I know you're still a loyal Democratic Party member, Senator Hart, and as such may have trouble speaking the entire TRUTH about the matter. But, for those of us NOT drinking the kool-aid of either party, it's all too apparent that many deals between the DLC and the RNC are worked out behind closed doors, and that the actual votes in CONgress are just for show, to sell the public on how 'hard-fought' the issue was. This then, is how corporate and industry lobbyists have and do control OUR country.
When the members of government elected to represent the people and protect The Constitution, instead accept the influence (and money) provided by corporations and industry, you have your answer as to WHY those same members prevaricate on issues like occupation of other countries for THEIR natural resources, making ANY effort to protect OUR planet from pollution or just continuing to imprison drug addicts instead of creating programs to provide REAL help. Defense, energy, pharmaceutical and health insurance corporations are great examples of industries far more interested in bottom-line than ANYTHING that happens to the American people.
Money and continued power, sir, are the REAL culprits of compromise and selling out OUR citizens within the Democratic Party, and OUR entire government, instead of as you phrased it, "...political expediency or perverted ideological agendas". In this betrayal, the two political parties ...are one.
War and Remembrance
Had leading Democrats taken the trouble to fashion thoughtful and reasonable national security principles in the post-Vietnam era and thereby regained the confidence of the American people in their ability to protect the country, quite possibly they would have felt comfortable opposing the invasion of Iraq. Instead, they permitted the now infamous war resolution to become a test of their "strength" and George W. Bush was provided a necessary bipartisan coalition of support.
Democratic leaders could have conditioned their votes on a requirement that the president answer four questions: Who is going with us?; How long will we be there?; How much will it cost?; and, What are the estimated casualties? These are reasonable questions, and the administration should have been forced to go on record with its estimates, estimates for which it could then have been held accountable by the American people.
War fighting calculations include worst-case scenarios. Based on British experience in the 1920s to the 1940s, and based upon even a cursory study of the Islamic struggle in Mesopotamia, any reasonable person would conclude, and some did, that the overthrow of the strongman Saddam Hussein and dismantling of existing security structures would unleash 1300-year-old factional violence, that the American viceroy would be captive in his castle (read: Green Zone), and that occupying forces would be incapable of restoring order anytime short of 20 years.
Given the rampant incompetence of the Bush administration, its arrogance and twisted self-righteousness, and its violation of America's republican heritage, under normal circumstances the Democratic Party would be assured of thirty to forty years of majority leadership. But that advantage was squandered for short-term political gain in October 2002. The Democratic Party is not responsible for the Iraq war. But had its leaders stood fast, and simply and reasonably conditioned their support on straightforward questions being answered, John McCain's nomination today wouldn't be worth the votes that produced it.
History is valuable only if we learn from it. Two lessons seem obvious: Democrats must regain their heritage of genuine national strength and purpose, a heritage from Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson; and war is justified only if a threat is immediate and unavoidable and only if all other means of resolution have failed.
We are now, after five long years, approaching 35,000 American casualties. The dead and wounded deserve our respect, our honor, and our commitment to see that future lives are not spent in vain. If you see uniformed military personnel, take the time to thank them for their service. The wounded in body and mind must be a constant reminder that our leaders should not commit future forces to conflict for reasons of political expediency or perverted ideological agendas.
The decision to authorize war against Iraq represents a singular test of leadership and wisdom. It is the defining difference in the contest for leadership of the Democratic Party and our country. If that difference is not taken seriously, we will have learned little from this tragedy.
Read more HuffPost coverage and reaction to the fifth anniversary of the war in Iraq
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
If we elect Hillary then nothing will change. She has been part of this corrupt administration and she
has given in to Bush every step of the way. But of course, we have to experience this first, so she will
be our president.
Hillary '08
Well Mr. Hart, you know what they say, "would have, should have, could have." Although I think your post is accurate, you give the liberals and leftist democrats a little to much credit for their pure ideals.
Let me clue you on something. Liberals and leftist democats are just as much the political animals that the GOP is. And I have no doubt that many of them were waiting in the wings to see how the Iraq liberation efforts unfolded before they showed their hands.
No, I see political oportunism from stem to stern in this issue and that includes Mr. Obama.
