"If you had known then what you know now, would you have invaded Iraq?"
A little old news from Saddam's files
By AcademicElephant Posted in Archived | debate over the war | greeted with flowers | Saddam and al Qaeda | WMD — Comments (116) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
A favorite question of Iraq war opponents is, "If you had known then what you know now, would you have invaded Iraq?" Given all the lies (WMD, links to terrorism) that dogged the lead up to the war, this question generally comes as a brilliant coup de grace in the argument that Iraq has been a brutal, expensive mistake that never should have happened in the first place.
And all too often those who support the war duck this question. The lame, default riposte is that everyone saw the same intelligence and anyway, the fact is that we're in Iraq it doesn't matter why we went--what matters now is winning.
Of course, winning matters very much. But for that victory to be meaningful, I think we need to remember, not avoid, the reasons we went to war in the first place. They may not be as spurious or flawed as many think.
I propose that the answer to "If you had know then what you know now, would you have invaded Iraq?" should be "Yes, and here's why."
Read on...
In a widely-ignored recent interview, Saddam's interrogator revealed that while the dictator may or may not have had stockpiles of easily identifiable WMD, he had mothballed, not dismantled, his programs and intended to restart them. I suppose my partner in this imaginary dialogue might argue that we should have waited for inconvertible proof that Saddam had reconstituted his nuclear program and actively was pursuing a weapon to invade, but I'm not so sure that situation was going to improve with the keeping.
And now we have a mysterious but significant Pentagon report, the "Iraqi Perspectives Project," on documents from Saddam's regime--some 600,000 of them--that have been slowly translated and analyzed over the last five years. The Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes, who has been a strong advocate for the release of the documents, has an article on the report that gives a much more in-depth look at its contents then the brief and dismissive reports it got from other media outlets.
Hayes' article is an eye-opener. While there is no "smoking gun," no photo of Saddam shaking hands with Osama bin Laden, there is a long and convoluted trail of shared associations and goals that underscores Saddam's complicancy with the Islamacist terrorist movement. As Hayes points out, Saddam did not necessarily want the rest of the world to know about his covert support for terrorism (hence its "covert" status):
In July 2001, an Iraqi Intelligence agent described an al Qaeda affiliate in Bahrain, the Army of Muhammad, as "under the wings of bin Laden." Although the organization "is an offshoot of bin Laden," the fact that it has a different name "can be a way of camouflaging the organization." The agent is told to deal with the al Qaeda group according to "priorities previously established."
There's plenty more where that came from. I recommend reading the whole thing.
Hayes is justifiably frustrated that the Administration has allowed the media to bury or mischaracterize the report. He believes that the Pentagon decided not to release it because of fear or inertia in the face of the campaign to discredit it. He may well be correct, but there is another possibility--that someone argued convincingly that releasing the report and so the documents it details would give away valuable intelligence. If this is the case, then the documents may be even more damning that even Hayes realizes.
But either way, what we do know about the report suggests that those who are so certain the original justification for the war was so fatally flawed that it has rendered the entire enterprise invalid might want to reconsider their position in the light of what we know now as opposed to what we knew in 2003. Based on that knowledge, they might want to give some thought to an alternate history of the last five years--a history in which we did not invade Iraq. Would we now be consumed with Obama's pastor and Spitzer's hooker, or would our attention be on more serious threats to our national security?
Fortunately for all of us, that's a question we don't have to answer.
« BREAKING: Bank Collapses. Feds cite Sen. Chuck Schumer as "immediate cause" of collapse — Comments (14) | Wednesday Open Thread — Comments (25) »
"If you had known then what you know now, would you have invaded Iraq?" 116 Comments (0 topical, 116 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
tiger....Osama and the rest of Middle East have quickly learned...we must win this war....period.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
Hanson made a similar point over at NRO.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjYyN2JhMmQyMDdkN2Y4MmNkMGZkMzU1M2Y...
I atrongly agree this is important, but I think the real threat posed by Saddam needs to be recognized as well.
Already understand these things.
