>We may know this now but what did Clinton know in 1998 and Bush now before the war?
Ummm... both Powell and Rice said in 2001 that Saddam was effectively disarmed and contained.
>It's been tested to work. Granted it cannot stop a large China or Russia attack, but it would stop a North Korea or Iran or Germany or France taking one shot.
Not what I've read, but then again, I read a lot from the "liberal media!"
>Are we splitting hairs here? Clinton and Bush were convinced there were WMD in Iraq. Unfortunately we do not know the future today as Clinton and Bush did not know the future when decisions had to be made.
I'm not sure.
>You would keep a few soldiers with the inspectors to prevent them from being thrown out? I don't see how that would work.
It ain't always easy to toss out dudes who are more armed than you are. But you're right, it's not an ideal solution. There isn't one.
>You always plan for the worse and hope for the best. Seems like the media loves the 9/11 commission for saying not enough was done to prevent it, but then they are hypocrites when someone tries to do something. Patriot Act, Missile Defense Shield, Profiling, Fingerprinting aliens, closing the borders, etc.
I personally like the last three, not the first two.
>Not doing anything at all is not an option is it? Are you willing to wait until struck?
Who's advocating doing nothing at all? There are a fair amount of degrees between doing nothing and going to war.
I didn't mean doing nothing at all, I meant not having to pay at all.
>I do get the impression that a lot of Kerry's position on Iraq is that he supported removing Saddam, but he didn't like the way it turned out. Well tough; life sucks then you die.
I kinda do as well. His position on this isn't in accord with mine, and it feels politically motivated.
>Would you advocate going to Sudan or North Korea or Iran today or when in the near future or not at all?
To be honest, I'm not sure. There are definitely pros and cons for each.
>Remember the polls in the beginning? An unnamed democrat would beat Bush yet any named democrat would lose. It still applies today. Kerry can't beat Bush so the effort is campaign on promoting the "anyone but Bush" play.
Isn't that almost always the case up until the debates?
-Z |
