Iraq: The Doubters Were Right

Ron · Postby **Ron** » Thu Aug 21, 2003 4:39 am

I think it's safe to say that the doubters were right . . . and for all the reasons given before the war: No WMD. No link to Al-Qaida or Bin Laden. Reconstruction of Iraq is a nightmare [some characterized the post-war as an occupation, which now certainly appears true]. Anti-Americanism is at an all-time high. And Iraq would now appear to be the breading ground for terrorists.

Is there a bright side to any of this? A silver lining *somewhere*? Or is this current situation the ugliest America has found itself in since Viet Nam?

Ron · Postby **Ron** » Thu Aug 21, 2003 5:08 am

Let me add that the irony to the above [and the Bush administration's genius] is to turn each negative into a positive: No WMB? Our enemy is cunning so we must redouble our efforts. Terrorist attacks in Iraq? See, told ya there was an Al-Qaida connection. That kind of thing.

Grant · Postby **Grant** » Sun Aug 24, 2003 5:07 pm

I just hope nothing major happens before the next presidential election. I would hate to see Dubya re-elected out of fear.

Ron · Postby **Ron** » Sun Aug 24, 2003 5:41 pm

Maybe I'm nuts, but so far it looks like Bush gets pretty much a free ride on the war in Iraq and tax cuts [among others]. If the election were today, he'd no doubt be reelected. The constant loss of American lives in Iraq may eventually bite him in the ass, but we won't know that until we're a little further down that road.

Rspaight · Postby **Rspaight** » Sun Aug 24, 2003 7:35 pm

I have small glimmers of hope. I saw my Dad a few weeks back, and he's about as far from a bleeding-heart liberal as you can get. In addition, he's not one to really be active in politics. He told me, "I've believed for the past twenty years that who was in the White House really didn't matter. This dumb cowboy has proved me wrong. I may have to actually go vote next time."

If a Republican can disgust my father enough to get him into a voting booth, anything's possible.

Ryan

Matt · Postby **Matt** » Sun Aug 24, 2003 11:26 pm

Much depends on who runs against Bush.

Patrick M · Postby **Patrick M** » Sun Aug 24, 2003 11:44 pm

Might I suggest:

http://www.draftwesleyclark.com/

Ron · Postby **Ron** » Tue Sep 09, 2003 8:07 am

So Bush finally caves and asks for U.N. assistance. Like *duh,* told you so damned near a year ago.

Matt · Postby **Matt** » Tue Sep 09, 2003 8:31 am

I wonder if Bush will actually will get any support from the UN? After almost 12 years of Iraqs non-compliance the UN did nothing about it. Violations report from the previous administration:

http://www.usis.it/file9801/alia/98110605.htm

Then again, since the dirty work is done, I guess it is the prime time for UN involvement.

Rspaight · Postby **Rspaight** » Tue Sep 09, 2003 8:43 am

God, I'm glad you're here, Matt. I mean that very sincerely.

My own take on the sudden about-face in administration policy toward the UN is that they know that they can't commit more troops to Iraq, even though everyone on the ground there agrees reinforcements are desperately needed. And the gulps were audible coast-to-coast when Bush added $88 billion to the deficit on Sunday.

So, let's get some other countries to send in some cannon fodder (er, troops) and kick in some dough to clean up the mess we made over their objections and warnings (which proved true). But we still stay in total control, and have already issued the executive order laying claim to all Iraqi assets.

I'd restate your last sentence as "since the statues have been toppled, the aircraft carrier landing has been made, victory declared and the money's in the bank, it's prime time for the UN to go deal with the mess."

Ryan

Postby **lukpac** » Tue Sep 09, 2003 8:43 am

Am I the only one who thinks it's a bit bullheaded to assume the UN will give us troops without giving them (the UN) any power? "We want your help, but only if you do as we say!"

Rspaight · Postby **Rspaight** » Tue Sep 09, 2003 8:45 am

lukpac wrote:Am I the only one who thinks it's a bit bullheaded to assume the UN will give us troops without giving them (the UN) any power? "We want your help, but only if you do as we say!"

The rest of the Security Council has us over a barrel and they know it. Poor Colin Powell is in for a rough negotiation.

Ryan

mikenycLI · Postby **mikenycLI** » Tue Sep 09, 2003 11:45 am

Let's hope this is the beginning of the end, of W's political career.

Matt · Postby **Matt** » Tue Sep 09, 2003 4:16 pm

mikenycLI wrote:Let's hope this is the beginning of the end, of W's political career.

Unlikely.

Matt · Postby **Matt** » Tue Sep 09, 2003 4:28 pm

Ryan - Good points, I agree with you. I really wonder what the heck Bush will do. I bet he wont be getting the support he wants. My rationale for that statement is the lack of action from the UN in the past.

Honestly, I don't know what to make of this whole issue at this point. We don't need to increase the deficit. But, over time Saddam could have been more of a threat to us and he did not comply to the term of the Kuwait cease fire agreement. American soldiers continue die, yet a seriously demented man is not in power and killing anymore.