attain future peace? Isn’t that like destroying the village in order to save it?
[/quote]
According to several UN resolutions, the US did not need any more authorization to attack Iraq. All we needed was for Saddam not to prove he had destroyed his chem/bio weapons, which he was utterly unable to prove, and did not really try hard.
In any event, the invasion did little damage to the infrastructure of Iraq, which was already collapsing due to official neglect. We’ve already got their power output up to beyond pre-war standards, and Saddam had a policy of deliberately killing his own peopole in orer to drum up foreign sympathy. So the village is currently occupied, by benevolently. Not destroyed.
And lastly, I don’t believe Bush lied. We though for years and years that Saddam had readily deployable chem/bio weaponry, and was actively seeking nuclear tools (and the latter was true, although he failed to get them). Everyone from GWB to Clinton to our current pres thought so, and often had strong evidence from defectors to back it up. So I can blame no one for their error. Heck, Saddam often acted like he had them; its not entirely clear he knew they were all gone. (Thats a very complex pont and relies on some unknown factors).
But, in the larger point, it involves a good and noble act - the freeing of a people from tyranny. I think the history books of Iraq will proclaim this to be one of the greatest and most magnanimous acts in their history, because we’re not asking for their slavery, or service, but rather genuinely want to see them succeed and become a peaceful and prosperous nation. And we want them to be an example that heavilyMuslim nations, and Arab ones in particular, can succeed by using the principles of freedom, justice, and democracy.
There is a chance, of unknown probability, that it will fail, with varying results. But I consider the risks worth it.
But I will not hijack this thread any further; this is already much to muhc, and its obvious anyone who could be convinced would ahve been by now, with all the debates that have raged here.
What evidence do you have that Bush has “ended” Al-Qaida leadership? Bin Laden is still at large, is he not?
Not to point out the obvious, but who gives a shit? None of that constitutes a JUSTIFICATION for starting a war. Even if you conclude that previous UN resolutions could be construed as making the invasion sort of not illegal, that’s not a logical or moral rationale for starting armed conflict and killing thousands of people.
Of course he did, and you know he did. It’s accepted fact that he lied, at the very least, about the Mysterious Vanishing African Uranium story.
Since the people of Iraq currently live under a military dictatorship, they in fact have been freed from absolutely nothing. Transfer from one dictatorship to another is not being “freed.” It’s certainly a more benevolent dictatorship than they had seven months ago, but until Iraqis are freely electing their own leaders, I’ll reserve judgment on whether their short-term future involves freedom.
Smiling Bandit:
I don’t have much to add to what RickJay but I’d like to point out that the Clinton administration warned the incoming Bush regime that the single most urgent issue facing the US was terrorism…specifically al Qaeda and OBL. The Bushistas chose to ignore those warnings in favor of pursuing a domestic agenda which included such pressing concerns as giving much needed tax relief to billionaires. See a Franken’s book for a brilliant deconstruction of the myth that Clinton/Gore didn’t care about terrorism.
Also, the US has no authority to enforce UN Resolutions. Any perceived violations of those resolutions by Iraq are to be dealt with solely by the UN however the UN sees fit. The US has some input into the process but they have no authority to make unilateral decisions and any non-defensive attack on the sovereignty of another country is per se illegal under the letter of the UN Charter.
Your characterization of the “nobility” of “liberating the Iraqi people from tyranny” is greatly undermined by the fact the “liberation” was illegal, unsolicited and has victimized as many Iraq civilians as it has helped. It also doesn’t help that comments from people like General Boykin and Senator Trent Lott have been outright hostile to the Iraqi people.
Someone’s been watching too much conservative media. Here’s a list of Clinton’s “token” responses to terrorism:
[ul]
[li]Tripled the FBI counterterrorism budget. [/li][li]Pushed antiterrorism legislation, including an attempt to increase wiretapping authority for the FBI.[/li][li]Authorized the assissination of Osama bin Laden[/li][li]Appointed the first national anti-terrorism coordinator, Richard Clarke, with a directive to destroy al Qaeda. Clarke briefed Condolizza Rice before Bush took office, but Bush had other priorities.[/li][/ul]
Quite frankly, if Gore was President instead of George W. Bush, we would have been going after al Qaeda on January 21st, 2001, instead of waiting until 9/11…
Or you could look here:
Avast, hijackers! Getcher grubby mitts off my thread! This is about the barking madness of Gen. Boykin, and is not to be taken as an opportunity for “Bush-bashing”. Except for continuing to employ this military fruitcake as UnderSecretary of Defense for Intelligence.
Not that I disagree. Or anything.
Yup, Boykin’s a wild-eyed lunatic fuckhead.
(Nods, spits tobacco juice in dust)
I see NaSultainne never returned.
“Never let a radish stand in the way of victory!”
You are such a dumb shit.
Hey, this is Halloween, and we’re pirates! Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrh! 
So where are your buccaneers?
On my buccanhead, duh.
I think we should have stayed in the ocean, myself.
It’s just so hard not to hijack when one sees another person brainwashed by Fox News into believing that Clinton ignored terrorism.
As far as I am concerned, if it can be demonstrated, to even just one person, how much this administration has spun the truth and outright lied to the American public, then the hijack is extremely justified. Who knows, maybe Smiling Bandit will learn something and not vote for the re-election of this president.
Then we all win. 
I notice that the lemmings are now devoting their attention to the author of the LA Times article:
When in doubt, smear the messenger.
But get this: Pat Robertson’s CBN got an audio copy of Boykin’s sermon, and guess what?
They’re not releasing the transcript, either. Wonder why?
Hey, if it should turn out that his Boinkin guy is really all right and this is all a bunch of made up crap, well, fine. Means the guy who is currently serving as Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence is not, in fact, barking mad. Goody!
I’m a pessimist, I love being wrong.
If indeed, as our friend from the Gopher State says, LG Bonkers ( if that is what his juniors in the armed forces call him behind his back) is the Ass’t Sec of Def for Intel, then we might entertain some trepidation about how his particular politico-religious world view might possibly by some stretch of the imagination have a distorting effect on the evaluation of the significance of information coming to his attention and the conclusions that might be drawn from it by him, a screaming fruitbat. It takes a cool head and a keen eye to produce reliable intelligence. Do this guy’s public statements disclose those traits? Weapons of mass destruction any one? Great dark sinister clouds of evil looming over the city? Relative size and strength of deities? This is an rational analysis of the intent, capability and capability of an opponent? Hell no. This is the first stanza of A Mighty Fortress Is Our God.
I understand that your President and mine will base his reelection campaign on the rhetorical question of whether you are safer because Mr. Bush is in the White House. Not as long as LG Bonkers is feeding him his daily intel briefing.
I am loathe to presume to correct our esteemed colleague from the Flat Place Where They Grow Corn, and Stuff, but my sources advise that Lt. Gen. Bodkin is Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, with a special responsibility for terrorism.
But I hasten to point out…his faith didn’t really bother me, nor so much his Stephen King meets St. John of Revelations theology, but his belief that he has a photograph of a diabolical entity.
We medicate and closely supervise people who hear demons. A guys who sees them and takes pictures of them is appointed to a highly sensitive position, where decisions have grave consequence.
Who’s crazy?
Don’t see why. Did you think that Rove wouldn’t show up on pics?