For the other side, you could have had photos, of Saddam dancing with the WMD and they would still be shouting no blood for oil.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
it could be argued that we already achieved our goal of killing al Qaida terrorists by invading Afghanistan.
It could also be argued that the occupation of Iraq has damaged our military supremacy over other nations and hindered our ability to deploy force elsewhere.
Not saying anyone is right or wrong here, just that at this point the "if you knew then..." argument is akin to a Rorschach test.
The underlying subtext to the question is the implication that the Iraq expedition has been a failure.You are echoing this subtext whether you realize it or not.
AQ did not declare Afghanistan to be a win or die situation the way they did Iraq. Afghanistan nicely proved our military to be significantly more competent than the Russian military. But lets face it they haven't been known for skill in that part of the world since the 1800's. If anything has weakened the foreign policy benefits, its been the bellyaching of the left.
So yes it may be like a Rorschach test but its testing if the person has a leftwing bias that all war is unjustified.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
"Failure" is a possible subtext, but not the only one; and the definition of failure in Iraq depends on how one defines success. For my part, I would view Balkanization of the country and a withdrawal of our military that does not precipitate a humanitarian disaster as a success. This on top of ousting a brutal dictator. Would "I" still invade? Probably not. But that has to with another subtext. : )
And asking a pacifist "...would you still invade?" is meaningless. No subtext needed.
That almost seems like a finite and fixed number of Al Quaeda terrorists.
From what I have heard, most of the Al Quaeda terrorists in Iraq are Iraqi and the leadership is foreign. If that's the case, then we are really killing those responsible for 9-11.
The bigger question for me - after 5 years of war and 4000 American dead, are there more or less Al Quaeda terrorists?
In retrospect, I think it was a mistake, while strongly supporting it at the time.
I know that doesn't answer your question, but most of the terrorists identified by Iraqi soldiers themselves were Jordanian or Syrian on my end of the country.
If Bush is right and democracy flouishes in the middle east, 30 - 60 years from now this won't be an issue. You can look at it as the war will be won economically, but this current battle for Iraq is a distracting tactic so the enemy stays occupied fighting us there and not here. I don't think fighting them in Iraq will win the war as I think fighting them could be indefinite as far as combat and logistics goes without a broader plan. But when we run out their supply for bodies by democratizing the middle east, that's when we'll win.
"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."
The endgame is to get the Middle East kicking and screaming into the 20th century (or at least the 19th).
Economics will play a huge role - and for that to happen there needs to be stability. It's a chicken and egg thing.
those of us who have supported the President for the past six years -- blogged about it, and argued passionately for support of it -- knew this all along; the report merely confirms our beliefs.
Those who opposed the war from the start -- the selected-not-elected-dKos-type-McHitlerBush-war-for-oil crowd, is not interested in any report, no matter what it says.
And the vast number of Americans in the middle? The public? They are all eagerly awaiting the return of Dancing with the Stars next week.
===
This post has been brought to by Thorazyne and other psychotropic drugs -- better living through chemistry
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/881yeg...
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
"While there is no "smoking gun," no photo of Saddam shaking hands with Osama bin Laden"
You've gotta be kidding me- by that rationale, then what we do have is smoking gun evidence that the United States was complicit in Saddam's terrorist attacks in the 80's. Give me a break.
My point was that a photo of Saddam shaking hands with bin Laden, while perhaps the litmus test for some of an al Qaeda connection, would be to my understanding far less meaningful than the evidence in these documents.
I was being...ironic.
No question that al-Qaida had extensive ties with Saddam & his regime. Please do not forget, though, that their principals and operatives had extensive ties with US intelligence, too. These were from the Afghanistan campaigns against the Russian occupancy of that unhappy nation. Supposedly, the story goes, we created al-Qaida through those operations and funding. Whether that is true or not, we did have a lot of contact with them at that time. I do not suppose that these contacts ceased with the Russian exit. The case for the invasion of Iraq is only partly supported by a lengthy report of their ties to Saddam. What would a similar report of their ties to US intelligence read like?
