Ken:

I agree with most of what you wrote. There are a lot of other threats out there that are every bit as scary (if not more dangerous) than Sadaam Hussein. I'm not sure what this obsession is with Iraq. And even if we do "win" (no doubt at a heavy price), there's this little question of "post-hostilities ops". How long are we going to occupy their country? What about all the other countries that could potentially have nukes or harbor terrorists? Are we going to go in and occupy them also? For how long?

I think Sadaam is a real jerk, but I'm not convinced that he's "irrational". I'm not convinced that deterrence wouldn't work. After all, it worked with the Russians. Was Stalin really any better or more rational than Sadaam? What about the Pakistanis, North Koreans, or Saudis? Are they really any better or less of a threat?

Like you I believe in military force when it's called for. But I'm not so sure that it's a wise idea here. The only way to "win" a conflict in the long run is to win the hearts and minds of the people, and it seems to me that invading Iraq when the whole rest of the world (and many Americans, including military personnel and Republicans) think it's a poor idea just doesn't make any sense. As the Israelis can surely tell you, all the military force in the world won't stop terrorism.

I pretty much completely agree with you for once Ken.

It bothers me considerably to think that the US might be the initiator of open warfare against another country. Some might claim, that by harboring terrorist, Iraq is the initiator. But as far as I know, no real evidence of terrorists in Iraq has been put forward. With out direct and substantial evidence of a threat, what moral high ground do we have to stand on when we fire the first shot. Even though I may be nothing more then a mere peasant in the overall hierarchy of the US, I expect them to prove their case to me before I will give my support. Such proof has been far from forthcoming in many issues of late, including this one.

I can't understand how anyone with a shred of intelligence could think that GWB's motivations against Iraq are based on some personal animosity because of his father's fight with them. It's just amazing.

Yes, there is a big difference between Saddam Hussein and the other despot leaders of the world. Primarily, the difference is that these guys have never met a weapons system they didn't like. Hussein has never met a weapons system that he hasn't used. Just about every country in the world has a biological and chemical weapons capability, and Pakistan, India, North Korea, and others have the ability to launch these weapons on short and intermediate range missiles. But only Iraq has shown a willingness to actually use them. Even when Israel was teetering on the brink of defeat in the 1960s they didn't use the weapons of mass destruction that they had. Hussein used his weapons just to kill Iraqi dissidents who disagreed with him. He was also willing to risk the lives of thousands of Israelis who had done nothing to him or his country just to help break up the coaliltion against him. What other world leader has done something so hideous?

How many people have looked back at the 1930's and said "If only people had know what Hitler had in store for the world, and someone could have taken him out." Now we have to suffer fools who don't want to learn from history and say that we should wait until this nutjob gets even more powerful weapons and wait until he uses them against someone before we should take action.

If anyone, anyone, can look at Hussein's record and think that he's no different from Kim Jung-Il, Abdul Kalam, or Pervez Musharraf, you're wearing some serious rose colored glasses. Yes, these leaders may rattle swords from time to time, just like the US and Soviet Union did, but they have shown no signs of a willingness to take the next step. Their weapons are more propoganda items than actual weapons. Hussein is different. He has repeatedly shown a willingness to use any weapon at his disposal to achieve his goals, the others haven't.

And what are Hussein's stated goals: His primary goal is to consolidate all of the Arab states into one country, with him as it's political and spiritual leader. He sees this as a devine destiny. I think we've learned from recent events that people motivated by devine beliefs are capable of any attrocity, however heinous, if they believe it's God's will. Issues with the other trouble spots of the world deal with political and economic interests, and leaders motivated by these aren't very prone to see their actions as devine in nature.

Yes we have smacked Hussein when he's gotten out of line, but that's not slowed down his desire to get WMDs. He's like a dog that you can hit and hit, but eventually he's going to bite you back when he feels that the moment is his.

I guess what really smokes my nads the most is that you people who would drag their feet and say we have no business launching a pre-emptive attack would be the very first in line to call for the President's head if we were ever attacked in the future.

I can't understand how anyone with a shred of intelligence could think that GWB's motivations against Iraq are based on some personal animosity because of his father's fight with them. It's just amazing.

What I find amazing is where is the proof that they are talking about? Have you seen it? I haven’t, so that is where my little shred of intelligence says that it might be something else.

Yes, there is a big difference between Saddam Hussein and the other despot leaders of the world. Primarily, the difference is that these guys have never met a weapons system they didn't like. Hussein has never met a weapons system that he hasn't used. Just about every country in the world has a biological and chemical weapons capability, and Pakistan, India, North Korea, and others have the ability to launch these weapons on short and intermediate range missiles.

