Let Me Paraphrase President Bush's speech tonight:

[BluffTHIS!]

andy, misapplications in the past of the principle I stated and MMMMMM commented on, does not invalidate the logic nor the historical accuracy of it.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not that Saddam became "unbottled" on 9/12--rather, 9/11 made us far more keenly aware of our vulnerability to terror-type attacks and to assymetric warfare. The spectre of a Saddam selling/giving/bargaining WMDs to any terror group was simply too ghastly to allow, even if it was a small chance. We can't afford to take a "small chance" on things that could be far worse than 9/11. And again, the intelligence then was different than now.

[Cyrus]

...or should be dead, in any case.

This is the 21st century. Unthinking Nationalism will not carry us very far. In fact, the abyss is just a few hot buttons away.

Yes, the United States of America is conducting (yet another) BAD WAR; this times in Iraq. The war in Iraq is a "bad war" on many accounts:

- Because the reasons given for the war by those who started it, turned out to have been all false, except one: that Saddam was the bad, bad wolf.

- Because the United States chose to ignore its allies and friends and go it alone, thus making the war against terrorism that much more difficult to conduct.

- Because it was a setback, in itself, to the war against islamic terror.

- Because the war was planned and executed by the political leadership, particularly the post-conquest, "nation-building" phase, badly and, most importantly, contrary to what the military was recommending.

This is a BAD WAR and America deserves to lose it.

[/b]So that a few lessons can be learned[/b]. Someone who firmly believes that he does not ever make mistakes is condemned to keep on doing 'em!

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a BAD WAR and America deserves to lose it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Truly pathetic conclusion.

[ QUOTE ]
How did he suddenly become unbottled on 9/12?

[/ QUOTE ]
Haliburton needed some new contracts.

[canis582]

http://mediamatters.org/items/200512200001

Then perhaps Bush should've verified the intelligence rather than rush to war so that his buddies could profit.

[andyfox]

But if Hussein was unable to sell/give/bargain WMDs to a terror group on 9/10, how did he magically gain that power on 9/12? I'm not saying we shouldn't have looked at things differently on 9/12 than we did on 9/10. I am saying that the administration used the excuse of 9/11 to go after Hussein, which it's neocon members had been itching to do from the get-go.

Hussein was not being ignored pre 9/11. That's why he was "bottled up." It was the Taliban's harboring of Al Qaeda that was being ignored. [Even the barbaric social programs of the Taliban failed to inspire any meaningful condemnation from the United States. (It was, of all people, Jay Leno's wife, who publicly complained about the treatment of women in Taliban-led Afghanistan that first garnered attention from Amreican officials.)]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A person in grave danger is at an imminent threat of the negative affects of said danger.

[/ QUOTE ]
No they are not. For example, Iran trying to build nukes constitutes a grave danger to Israel. But the threat of nuclear attack on Israel is not imminent.

If you still can't understand the difference, don't bother replying.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who's playing semantics now? Iran building a gigantic hammer that can crush 50 square miles constitutes a grave danger to Isreal. But they're not in imminent danger of being crushed. Do you thing Bush was purposely using such a vague interpretation of 'grave' or do you think he was trying to convey the message of "we gotta do something quick cuz this [censored]'s crazy?"

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
But if Hussein was unable to sell/give/bargain WMDs to a terror group on 9/10, how did he magically gain that power on 9/12?

[/ QUOTE ]

He didn't suddenly gain any new powers; but we became more acutely aware of potential dangers. And if Saddam had proceeded apace, as we thought he was doing, to develop such weapons, that was suddenly a more ominous concern.


[ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying we shouldn't have looked at things differently on 9/12 than we did on 9/10. I am saying that the administration used the excuse of 9/11 to go after Hussein, which it's neocon members had been itching to do from the get-go.

Hussein was not being ignored pre 9/11. That's why he was "bottled up." It was the Taliban's harboring of Al Qaeda that was being ignored. [Even the barbaric social programs of the Taliban failed to inspire any meaningful condemnation from the United States. (It was, of all people, Jay Leno's wife, who publicly complained about the treatment of women in Taliban-led Afghanistan that first garnered attention from Amreican officials.)]

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see it as an "excuse" but rather an additional reason amongst many.

You seem deeply concerned with the hierarchy of motivations. To me, they were ALL good reasons to go after Hussein: I could probably list a half-dozen off the top of my head, and there were more. That the administration emphasized certain reasons over others, in order to to "sell" the war, doesn't matter much to me. And that regime change was a darling idea of the neo-cons was to me just another good reason to go to war, neo-cons or not: regime change in iraq was the policy of the Clinton administration too, but it was Bush who had the balls to actually do it. So all reasons pointed to removing Saddam. If anything, I think the Bush administration could have benefitted from better marketing strategy, but if there are ten good reasons to do a thing, does it much matter which is sold first? Not a great deal to my way of thinking.