We needed to go into Iraq for two simple reasons / causes. One of them is because, as you've stated, Saddam’s WMD programs were mothballed, not destroyed. Perhaps 'mothballed' is too generous a term: they were more decrepit than mothballed, and as a direct result of the sanctions and embargoes. That is the second reason we needed to go in: the sanctions program was falling apart at the seams. In another six months to a year it would have been a commercial open-season there. We would have seen major French and Russian industrial contracts in place despite the sanctions. This would have immeasurably complicated – even hamstrung –WMD eradication efforts. Saddam would have been in an excellent position to breathe new life into his favorite programs, as the world’s focus diminished and faded away. In not so many years thereafter he would have emerged more dangerous and, due to his megalomania, more ‘adventurous’ than before. We had enough trouble getting and keeping the sanctions that we had; we would have never succeeded a second time – not with a WMD-armed Iraq.
That said, I still think that we went in about three months prematurely. Useless as the UN is/was, the fact that we did not complete the pass through there that was in-progress at the time was always a big excuse for (a) no one else to join us, and (b) everyone to assert a moral superiority over those d__ned American cowboys who always do everything guns-ablazin’. That complicated our efforts considerably. Had we completed that last run through the UN, we would have come out with at least a studied neutrality by that body, if not a grudging assent to our invasion. We might have – might have – gotten a few more partners in our enterprise, but at least we would not have borne the condemnation. That would have made the war easier to prosecute. Yes, that would have put combat right into summer; our military troops have proved that that is not an issue to them.
We had been prodding the UN since Sept '02. It was simply a stall by Russia, France and the other oil-for-fraud recipients. We went in at the last possible moment wearing full haz-mat gear, if you remember. No way could we have done that in the summer. Nor could we have held the assault in waiting until fall.
You're right about the critical nature of the crumbling sanctions, and how Saddam's stock would have risen when the UN backed down.
Equally important was the military structure already committed to "contain" Saddam and "enforce" the UN "no-fly zones", etc. We could not have committed effective military force anywhere else than Iraq without withdrawing from the forces already in position there, thus giving Saddam another "victory" to crow about. Had to be Iraq.
And I would have answered the question with an enthusiastic "yes!"
"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."
I've had this argument a handful of times. When they ask that question, I always ask them if they think the world would be better off with Sadam in power. Because it only stands to reason, if we shouldn't have gone into Iraq, Sadam should still be in power (course that's a bit harder now that he's deceased). You would be surprised at how many of them still won't shut up. Bottom line: most people really don't want to realize how stupid the argument is in the first place.
now (can we have a moment of prayer in thanksgiving. . . ). He was asked in an interview leading up to the 2004 election that question and he sidestepped it. When the interviewer said well Hussein would still be power without the war, he said "We don't know that." How stupid.
"Government is too big and spends too much." Ronald Reagan
From my experience the rationale is that Saddam was both powerless and consumed with regional politics, and that if we had only left well enough alone 4000 American soldiers and countless Iraqis would still be alive--and as an added bonus Saddam would have contained Iran.
For me, this evidence suggests that he was neither powerless, nor focused solely on his own neighberhood.
Another problem that I see--and I know I suffer from this--is that many supporters are tired of having the same argument over and over and feel as if they are tilting at windmills. These documents made me think that it is worth having the argument--and that the argument can be won. Maybe Hayes is right and the Administration is too tired or incompetent in terms of public affairs to do it, but it still needs to be done.
"I always ask them if they think the world would be better off with Sadam in power."
That's the test as to whether or not the invasion of a country is justified?
So how many other leaders are currently on that list?
I might re-phrase, "Are you sure you would still be alive if Saddam were in power?" I live in one major east coast city and work in another--both likely targets for terrorism--and I am not so sure. But if evidence like this doesn't give you pause, then by all means go on arguing that there is a disconnect between deposing Saddam but leaving Mugabe in power.
"Are you sure you would still be alive if Saddam were in power?"
Given that the odds from the CDC set that at around 1 in 88,000, I would say Yes, I am absolutely sure.
Paranois was never a big one for me. Sometimes I go outside in thunderstorms too, though....