Hillary '08
Hillary Rodham sounds like same old stinkin' thinkin' to me. From wholeheartedly endorsing NAFTA and then flip-flopping, voting FOR the Iraq invasion before she was against it, voting FOR the Kyl-Lieberman amendment declaring part of the Iranian military a terrorist organization, claims of experience that were debunked with the release of her heavily redacted schedules of her time as first lady, lead me to believe that she is nothing but a bold-faced liar. Bill Richardson, a good friend of the Clintons, and who, unlike her, HAS experience, endorsed Obama. He realized that we need new ideas, and more importantly, a new perspective to heal this nation.
Hillary's jig is up! Go home!
Obama/Richardson '08
History will prove that during this period of American history, both parties had moved away from reason and reasonable thinking and drove our country off the right side of the road.
Democrats have for the most part allowed themselves ( wittingly or unwittingly) to become irrelevant. They have sat by for so long and allowed themselves to be be run roughshod that they now suffer some variation of Stockholm syndrome. The few who do have the will and the intellect to address the criminality in Washington are marginalized (obama), smeared (hart) or killed (wellstone).
We have been fed so many lies and diversions for so long and at such a pace and volume that the average person cannot begin to clearly see the forest for the trees.
I don't know how to clearly describe the kind of collusion and corruption that is taking place on "The Hill" but I know it when I see it. I've been seeing a lot of it lately.
One thing is clear, the Democrats have abdicated their responsibilities as representatives of real Democratic principals, they offer no checks and balances to the efforts of the Neo Con train wreck or corporate america's push for complete governmental control.
They are complicit in so many ways.
It is time for a true and viable third party to replace the cinical, self serving professional politicians on "both sides" of the aisle.
Dear Senator Hart:
Unfortunately, it is far simpler than you write. The Democrats can't even stand up for their own constituents... how could they possibly lead in complex multi-part international affairs?
In 2000, no less a Dem. leader than Vice President Al Gore REFUSED to speak up for poor and minority Texas schoolchildren tossed out of pre-school, after-school, and health care (insurance) programs by then Texas Gov. Bush's signature social-programs SLASHINGS for Americans in need of social services, while CUTTING TAXES for Texas' wealthiest companies and individuals. Those pre-school & after-school programs are proven to save taxpayers money in long run, by improving children's literacy and comprehension, better preparing them for their school years, creating a more skilled work force, and, above all, measurably reducing drop-out, encounters with juvenile justice system, and criminal convictions of those who participate in those pre-school programs.
Vice President Gore refused to speak out against the signature agenda of right-wing Bush-Cheney Republicans in 2000, and eight years later, Democrats STILL abjectly fail at making this argument, that is no less than the core of 100 years of progressive/liberal/democratic progress in America. When Republicans talk about "undoing the New Deal" (much less Great Society reforms of 1960s), or "shrinking government until it is small enough to drown in a bathtub" -they are talking about taking America back to the 1920s, to the Roaring Twenties and Great Depression era! And STILL Democrats have not mastered a narrative to counter this simple, destructive agenda.
Democrats can't even defend their own staffers and activists, Whether:
#1. failling to stand up for Black voters disenfranchinsed in Florida by massive vote trashing - again, Vice President Gore gavelled the Black Congressional Caucus into submission for their request for a simple Congressional investigation into "vote irregularities" in Florida by the president-elect's own brother;
#2. failing to stand up for Clinton-Gore staffers accused of "TRASHING THE WHITE HOUSE!" (a typical Karl Rove character assassination operation designed to run popular vote winner Al Gore out of town on a rail, in January of 2001) - even though not one paper or network which ran those charges could produce ONE PHOTOGRAPH of evidence!
#3. Speaker Pelosi abjectly refuses to make the Karl Rove/Alberto Gonzales "Purge-gate" scandal the front-page abuse-of-powers confrontation that it should be.
Senator Hart, I could go on and on, but the pattern is clear: Democrats can't even stand up for the US Constitution, their own voters, and their own staffers, so talking about setting foreign policy priorities in a complex world is quite a stretch.
Thanks for cutting to the essence of the problem as usual Mr. Hart. Although I admire Hillary Clinton, my own senator, in many other respects, I always knew she voted for the war for exactly this reason: a politically calculated need to position herself as tough. What a travesty to have to put people's lives on the line for such 'politically necessary' calculation.
