If you say would we have taken this action in Iraq, if the only purpose had been to try to bring democracy to Iraq, I think the answer is no. We didn't even consider using force to bring democracy to any other Arab country. But the combination of Saddam Hussein -- who had made war in the past, who had weapons of mass destruction, who was an avowed enemy of the United States-- When you put all of that together, that was a very powerful case for the action we took.
***
I think that contradicts what you try to establish with the other quotes.
Not at all. They wouldn't have taken the action based on democracy alone because you couldn't make it happen based on democracy alone. But, when you add in a madman, WMD, enemy of the US it becomes actionable -- to the American people. That direct threat is what generates the majority of the approval to proceed. If you look at Perle’s position dating back many years (the Clinton letter, for example), you see that Saddam Hussein is considered a regional problem, with his WMD being a regional threat and removing him provides a regional solution (to some admittedly national problems). In Perle’s above quotation he is participating in a public interview, so there will be limits to how open and direct he is to the questions, and spin on how he frames the answers. That's why the context of previous positions is important when looking at what he says in the present under difficult questioning.
It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. Clinton Letter
Yep. Note that I didn't vote for Bush, this being one of the considerations.
Same here. In fact, I believe we voted for the same guy that came in behind Nader. It’s funny, but I would probably have voted for his father, had that been a choice.
Actually, shouldn't one of the people with influence, resources, money and access to the halls of power being starting to question? Where' Soros on this particular issue? How about spending a little money here?
I seriously doubt if there's a single AH BBS participant with the clout to start anything.
I've previously stated that if evidence can be shown I'll support impeachment and further punishment.
Why bother posting about gun laws, or abortion or politics at all? Some of us must just like an outlet for mental masturbation, and a place to discuss things we can’t discuss that often with many of the people around us. I largely agree that any individual opinion is minute compared to the Washington two-party status quo, corporate influence, bureaucratic morass, public apathy, vapid media -- a long list. Some influential people are trying to move this forward, but the individual citizen still has the ultimate power and ultimate responsibility for our government, and change has to start somewhere. Frankly, I have been slacker in acting on my responsibilities by not becoming involved beyond the voting booth. I should change that -- wouldn’t put any bets on it happening -- but who knows. Like everybody else there is always something “important” to be done with the time. As far as impeachment, probably nothing to impeach over unless there was some hard evidence showing that there were no WMD and it was acknowledged as factual with a cover up and fabricated materials. While this might, at some point and to some degree be found to be true (certainly might not), if so it could very well have happened at the cabinet level. But it would have to be pretty clear.
You're an American right? Lived here all your life? Do you REALLY think the people and/or the Congress would allow any other such military action unless in direct retaliation for a major attack on us?
In other words, how do you view the mood of the country towards war in general right now?
I would hope not, but not much would really surprise me today. You would think that even if someone believed the invasion took place entirely for the reasons stated, with no ambiguity involved, that the person would want the administration kicked out off office for gross incompetence. But that didn’t happen (shout out to the incompetent Democrats as well). Most of Bush’s supporters, and then some, seem to have made a smooth transition from WMD to saving the Iraqi people, as if the whole basis for invading another country wasn’t important in the first place. I think it would take something like a draft to really get anybody’s attention, since Iraq seems to be becoming another forgotten conflict in the public mind like Korea was at the time. While maddening to me, it’s not really all that surprising. Also, with a virtual Republican rubber stamp majority, it’s not like the Democrats have any unity, guts, direction or focus to serve as a counter. However, logistically major action is likely ruled out regardless of any other factors -- but who knows. Syria could be seen as a walk in the park…
Again, just venting personal aggravations, and perhaps procrastinating and avoiding some more important but less interesting tasks I need to get cracking on. Really am bowing out this time (or I’m screwed)
BTW, is it just me or has it been hard to access the board lately? [edit: I see it wasn't just me]
Charon