That will be comforting logic for anyone who has lost someone in a terrorist attack. I sincerely hope and pray your certainty is justified, and I wish I shared it.
Interesting you would mention that, because I know several people who have been killed in Iraq, but none who have ever been killed in a terorist attack. I must be in the minority.
I wouldn't presume to say if you're in the minority or majority.
I do think it's valid to speculate if Saddam had stayed in power more Americans would have died than our casualties in Iraq.
I for one thank God this remains speculation and thank those who have sacrificed in Iraq for making it so.
Is that our citizens can be that secure. I doubt the Spartans slept as well.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
And the main reason is different from what others are mentioning. The simple best reason is that Al Qaida leadership have said over and over that the reason they have not been able to attack the US on our homeland in recent years is that they are too busy fighting us in Iraq. That is proof positive that the war is keeping us safer, although the liberal Democrat media will never admit it.
"Government is too big and spends too much." Ronald Reagan
"The simple best reason is that Al Qaida leadership have said over and over that the reason they have not been able to attack the US on our homeland in recent years is that they are too busy fighting us in Iraq."
Links please.
My guess is this is probably the document in question:
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2005/10/dear_zarqawi_a.php
Still not seeing anything about our troops being in Iraq holding them back...
The link from where you're at to where you should be is education. I'm guessing you get your news from the liberal Democrat media. The CNN's, NYT's, and ABC's of the world have reported this, I have heard and seen them do so, but it's at the very end of the news or paper, and behind all the liberally slanted news they put forth. Maybe you're listening and reading only what's at the front and not getting behind that. I cannot quote you chapter and verse of this, although even if you were listening to the liberal Democrat media thoroughly you would know this.
One more link, I'd suggest that you get more of your news listening directly to US military leaders, who again have said they have intellegence on this a number of times, and lose the liberal Democrat news filter as much as possible.
Here's another idea, why don't you send a note to Hillary (I'm thinking she'll listen to liberals like you before she'd listen to me) and request that she ask Petraeus about this next month when she can question him, instead of calling him a GD liar to his face again. He could give you chapter and verse of this.
"Government is too big and spends too much." Ronald Reagan
I'll take that as a very long-winded "I have no evidence to back up my claim."
Thanks for the education lesson in the meantime.
Someone who deliberately chooses ignorance and revels in it.
Ayman al-Zawahiri
Letter to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi
Recovered during military operations in Iraq
July 9, 2005The Jihad in Iraq requires several incremental goals: The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq. The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or emirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate -- over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraq....The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq. The fourth stage...the clash with Israel...The mujahedeen must not have their mission end with the expulsion of the Americans from Iraq, and then lay down their weapons, and silence the fighting zeal.
Osama bin Laden
To the Muslims in Iraq in Particular and the [Islamic] Nation in General
Audio Message Posted on Jihadist Web Sites
Dec. 28, 2004I now address my speech to the whole of the Islamic nation: Listen and understand. The issue is big and the misfortune is momentous. The most important and serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War, which the Crusader-Zionist coalition began against the Islamic nation. It is raging in the land of the two rivers [Iraq]. The world’s millstone and pillar is in Baghdad, the capital of the caliphate…
Ayman al-Zawahiri
Interview with Sheikh Ayman al-Zawahiri
Video released by as-Sahab Media
May 5, 2007The critical importance of the Jihad in Iraq and Afghanistan becomes clear, because the defeat of the Crusaders there -- soon, Allah permitting -- will lead to the setting up of two mujahid emirates which will be launch pads for the liberation of the Islamic lands and the establishment of the Caliphate
THAT TOOK FIVE SECONDS WITH GOOGLE
And you wonder why you aren't taken seriously ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
It took you 5 seconds to Google what???
There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in there saying that as a direct result of our involvement in Iraq that they have not been able to attack us. The big font was impressive, I must admit.
That there are people that no amount of evidence, no amount of proof will suffice. That their heads are in places so dark and insulated that light will never shine there.
That those three statements and the others on that page doesn't tell you that AQ looks at Iraq as their battlefield and where they have to win, nothing could.
