Let Me Paraphrase President Bush's speech tonight:

[Analyst]

[ QUOTE ]

Whereas the president has also correctly recognized what is at stake, but is also willing to see this through to a successful conclusion even if it takes longer than we would like, let alone longer than an artificial time period set up by democrats solely for the purpose of political grandstanding.


[/ QUOTE ]

If only the administration had shown such patience, restraint and foresight before deciding to invade Iraq, rather than claiming we were in immediate danger and pulling the trigger. And before anyone answers "but everyone believed he had WMD", even if Sadam did have WMD, he was completely contained and little to no threat - certainly less so than a number of other nations.

[InchoateHand]

"Terrorists fit into the organized crime category. We can severly reduce or stop it with the right techniques, just as we have with domestic organized crime."

Really? Thats news.

[Analyst]

[ QUOTE ]
"Terrorists fit into the organized crime category. We can severly reduce or stop it with the right techniques, just as we have with domestic organized crime."

Really? Thats news.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please get the attributions right when you quote. I never said that.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
If only the administration had shown such patience, restraint and foresight before deciding to invade Iraq, rather than claiming we were in immediate danger and pulling the trigger.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't believe Bush or senior admin officials claimed we were in "immediate" danger. In fact, I remember hearing Bush say we should invade because if we wait till the danger is immediate, we've waited too long. Care to back up your statement?

[Analyst]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't believe Bush or senior admin officials claimed we were in "immediate" danger. In fact, I remember hearing Bush say we should invade because if we wait till the danger is immediate, we've waited too long. Care to back up your statement?

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that you're correct and that Bush never used that exact phrase. There is no doubt in my mind, however, that on this occassion and many, many others, Bush certainly implied that Iraq presented an immediate and present danger. The specific quote to which you refer is:

"If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late," Bush said. "Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

So I guess we needed to invade because, while we weren't in immediate danger, we were in immediate danger of being in immediate danger, or perhaps in immediate danger of being in immediate danger of being in immediate danger. How close do you need to get to "immediate danger" to invade? Given the containment and weapon inspections at the time, I don't think we were remotely close enough to justify the cost that has been, and will be, paid.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no doubt in my mind, however, that on this occassion and many, many others, Bush certainly implied that Iraq presented an immediate and present danger. The specific quote to which you refer is:

"If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late," Bush said. "Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

[/ QUOTE ]
Your opinion and his quote don't match. How can he be implying an imminent danger while OTOH saying we shouldn't wait till the danger is imminent?

[ QUOTE ]
How close do you need to get to "immediate danger" to invade?

[/ QUOTE ]
It depends.

[ QUOTE ]
Given the containment and weapon inspections at the time, I don't think we were remotely close enough to justify the cost that has been, and will be, paid.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, that's your opinion.

[Analyst]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Given the containment and weapon inspections at the time, I don't think we were remotely close enough to justify the cost that has been, and will be, paid.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, that's your opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, and so far it looks as though I'm unfortunately correct. Given what we've paid already in lives and money, and the costs yet to come, I sincerely hope to be wrong in the long term.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
So I guess we needed to invade because, while we weren't in immediate danger, we were in immediate danger of being in immediate danger, or perhaps in immediate danger of being in immediate danger of being in immediate danger. How close do you need to get to "immediate danger" to invade? Given the containment and weapon inspections at the time, I don't think we were remotely close enough to justify the cost that has been, and will be, paid.

[/ QUOTE ]


This just goes back again to what myself and other posters have said. Namely that threats are best dealt with when small and the price to eliminate them is less than when those threats have been left to fester (appeased) and the price becomes even greater to deal with them.

Like I said, democrats/libs are short term thinkers and fair weather soldiers.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

This just goes back again to what myself and other posters have said. Namely that threats are best dealt with when small and the price to eliminate them is less than when those threats have been left to fester (appeased) and the price becomes even greater to deal with them.

[/ QUOTE ]

So very true.

Probably the most stunning example of this principle in action (or lack of action;-)) would be Hitler and Nazi Germany. France could have kicked easily his butt back out of the Sudetenland, no? But his having been allowed to just take the Sudetenland, and to continue building his war machine without serious setback, eventually led to disastrous consequences all around.

[andyfox]

I sometimes think that the "example" of Hitler (and, more specifically, the appeasement at Munich) are worse as examples than they were as actual events. We heard the same thing throughout the Cold War: If we don't stop the Commies in Nicaragua (or Guatemala or El Salvador or Chile or . . . ), soon they'll be in Mexico and next thing you know they'll be here. Didn't we learn from not stopping Hitler?

The problem with these analogies, of course, is that Salvador Allende and Daniel Ortega were not Hitler. Nor were their countries Germany. Nor was the 1980s and 1930s.

I know you're not saying that Hussein = Hitler. But the idea that Hussein had to be stopped begs the question: stopped from what? Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice said Hussein was bottled up, incapable of causing much harm just a couple of months before 9/11. How did he suddenly become unbottled on 9/12?