Gary
The Democrat party lost their heritage of "genuine national strength and purpose" after Vietnam, where they caved to the liberal left by abandoning South Vietnam, allowing the eventual slaughter of millions under Pol Pot--the execution of which brought not a whimper of protest from the left, who previously waxed indignant when the US was involved. I guess the deaths of innocent civilians only matters when it can be used to bash America, otherwise who gives a damn. Second, your questions, "how long will the war last" and "how much will it cost" are impossible to answer with any level of accuracy. The best you can hope for is a ball park figure which will certainly change the minute the fighting starts--so what's the point? How much difference would it have made if the time estimate was 3 years or 5? The only true and accurate answer to how long will the war last is: as long as it takes. If you're not prepared to see wars through to victory then why start in the first place? If you're truly committed to honoring our dead and wounded then you should lobby congress to give our military the tools and support they need to finish the mission we as a nation gave them. I agree that the first couple of years of the occupation were inadequately planned and incompetently run, but that is not an excuse for abandoning the fight. When have there not been mistakes and setbacks in war? You lefties are like fair weather football fans; actually you're worse, at least fair weather fans like their team some of the time, if only when they"re winning. And one more point the Democrats don't seem to understand, at least not based on their public statements: we don't need the world"s permission to act in our national interest. If Mexico were to attack tomorrow, would we wait for Europe's support before taking action? To the extent we can get world support for military action, we should do so, but it is not a necessary condition in order for us to take action.
cct1984: you say war plans change the second actual fighting starts, so why bother? Well, you need to bother because by acknowledging the difficulties of assessing the costs, the Bush administration would have been forced to admit that predictions of a "cakewalk" and "we will be greeted as liberators" would have been exposed as propaganda and testimonies of hubris. Many Americans went along with this war because they believed it would be quick, cheap, and easy. If the Bush administration would have been forced to admit that it could not exclude the possibility of a decade-long occupation, costing thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars, that would have changed the public discourse, don't you think?
The point of the Iraq war is not "winning". To stay with your football analogy: this is not our game, our stadium, or our rules. It's the Iraqis'. We simply have no business staying there. And fact is: we came into their country, threw a party for the companies owned by Cheney and Bush's cronies, and wrecked the place. Not due to lack of planning, but due to willful sabotage of all planning, which is a thousand times worse. The State Department, for example, had created a multi-volume handbook for the occupation of Iraq. That document anticipated many of the problems our military found itself confronted with. Don Rumsfeld took one look at it and said "that's State. I want to run the war. Get out of my way."
And yes, the United States does not need the world's permission to defend itself. Nobody ever said that. But that's not what happened. You just can't go around invading other countries and then expect the world to say sure, it's the mighty United States, no problem. The Right in this country often accuses the Left of lack of realism. But how realistic was it to invade Iraq unilaterally and preemptively and to expect that everybody else would take it laying down? Might, contrary to what the neocons say, does not make right. It's a simple lesson the Right in this country has not learned. In fact, they still believe in it. Judging from your post I am afraid you believe it too.
When Barney Frank was on Bill Maher he explained why he voted against it: "I knew they [the administration] were lying." He said that not because he had any special intel but because he could spot a liar in our fearless zero GWB. Each situation is unique and to me the veracity of what the warmongers were saying was the bottom line, not the war policy of the Democratic party.
It's easy now to forget the hysteria of that time. We saw enemies everywhere and were spoiling for a fight. Some us still are. But at that time, reason and rational thinking were considered unpatriotic. Basically, all the facts get thrown out anyway. Some see war as a way to preserve us and some see it as the path to self destruction. If we as a people continue to see war as a way to preserve ourselves, you will never see any real critical thought brought to the forefront before war is proposed.
And even today we still maintain the mentality of: "War? Really?? Cool!" That's the entire platform of the Republican party (outside of "Greed is good."). And don't bet against it winning.
"It's easy now to forget the hysteria of that time. We saw enemies everywhere and were spoiling for a fight." Really? I'm assuming you don't live in the Washington metro area.
I'd say the US government exercised incredible restraint, given all the events that took place after 9/11. Recall that someone put anthrax into envelops that reached a Senate office, a news organization in NYC, and a journalist at a tabloid in Florida. Two US postal workers died from that anthrax, the DC Post Office where they worked has been renamed in memorium.