Woody Allen was thinking of you when he wrote Annie Hall.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
...and that is why we should have invaded Iraq.
Unbelievable- talk about having one's head in the sand.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Thank you- that perfectly sums up the atmosphere on this site.
But before you go, you might want to contemplate that people who call other people paranoid may not be in the best position to complain when they're treated with the same lack of respect.
Moe
PS: If you do decide to stick around, you will not do that again, particularly to Contributors. Is that understood?
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Please add this to the bottom of your comment next time you float images in a comment:
<p style="clear: both"/>
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
image.
In civilized Charleston we use diapers...
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Khadaffi gave up his nuclear weapons program in the wake of the Iraq invasion. That wasn't speculation. That was a real program staffed by Iraqi nuclear scientists, funded by oil for food money, who were actually within sight of producing nuclear weapons.
And anyone who doesn't think that Saddam would not be siting on a small stockpile of those weapons today had we not invaded is a damned fool.
It would indeed be a very different picture, with the option of invading to stop Saddam's expansionism and support of terrorism off the table.
Ah, that's an inconvenient smoking gun. Best to overlook it.
... " what you know now, would you have invaded Iraq?"
I will go out on a limb here and note that I believe this to be the dumbest question in the entire history of the human race.
I've been asked this question by my lefty friends and I always respond "and if I knew Saturday's lottery numbers on Friday I'd be a wealth man."
The very premise of this question, know then what I know now, is ridiculous, I'd say bordering on stupid; and that anyone dumb enough to introduce it into an argument is not worth the effort to engage.
But then I have a very low tolerance for stupidity.
John
----------
Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course
Hindsight is 20/20.
The only question now is how do we "win".
... is actually easy. The challenge is keeping others from forcing us to lose :-)
John
----------
Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course
I agree that the premise of the question is flawed, but I fear it needs to be answered.
In other news, how are you doing John? Good to cyber-see you.
Flawed? Now that may well qualify as the greatest understatement in the history of the human race :-)
As to me, I've been on RS just about every day since my departure from the ranks. Since that event I find I don't have much useful to add to the conversation so, in the best traditions of Abe Lincoln, I allow others to merely think me a fool rather than step in and confirm it :-) Sometimes, as with this question, I find I can't resist the urge ...
Keep the faith.
John
----------
Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course
We gave Saddam plenty of notice and there have been rumors of him moving WMD products to Syria. In fact, some have said Russia helped him. Again, these are all just rumors, but I have yet to hear the White House confirm or deny them. I've also heard that Bush won't confirm them because of relations with Russia. I say, if it's true, screw Russia and tell the truth!
When you say "fortunately for all of us," are we to assume you mean fortunately for all of us that haven't been killed over in Iraq? I understand your point concerning the threat Sadam may have posed, but it is not as if Americans have not paid a price for removing that threat. Maybe we should be a little more careful with our words, especially those of us who who seem to be employed with their use?
...then neither are you.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
There was a whole bouquet of good reasons to invade Iraq. The danger SH had nukes. To administer a wholesome lesson to the other jerkthug states that bad things happen to those who irritate the USA. The interesting experiment of infecting the region with democracy. And, let's say it, oil. To have our own secure oil well, and a pretty big one at that. Cynical? Only if you believe the world is like Sesame Street.
Knowing what we know now, we should have spoken to the American people like adults.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
Even still, we don't import much oil from Iraq anyway. See the DOE statistics. If President Bush was looking for a country to invade so we could get oil, he should have chosen Venezuela.
I don't feel like I was not spoken to as an adult. I understood everything I was told about the issue and I accept that, given the best information available at the time, we did the right thing for the right reasons. I don't recall anyone rational ever arguing oil as a reason, that was an outright calumny perpetrated by the left.
At the same time, the administration has been incompetent and an embarrassment when it comes to responding, or more correctly not responding, to the misrepresentations, falsehoods and outright lies perpetrated by the Democrats and their handmaidens in the press --- beginning with the famous 16 words and extending through detentions at Guantanamo.
We do have a number of our own secure oil wells --- the lefties won't let us use them, they'd rather have us at the mercy of dictators and despots just so they can complain about the administration for political points.
