...although even the Chinese are getting pretty sick of it by now.
Let's also not forget their dirty nuclear bombs and artillery which could devastate Seoul.
But the choice for Democrats wasn't really about which country to attack (if any). It was whether Democrats could say no when the President of the United States identified Saddam as a major threat and said he had WMDs. It's easy for perennial haters of the Democratic party to pile on now, but it was incredibly difficult to say no at the time.
"During the lead-up to the invasion, I was concerned that the hell-bent focus on invading Iraq was being driven by agendas and strategic objectives that had nothing to do with terrorism or the 9/11 attacks. The overt rationale for the invasion was exceedingly weak, particularly given that it would lead to an open-ended, incalculably costly, and intensely risky preemptive war. Around the same time, it was revealed that an invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein had been high on the agenda of various senior administration officials long before September 11. Despite these doubts, concerns, and grounds for ambivalence, I had not abandoned my trust in the Bush administration. Between the president’s performance in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the swift removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the fact that I wanted the president to succeed, because my loyalty is to my country and he was the leader of my country, I still gave the administration the benefit of the doubt. I believed then that the president was entitled to have his national security judgment deferred to, and to the extent that I was able to develop a definitive view, I accepted his judgment that American security really would be enhanced by the invasion of this sovereign country(*).
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
= new reply since forum marked as read