And like that wasn't enough? We had a sniper who was driving around shooting people at random for weeks. Several victims were killed while putting gas in their cars. People were afraid to fill buy gas.
I don't know what Barney Frank's motivations were, but his claim that Bush was lying doesn't show good judgment. I'd say it shows the opposite. That he would believe his left-wing constituents over the word of the President doesn't say much for him.
Had he had some special intel perhaps he might have been more alert to the complex dangers the country was then facing and still facing. But the intel of chief interest to folks like Franks has alway been less complex. The only intel he really cares about is that which leads to his reelection.
Without regard to party affiliation - anyone who voted "yea" on the "now infamous war resolution" needs to go home. Whether they were lazy, stupid or afraid does not matter once they are gone.
Then, the new Congress can vote to cut all pensions and benefits for anyone who voted for that resolution - holding them somewhat monetarily responsible for our losses during their watch. They could be tarred and feathered as well as far as I am concerned, but that would be cruel and unusual - kind of like asking a US serviceman or servicewoman to patrol in Iraq.
If people who supposedly serve in the public interest see no consequence to their actions - and rely on no having to be accountable - then we will continue to see the sludge that occupies the Capitol with their flag pins and crusty smiles on both sides of the aisle.
When pigs fly...
Gary Hart, where were you right after the Vietnam War? I'm old enough now to have qualified for running for a state legislative seat then.
Were you in politics then?
Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail
The Iraq vote was not a vote for national defense on any level. It was a vote of political calculation which would have paid off for those that voted to authorize the war, if we did not get tied up having military force involved ina civil conflict. If we took the military victory, secured the flow of oil, and left the rest of Iraq to chaos and a breeding ground for extremism and future terrorist attacks on the US then it would have been a very popular war. It would be Barack Obama with the politically incorrect view of the Iraq war. But the Iraq war would never have been in the best interests of the US even if Iraq had WMD, Saddam was the enemy of nearly every factions that is our enemy, and he was no threat to American intrests. But even though it was always the wrong thing to do, if it was carried out swiftly and competently it would have been a very popular thing to do, which is what makes the vote of Senator Clinton so despicable. The Clinton name more than anyone else may have changed the course of war with Iraq, instead she chose not to potentially commit political suicide by opposing a popular war.
What Mr. Hart fails to mention is that Democrats are currently doing NOTHING to bring an end to the war. Neither of our leading candidates are talking seriously about ending the war, providing instead promises that are impossible to keep. THAT is the singular most important leadership of the time, not what did you do then, but what are you doing NOW.
22 Senate Democrats and one Republican ( Lincoln Chaffee ) had the guts/integrity/cojones to dream say NO! to bushes bullying.
McCain said YEAH! hillary said, " BRavo, Mr. Fascist President! You say JUMP, I ask how far!"
hillary: the fascist dream!
demos are spineless at least george jr proved that. never again will this independent vote demo. nader for me next time. only person taking on the industrial military machine. demos are part of the problem not the solution.
every body makes fun of george jr but he played nancy and reid like a fine violin. for me george has a new name. alpha dog george.
he actually got to increase troops after demo congress. now that is leadership at its best. he will go down in history as a great president the one that proved the demos are part of the problem and americans will begin to realize that they must follow jefferson's advice. 30 years overdue.
George isn't doing the playing, that's giving him too much credit. The MSM does the playing. Reid and Pelosi won't stand up and call the media part of the problem, so they keep dancing to the tune.
OK Senator Hart, if that's what the the Democratic Leadership needed to do, where have you been? Why haven't you been out there working on this? Surely you must have some clout left in the Party apparatus to get a meeting called.
Read "The Courage of our Convictions: A Manifesto for Democrats" by Gary Hart
Senator Hart, I'm with you until you say that Democrats must regain the sense of national purpose they had under Truman, Kennedy and Johnson. Truman was an architect of an over the top cold war that needn't have existed but for building an economy based on endless war preparation ( You will remember Eisenhower's apt warning of the congressional military industrial complex). Jack was HST's disciple as was Lyndon. Recall the Gulf of Tonkin and all that Vietnam messiness. Historian William O'Neil once remarked about Jack Kennedy that "in America hope not only springs eternal, it's retroactive." That's your, and the Democrats, shared problem --viewing the old Democrats, and themselves, through rosy glasses. Until Democrats can come to grips with their own military-industrial, jobs above all, America as set upon by outside evil forces -communism or Islam-- they have nothing to regain. Modeling HST, JFK and LBJ won't cut it. That way embraces the problem not the solution. Democrats do what they do not so much because they are afraid as because it is who they are.