John
----------
Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course
At the same time, the administration has been incompetent and an embarrassment when it comes to responding, or more correctly not responding, to the misrepresentations, falsehoods and outright lies perpetrated by the Democrats and their handmaidens in the press --- beginning with the famous 16 words and extending through detentions at Guantanamo.
Couldn't have put it better myself.
Knowing what I know now, Iraq should have been invaded right on the heels of Tora Bora, Afghanistan. We gave Saddam, and Russia’s "technicians," much, too much time.
For your perusal, here’s an excerpt from the Foreword of the unclassified report from the Institute for Defense Analyses:
The Iraqi Perspectives Project. In September 2003 the Commander, United States Joint Forces Command (USJFCOM), asked the Joint Advanced Warfighting Program (JAWP) at the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) to help develop the operational and strategic lessons from OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM (OIF) from the perspectives of former senior Iraqi decision-makers. By creating a historical narrative of the events surrounding OIF, interviewing captured prisoners, and reviewing translations of enemy documents and media archives, IDA researchers were able to report on the inner workings-and sometimes delusional behavior en masse-of the Saddam Hussein regime.
For this paper, the JAWP Iraqi Perspectives Project (IPP) research team screened more than 600,000 original captured documents (1) and several thousand hours of audio and video footage archived in a US Department of Defense (DOD) database called Harmony. As of August 2006, only 15 percent of the captured documents have English translations. Nevertheless, a user can search all of the documents by their cataloging descriptions, i.e., by topic, key concepts, and date, all of which are in English.
IPP Phase I. The results of IPP research have been captured and published in official US government-supported products that range from government reports to books and articles published in open literature. Phase I task deliverables to USJFCOM included a 350-page classified report, with unclassified versions of the report published later by the US Government Printing Office and the Naval Institute Press. (2)
(emphasis added)
For those who wish to read the entire unclassified version of the report for themselves:
INSTITUTE FOR DEFENSE ANALYSES
Joint Advanced Warfighting ProgramIDA Paper P-4287
Iraqi Perspectives Project
Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents - Volume 1 (Redacted)(pdf format)
Liberals, read it and weep.
For the rest of us, Operation Iraqi Freedom was more than justified.
It was necessary.
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
... five years later because, although major combat operations ended in May 2003, we didn't stabilize Iraq and turn it back over to the Iraqis. Had we done so, we'd be looking back today and saying what a great thing we've done for the world, and everyone would agree. Instead, we're still figuring out how to transition out of Iraq, rebuild the military, secure our own borders and combat terrorism everywhere else in the world. ***THAT*** is what the problem is ... not whether we should have gone in!
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
I'm not suggesting a timetable. I think that, as part of the original war plan, you would want your military and the state department to have that stabilization plan and execute it immediately. I believe that the President didn't ask for reconstruction $$ until September, it was approved a month or two later, and by the next spring, it still hadn't been spent. Its worth looking at that and learning from it - clear, hold and build from the outset.
As for what we do now, I wouldn't suggest a timetable because it is just a political football. I hope that the smart guys are evaluating risks and rewards, including opportunity costs elsewhere, and will make sound judgements based on that.
These things don't happen overnight. Not in the Confederacy, not in Germany, and not in Iraq.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
Went on into 1950s (Eisenhower forcing desegregation)
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Regardless of whether or not it was right or wrong Congress has the sole power to Declare War. The President acted without authority and unConsitutionally for attacking Iraq. We do not need Presidents to unilaterally get us into war. That is why Congress has that responsiblility. We would not have this bickering about whether it was right or wrong. Only when we have not Declared War and invaded a country have we had this kind of problems (Korea, Vietnam, and now Iraq). War can not be the decision of one person, that is a recipe for disaster and is why our Constitution forbids it.
Sens. Lieberman, Kerry, Edwards, and Clinton all voted for it, too.
You really should try to keep up on your facts before lecturing on the Constitution.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
The Constitution is clear. A Declaratin is required. Get your facts straight.