Name one world leader that would turn down a weapons system if they thought they could get a hold of it.

But only Iraq has shown a willingness to actually use them.

We are still the only nation to have used nukes, so I guess we are no better then Saddam. Many others have dabbled in the chemical arena, including us.

How many people have looked back at the 1930's and said "If only people had know what Hitler had in store for the world, and someone could have taken him out." Now we have to suffer fools who don't want to learn from history and say that we should wait until this nutjob gets even more powerful weapons and wait until he uses them against someone before we should take action.

Waiting until they have been used has always been our way, now all of a sudden we want to swat first and then see if they really had the ability. Furthermore, as he assuredly doesn’t have weapons that will reach our soil (by traditional delivery methods), where is the threat?

If anyone, anyone, can look at Hussein's record and think that he's no different from Kim Jung-Il, Abdul Kalam, or Pervez Musharraf, you're wearing some serious rose colored glasses. Yes, these leaders may rattle swords from time to time, just like the US and Soviet Union did, but they have shown no signs of a willingness to take the next step. Their weapons are more propoganda items than actual weapons. Hussein is different. He has repeatedly shown a willingness to use any weapon at his disposal to achieve his goals, the others haven't.

Really, the India and Pakistan issue recently was nothing to worry about? And you want to talk about others in rose colored glasses. Maybe we don’t have our heads as deep in the sand as you do.

And what are Hussein's stated goals: His primary goal is to consolidate all of the Arab states into one country, with him as it's political and spiritual leader. He sees this as a devine destiny. I think we've learned from recent events that people motivated by devine beliefs are capable of any attrocity, however heinous, if they believe it's God's will. Issues with the other trouble spots of the world deal with political and economic interests, and leaders motivated by these aren't very prone to see their actions as devine in nature.

That may be his goal, but until recently he hadn’t had anyone listening to him. Now with all the rhetoric it seems he is developing a coalition based upon our saber rattling.

I guess what really smokes my nads the most is that you people who would drag their feet and say we have no business launching a pre-emptive attack would be the very first in line to call for the President's head if we were ever attacked in the future.

Well, while you have your “nads” in your mouth (isn’t that how you smoke them?) I doubt any of us are shallow enough to blame one single person for the acts of others. If attacked and the President (regardless of who is in the office) responds appropriately I doubt if you would hear anyone bitching.

I wonder why so many are ready to send our troops off to a war that, as of this time, only a handful see the need for.

I think our biggest failure in regards to Iraq is abandoning those we had promised our support in an "uprising". We did the same in Afghanistan.

Everyone will probably think I'm a kook, but the reason I believe we did this to both countries is because both conflicts became so "public", and we've not had leadership in years who will stand up to media "spin".

Due to the American public feeling they have the right to know everything, has cost many many American lives.

Ken, I'm waiting for Maynard to come on agreeing with you - then we'd have a trifecta :lol:

Right now everyone's so "sensitive" that I'm gonna run down some facts just so I can pick a fight with you - gotta get it out of my system.

Originally posted by Christy

Due to the American public feeling they have the right to know everything, has cost many many American lives.

The American public does have the right to know everything. And its not this right that has cost lives, it’s the unwillingness to let the people know which has. It seems that many of our leaders will do all they can to prevent from having to defend their decisions to the public. It wasn’t the media coverage that resulted in a loss of our support to these countries, but that the minute justification for our support was required to be put forward, no one wanted to be involved anymore. If someone had had enough backbone to stand up and show why we needed to provide this support and stand up to any criticism that was put forward, things might have been different. The US isn’t a dictatorship or a monarchy. Our leaders need to get the support of the people for their actions, and expecting blind faith from them is not the same thing.

Excellent column, Ken.

A few years ago, Robert McNamara said that the Kennedy-era generals were advising against large-scale involvement in Vietnam. He and others in the Administration were the gung-ho ones, in spirit if not in resources. That runs counter to a lot of the assumptions about the war. A lot of people believed that the generals were the hawks and the politicians were the doves.

Curious, Ken, what you think of the "alleged" evidence that Saddam was involved in the 9-11 attacks?
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/archive/article/0,,4296646,00.html

And Warron, if the American public (not to mention our elected officials) could keep their mouths shut and not spew classified information to the whole world, maybe they would be entitled to know everything that's going on. As it stands, I'm not willing to put my safety on the line because some big mouth feels he is "entitled" to know military information.

Going after the terrorist connection vice the threat from WMD. We can play that too. Okay I’ll give you that al-Ani is a bad man. You definitely got me there. We know what he has done, but in this instance, what did he do? He met with Atta.

