Kerrey: No wonder Democrats are not trusted with the reins of power

While not connected he does say

Now why the heck would he be more of a threat on Sept. 12, 2001 than Sept. 10, 2001 if he had no connection at all with 9/11?

I agree this article is pretty muddled and it reads to me like Bob Kerrey has gotten a dose of Lieberman which he hasn't completely figured out yet. He goes on for most of the article justifying why we should've invaded Iraq and then sites Webb's quote that we don't need to invade.

The only area where he seems to be clear is pointing out the hypocrisy of advocating military intervention in some places while decrying it in others. While this is logical it is simplistic though as he's not taking into account the differences in those situations.

 

^ But the actual threat of Saddam didn't change. We just got more paranoid.

I agree that many presidents would've gone after Saddam but its highly questionable whether any reasonable president would've gone after Saddam after 9/11. My view of a reasonable president would be to focus on getting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and keep pressure on Saddam but not launch a full scale invasion of Iraq while we were still fighting in Afghanistan, without UN authorization or a far bigger coalition.

 

Refman, I've said from the beginning that if Saddam turned out to have the means and motive to inflict damage on American soil I would change my position on the war. It was a widely held belief (by UN inspectors, allied nations and many Americans including such Bush I alumni as Brent Scowcroft) that he did not have the means (no WMD's and/or no suitable delivery system) or the motive (as that would surely bring war with the US which he could never survive) before the war began. But I always said that if that were proven wrong I would change my position and support the war. It wasn't proven wrong so I haven't. That's not resolute or stubborn; it's common sense.

 

We've been through all this before and I don't expect you to argue honestly here either but there were quotes from US intelligence saying that Saddam would only use WMD's if he were attacked because he knew that doing so otherwise would spell his demise. So there goes motive.

It was also the consensus of the UN inspectors that there were no WMD's.

And as for capability, Bush and Powell argued they'd developed missile systems that would allow them to fire nukes onto our soil. Not only were they wrong about those missiles, they were wrong about the supposed nuke program.

Now you can keep arguing as though those things aren't/weren't true and you can keep arguing that US intel agencies believed the crap Bush sold to the nation even though we now know that he cherrypicked and quashed anything contrary to the case he was trying to make but you can't change the fact that Bush and everyone that agreed with him was wrong on every important count.

There were no WMD's, there was no nuclear program, there was no 9/11 connection, we were not and are not winning regardless of how many good news (look, they built a school!) stories the media fails to report. And 76% of the nation has removed the blinders, recovered from the lies they've been told and believe the war is going badly. Around 60% believe we never should have gone in the first place.

It is amazing you still have the nerve to show your face around here. You might as well be arguing that Eddie Griffin is headed for the Hall of Fame.

 

basso you are supposed to be surging the bbs with propaganda but instead you are withdrawing. Way to support the war effort.

 

Or, in shorter form, you are wrong on all counts as usual.

The motive was absolutely disputed, the tools were absolutely not at hand and the means had not been demonstrated (unless you are counting domestic US airplanes as the WMD's we went there to destroy LOL).

Back when I used to waste time arguing with you I never would have believed you to be so stupid that you would keep up your arguments in the face of the incredible, indisputable evidence we have now. Turns out you are. I mean, wow. Anyway, live and learn. (Not you; I realize now you can't. That was a note to myself.)

 

Of course Saddam didn't harbor terrorists, and certainly not after 9/11. He also did not retain any WMD after 9/11, and it didn't nor would it have required an invasion to ensure that he didn't do so.

 

There was no credible threat from Saddam's Iraq to the United States of America from WMDs. The statement I highlighted from your post is as wildly exaggerated as the BS that comes out of Bush's mouth on the rare times he gives a press conference. You have no credible argument here, basso, so you lower yourself to parroting the same garbage that Bush, Rove, Cheney, and the Rush's of the radio spout incessantly. Fear. That's all you have. When there is no logical argument Bush and company fall back on fear, even to the extent of ignoring the questions from the media at his own press conference today by using the same tired tactic against the reporters, for Christ's sake. And when fear doesn't appear to be enough, they, and you, question the patriotism of those who disagree with this bankrupt "policy." It's really sad to see. I expect this stuff from Bush and his people. I don't know why, but it still surprises me to hear it from you.


edit: I was interrupted while typing this, and others have already said what I've said here, but I'll post it anyway.



D&D. Replicant City.

 

Iraq has become a second Afganistan. It's a mess, will be a mess, and no matter what we do - there will be a heavy price.

It's a lose - lose - lose situation.

Thanks Bush for creating a quagmire.

 

Again, he had never ever given any WMD's to terrorists, didn't have a working relationship with terrorists.

In fact the intel all said that even if Saddam had WMD's there wasn't a likelihood that he would have given them to terrorists or use them on the U.S. unless he saw that he was about to be taken out. That is from all of the U.S. intel agencies except one, which said he wouldn't use them even then.

There was never any indication at all that he would use them on the U.S. or give them to terrorists. And we had the means to continue to prevent that from being a possibility in the future without an invasion.

Anyone who feels different is paranoid and has an irrational fear, possibly caused by reaction to 9/11.

 

I was going to lay off the pile on but I have to respond to this. As countless studies have pointed out while many believed Saddam possesed WMD's there was no consensus at all regarding his use of them and especially him giving them to terrorist or trying to have Iraqi agents use them.

Most analysts looked at Saddam as being primarily interested in self-preservation and giving up precious stocks of WMD to groups of with no guarentee of loyalty, in fact Osama Bin Ladin had expressed a loathing for Saddam, would not have been a move that Saddam would've done to assure his survival.

The nexus between terrorism and WMD was purely speculative with no credible evidence supporting it.

As I said Saddam's capabilities never changed between 9/10 and 9/12 we just got more paranoid. Paranoia isn't a good justification.

 

All good and well to give examples, but why do they have to be so weak?

Germany and Japan were WW2 era dictatorships that could've ruled the world; they just don't make those kind of dictatorships anymore. There are so many differences between those regimes and the ones of the present that pretty much using these to justify imposing democracy indicate that you have next to nothing in terms of valid excuses.

...And Bosnia?...man. This guy really has no examples, since Bosnia had democracy going BEFORE NATO had to defend it from the Serbs.