Point to me what Constitutional requirement for a Declaration of War that was not met by that AUMF-Iraq.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
From a legal standpoint. Are we in a state of "Declared War". Many legal documents and contracts have clauses defining how the parties are to be treated in a "state of Declared War". A Declared War has a specific legal meaning. So one of the parties to the contract will not be able to get the contract enforced to the terms of the contract. Because our Congress is full of a pack of spineless wonders they put out this ridiculous "authorization of force" and thus betrayed their duty to Declare War as required. So are we in a "Declared War"?
You fail. Just like Ron Paul. You two are equally wrong about the Constitution. Your view has been noted, considered, and completely and entirely rejected down to its essence by the overwhelming majority of the people.
Guess what: Those of us who have actually read the thing, because we're not too busy hoarding gold and weirdly captializing words like unconstitutional, understand it just fine.
You are like a blind sheep who keeps ignoring when he gets guided by his shepherd. You don't know where you are, you don't know where you're going, and I don't see how I'm going to get through to you.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
I'll just use your words since you don't have a clue about anyone elses. To blind to see things clearly.
"You fail. Just like, well you. You two are equally wrong about the Constitution. Your view has been noted, considered, and completely and entirely rejected..."
And I don't need Ron Paul to read something so plainly written as the Constitution. You just like to twist it to fit your perverted views. Then you cry when someone else like Democrats do the same.
My argument is that there is a legal requirement that has not been met. Would you like contracts you signed to suddenly become void because the proper legal language was not written by our spineless Congress. Words have meanings!
If there were you would have quoted that part of the Constitution by now.
The Constitution only requires the Congress to do it. It doesn't specify how.
And most members of the Congress aren't spineless. They stood up and authorized the war. It's you people who are looking to chicken out and surrender.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
If they had a spine they would have formally declared war and taken the responibility for it. Instead they weaseled out of the responsibility so they can say it was him not us.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
Do you not like open discussions[,] and [or do you just] get bored eas[il]y? [You] [d]on't want to give people some credit for something in their comments. [You make] [n]o attempts to persuade others to your views. [You] [j]ust [demonstrate a] "my views are right[,] and your[s are] stupid" mental[]ity. I guess you are the all[-]mighty[,] infall[i]ble Neil. [You've] [n]ever been wrong.
Sorry[:] I didn't know [that] I was in the presence of greatness. Please accept my apology for my ignorance.
[Sure, but don't let it happen again. Oh, and by the way? Not in your name, RWB08. - Moe Lane]
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
Quoting from H.J.Res 114 of the 107th Congress:
The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.
....Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific
statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of
the War Powers Resolution.
And in case you don't get that last bit, here's a quote from the War Powers Resolution:
It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
The War Powers Resolution implements the war parts of the Constitution. It's not against them, it IS the way we declare war. I dare you to find a process declared ANYWHERE before the WPR was passed, that cannot Constitutionally be superseded by the Congress.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
And while I agree that one wasn't necessary, or even appropriate in the case of Iraq because of the tortuous UN-based rationale for the war (note: I'm one of those guys that wants out the U.N., like, *yesterday*), I would like to see a President have the cajones to actually force Congress into passing a real, bona fide "official" Declaration of War one of these days.
But I fear it won't happen until, one way or another, someone actually (tries to, or does) nuke us...
The Constitution doesn't say that the Congressional resolution has to contain the words "Declaration of War" to be valid. The Constitution is not a game of Simon Says.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
To pacify the people who are sticklers for stupidity...
Just have Congress pass a resolution that goes.
One.
Two.
Three.
Four.
I Declare a Big War.
On a side note, I also believe no thumb war can be "legal" without similiar words being stated.
Next we'd need to pass resolutions banning the International Zionist Conspiracy, the secret Bilderberger veto over US Foreign Policy, and the use of Chemtrails for population control.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
NT.
Just how many Al Quaeda terrorists have we killed in Iraq ? These people are at war with us. They don't engage in stand up fights by invading Iraq we have forced them to give battle.
Done Iraq is worth it just for that.
The side benefit that countries in the region will think long and hard before trying anything is just a plus.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777