HuffPost's Pick
No doubt the horrific attack on 9/11 made it possible for the Neocons to take advantage of the nationalism and desire for revenge that overtook many reasonable-thinking people. The pump was primed to show "strength" and flex some muscle. Too bad the muscle was not flexed enough to bring bin Laden to the justice he is due. The Dems got caught-up in the knee-jerk post 9/11 "the best defense is a strong offense" patriotic ferver. Sad that bin Ladens attack really has damaged America in ways he never could have fathomed--huge treasure borrowed and spent, lost stature in the world, tremendous loss of life. America will never be the same!
HuffPost's Pick
Gosh, it has to be continually repeated. The Bush administration (as had the Clintons before it, as well as the British, the French, and others with spy organizations) thought Saddam had WMD.
They were wrong. Saddam lied. Why Saddam let the West have weapons that he didn't have, even up until the eve of an invasion, is a complicated Arab tale worthy of A Thousand and One Nights.
Anyway, whatever the wisdom of the invasion, which thoughtful people can debate, we invaded. The potential danger of WMD falling into terrorist hands was all too real. It's still "the" threat facing the West and particularly the USA.
The horrific attack demonstrated the urgency of fighting terrorism, and of taking seriously the danger of loose nukes. However, in toppling Saddam, we notably DIDN'T find any WMD. It's not that there aren't any to be found, it's just that they weren't in Iraq. North Korea, Pakistan, other dangerous places harbor weapons about which we should be worried. So American foreign policy needs to still be a defining issue. Are the Dems aware of this???
Back to the present, yeah, Bush screwed up. Even Republicans who voted for Bush (like me) acknowledge this. But I'd still vote the same as I did in 2000 all over again. The Clintons and their annointed boy, Al Gore, treated terrorism as a law enforcement problem and America would be the policeman to send the bad guys to trial. Only problem we cannot catch the badguys because they have this unpleasant propensity to blow themselves up in the commission of their crime.
It was not patriotism, or fever, or desire for revenge, or a quest for oil, or Democracy building (Bush's excuses to the contrary), but terrorism that ultimately pushed us toward invading Iraq. Bush may well have wanted to eliminate Saddam anyway, in a gesture toward his dad, but the American citizenry would never have stood for a war had 9/11 not occurred. Period.
I think to suggest otherwise, in a spasm of "progressivist" podium pounding, is just mistaken. You don't give your fellow citizens, Dems and GOPers alike, enough credit, Friend.
Yes, "the American citizenry would never have stood for a war had 9/11 not ocurred". The "podium pounding" you speak of my "friend" was of the regressive administration using persuational fiction to win support for an uneeded war in Iraq. We were told about a high likelihood of WMD, a cost of war at 5Bil, a connection between Osama and Saddam, being "treated as liberators", The oil will cover costs. Which ones of those my "friend" were true? And now to declare that we are "winning with the surge" is ludicrous. We go and it blows up again. The hatred there is contained by "sitting" on them at much cost.....to future generations with interest. If you are still willing to replay your vote of 2000, given the clear and obvious disastrous mistakes and terrible results, you are a real loyalist. And to refer to Gore as a "boy" is misplacing that moniker. Try it on the current President. He has proven he is an imbecile throughout his life. Too bad it has caused many much suffering.....with more to come!
He did fathom all that. He predicted it and said so. I can't remember if it was an audio tape or a written document, but bin Laden definitely got exactly what he wanted. wittle georgie called in the whole frat to protect him from that brown guy over there. Now he needs protection from the American people if they ever get an honest man in the white house to investigate.
Who has been the most open and honest? Let me think...