Yeah, but about what? A known spy is meeting with, at the time of the meeting, an unknown terrorists. What did they discuss or do? Was it a transfer of money, getting instructions, or getting documents for the bad guys, who knows? Did al-Ani make a deal for himself or for his country? Again, who knows?

We have sufficient known terrorists to deal with like al Qaeda, Yemen (Remember the Cole), Saudi Arabia (15 of 19 Hijackers plus the bin Laden family) and others that we could be going after but aren't with the exception of al Qaeda. Why?

You know me, and how I am, make the case if you can as this is a very big issue. The biggest when you consider we are talking about the lives of our troops. If it can’t be made then we shouldn’t commit their lives.

It seems to me that our country, after 8 years of Clinton, is so used to having a pushover p*ssy as the Commander-In-Chief, that we're suddenly afraid attack more than anything more threatening than an aspirin factory in Sudan.

When Sudan wanted to hand us bin Laden, Clinton couldn't find a "legal" reason to take custody of him. Apparently planning a war of terror against the US isn't covered in our legal system. Gee, maybe our forefathers didn't think about 747's. Or, maybe there wasn't time to work on national security, in between liason's with fat chicks for a little oral.

The point is that President Bush isn't after Iraq because it's what daddy wants. That's just a silly accusation. He thinks they are the NEXT threat. Something Clinton wouldn't look for, or didn't have the doodads to do something about. Heck, Iraq may even be financing and harboring bin Laden, and al Qaeda. Do we sit here and wait for something bad to happen to us before we do something about it again?

Personally, I don't want to spend another 2 weeks glued to Fox News every time I come home, watching a repeat of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. I don't want our country to become Israel where you can't go to a coffee shop for fear of a suicide bomber, or where that is a part of daily life. Show the terrorists that they will not be tolerated in the world's society, and if Iraq is the first step towards that, then say your prayers, smoke 'em if you've got 'em, and take care of business.

It seems to me that our country, after 8 years of Clinton, is so used to having a pushover p*ssy as the Commander-In-Chief, that we're suddenly afraid attack more than anything more threatening than an aspirin factory in Sudan.

No argument here, when there has been a need for action I believe that we have seen it. That isn’t my point.

The point is that President Bush isn't after Iraq because it's what daddy wants. That's just a silly accusation. He thinks they are the NEXT threat. Something Clinton wouldn't look for, or didn't have the doodads to do something about. Heck, Iraq may even be financing and harboring bin Laden, and al Qaeda. Do we sit here and wait for something bad to happen to us before we do something about it again?

Key words, “He thinks they are the NEXT threat”. Another set, “Iraq may even be financing and harboring bin Laden, and al Qaeda”. “Thinks” and “may” sure don’t sound as convincing as knows and are. If he has the proof let it fly and rally the people. Show me that this is worthy of the lives it will cost.

Personally, I don't want to spend another 2 weeks glued to Fox News every time I come home, watching a repeat of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. I don't want our country to become Israel where you can't go to a coffee shop for fear of a suicide bomber, or where that is a part of daily life. Show the terrorists that they will not be tolerated in the world's society, and if Iraq is the first step towards that, then say your prayers, smoke 'em if you've got 'em, and take care of business.

Yep, attacking Iraq and really firming up hate throughout the Arab people is a sure way to prevent suicide bombers (actually I thought the term had evolved to “homicide bomber”).

News flash - the Arabs are going to hate us whether we blow them up, or not! Hating Americans is part of their culture, and we aren't going to make that better or worse. In the long run, it means a few less cab drivers, but people aren't travelling right now anyway, so maybe that will keep a few Americans off of unemployment.

After bin Laden bombed the WTC in 93 (?) Clinton KNEW he was a threat and didn't do it. We citizens have the right to know right up to the point where that information divulges too much secure information. Then, our "need to know" stops. Clinton had the information, KNEW is, was SURE, and we have 3000 dead people to prove it. If Bush can read between the lines, then so be it. I trust that he has the data to back up the claims, and for the security of our forces when an action begins, can only tell us so much.

The American public does have the right to know everything. And its not this right that has cost lives, it’s the unwillingness to let the people know which has. It seems that many of our leaders will do all they can to prevent from having to defend their decisions to the public. It wasn’t the media coverage that resulted in a loss of our support to these countries, but that the minute justification for our support was required to be put forward, no one wanted to be involved anymore. If someone had had enough backbone to stand up and show why we needed to provide this support and stand up to any criticism that was put forward, things might have been different. The US isn’t a dictatorship or a monarchy. Our leaders need to get the support of the people for their actions, and expecting blind faith from them is not the same thing.

No Warron, we do not. The United States Government has the responsibility to protect it's citizens from any one or any government who'd like to take away our lives and our way of life. We have organizations who can do that, and have done that for many many years. Where it breaks down and fails is when politicians become involved in it. When politicians get involved, the American people get involved, because politicians want votes. They then begin using our military as their "toy soldiers" to throw around the world so they can say "looky at what I did, aren't a brilliant leader?"

People can trash the CIA, NSA, DIA all they want, but until recently they are who have ensured our safety and our way of life. Now all these organizations are run by political figureheads who are more worried about their own hides than what is best for the American people.

What really burns my behind, and I've gone off about it before many many times on here, is the intelligence was there in regards to Al Quaeda and it's lesser cronies. It was pushed to the top of these agencies and the leadership chose to ignore it.

News flash - the Arabs are going to hate us whether we blow them up, or not! Hating Americans is part of their culture, and we aren't going to make that better or worse. In the long run, it means a few less cab drivers, but people aren't travelling right now anyway, so maybe that will keep a few Americans off of unemployment.

Whether you believe it, or can comprehend it, not all Arabs hate the people of the US of A. Generalization and stereotyping, such as you attempt, aren’t a fair assessment of what is and has been going on. There are many that do hate us but it isn’t all of them, we have been helped by Arabs in our fight against terrorism. If the hate was as widespread as you state they wouldn’t have helped us at all.

After bin Laden bombed the WTC in 93 (?) Clinton KNEW he was a threat and didn't do it.

What I have learned over the years is that the WTC bombing of 1993 was led by the Egyptian Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and Salameh, Ajaj, Abuhalima and Ayyad were arrested and convicted for actually carrying out the plan. While I have never been a fan of Clinton I think you are stretching this a little far as you fabricate the connection and your claim of who knew what.

Your implication that the previous administration knew is nothing more than speculation on your part. If in fact they knew then it would be equally obvious that the Bush administration would have known upon their assumption of the office. Yet there isn’t any verifiable evidence to prove that or the headhunters would have been out in mass calling for both of their butts and they would have them, if what you say is true.

We citizens have the right to know right up to the point where that information divulges too much secure information. Then, our "need to know" stops. Clinton had the information, KNEW is, was SURE, and we have 3000 dead people to prove it. If Bush can read between the lines, then so be it. I trust that he has the data to back up the claims, and for the security of our forces when an action begins, can only tell us so much.

We citizens, through our representatives, have a right to know who and what we are up against should there be a need to declare war. After all, in our democracy that is how it is done, at least in accordance with our Constitution. If the administration cannot make the case then Congress doesn’t declare war. If they can make the case they should do so as it is their duty, even if it means divulging classified information to make the case. I just don’t see where the case has been made and it seems Congress hasn’t been convinced either or we would be at war.

Ken, in your opinion, what should we wait for before we set our Iraqi friend straight? What would be evidence enough for us to get aggressive with him?

Glenn Beck was ranting about this on his show this afternoon - wish I had a tape to play for you. (Beck's an ultra-conservative warmonger - makes Limbaugh look like a Clintonista.)

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Ken, in your opinion, what should we wait for before we set our Iraqi friend straight? What would be evidence enough for us to get aggressive with him?

Well, in all honesty I have just researched my way into a change of opinion. Looking for justification for the President to use necessary force in dealing with Iraq I discovered that Congress has already demanded that. Public Law 105-235 (S.J. Res. 54) signed into law on August 14, 1998 deals with this very issue and concludes with the following phrase;

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations, and therefore the President is urged to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.

A link for the entire law is http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:S.J.RES.54.ENR:

After discovering this information it seems to me that President Bush is just doing what the nation demanded of President Clinton and what he signed into law. Why we didn't do something about this four years ago, when this became law, is another can of beans.

Well, I have to give it you, Ken. Not many would have admitted that they found an obscure law that changed their mind.
:clap: to you for your honesty!

Vraiblonde,

Honesty has always been an issue for me and when you are wrong you should be able to say you are. At times you might be a little embarrassed but such is life.

As to the law being obscure maybe so, I sure don't remember hearing anything about it. One fascinating bit about this law is that it passed the Senate with unanimous consent and passed the House by Roll Call vote of 407 to 6. The will of our Nation through our representatives was that something needed to be done and the President has the authorization to take action.

And has everyone heard the latest news, I hope, that CENTCOM is moving its Headquarters to the Middle East? I think that is a clear indication of what is coming down the pike.