I agree he SHOULD need "protection from the American people" IF they were not so disengeged by fiscal concerns, detaching them from forcing their leaders to investigation AND implement some accountability. But the electorate was compliant in a way as they re-elected the "Decider" in '04, despite much evidence that the reason for invasion of Iraq was "cooked". And add the fact that in his Repug Party he still gets a >70% approval-rating. Hard to believe loyalty to class or party is blinding many to the destruction of our way of life this unneeded war and BushCo have wreaked on the world!
Senator Hart,
How apropos. I'm reading Reagan's autobiography, "An American Life," lately. Here's a quote:
"In a schism reaching back centuries, based on differing interpretations of the prophet Muhammad's writings, the Muslim world split into two major factions, the Sunni and the Shia. Then these two groups split, with the Shia splintering into many rival groups, including several radical fundamentalist sects who demand the abolition of secular governments and their replacement by priestly theocracies; to achieve their goals, they have institutionalized murder and terrorism in the name of God, promising followers instant entry into paradise if they die for their faith or kill an enemy who challenges it.... I don't think you can overstate the importance that the rise of Islamic fundamentalism will have to the rest of the world in the century ahead -- especially if, as seems possible, its most fanatical elements get their hands on nuclear and chemical weapons .... [pp408-09, An American Life]
Reagan's book came out in 1990. So, my question is "how come Reagan, just four years from an Alzheimer's diagnosis knew this, but Clinton couldn't figure it out during 8 years of al Quida hits?"
I'll agree, if the Dems had done their job, maybe Iraq would never have happened. But then, that also implies that Saddam would still be in power. I think that would have still left us with a big problem -- especially since the Europeans were eager to eliminate the sanctions that were preventing Saddam from developing WMD.
This is a quote from a speech in the late 80's where GHW Bush is trying to justify or Central American policy. "international terrorism will take the place of human rights"
All this proves is that they were looking for another cold war boogieman to justify what we're seeing today.. It just illustrates the fact that Reagans middle east policy - a continuation or previous failed policies - has had the intended effect
Only one problem with your analysis. You answer the critical question wrong which is: Why did Saddam want WMDs, or what actually was transpiring, the illusion of WMDs? You're still falling into that Saddam-Al quada link that never existed. Saddam wanted WMDs in fact or reasonable fiction in order to keep Iran in check. Iran has a population 5 times larger than Iraq. The only thing that kept their war a stalemate in the 80's was Iraq's WMDs, which neutralized the Iranian army's size advantage. After we kicked the crap out of Saddam's army in '91, in Saddam's mind the only thing that kept Iran from attacking was the WMDs. (That may actually be the reason Iran didn't attack, or there may have been other reasons, but that's the one Saddam evidently believed.) That was also the reason behind Saddam's shell games with his WMDs and the U.N. inspectors, to keep the Iranians at bay. His plan was simple, keep up the illusion of WMDs to keep the Iranians at bay but not actually have them so the rest of the world wouldn't invade. Or an even better outcome: the Europeans drop the sanctions, but enough doubt still remains in Iran to keep them from attacking.
This plan would have worked swimmingly except for 9/11. Bush and company linked him to Al Quada with the followin logic: Al Quada is composed of evil muslims, Saddam's an evil muslim, therefore they must be in cahoots, and banked on the MSM to do it's job and not do any in depth anaylsis. (To anyone who thinks the MSM's job is to do in depth analysis: go watch one hour of the cable news network of your choice and you'll see my point. It's not trying to inform, it's trying to entertain.) The MSM happily obliged and the rest, as they say, is history. A good portion of the country still believes there was a Saddam - Al Quada link, and that Saddam had WMDs. Nobody in the MSM is doing any in depth looking at how we got here (especially since it would involve a great deal of staring into a mirror) and nothing changes.
I appreciate your thoughtful answer though I completely disagree. The al Quida-Saddam "link" would be, indeed, false -- as has been endlessly noted by just about everybody. However, you're assuming wrongly that al Quida would have to be cozy with Saddam (or others) in order to get WMD. If Saddam had had weapons (as he led everybody to believe), al quida would have been just as happy to get them by theft, by corrupting those with access, or by other means.
It's the existence of the weapons that poses the problem, and hence Soviet arsenals, North Korean weapons, Pakistan's nukes, all pose threats to the west too.
The complexity of these things is continually being stereotyped and over simplified by Bush critics. Let me be quick to admit that the intelligence that led us (and other countries) to suppose Saddam's WMD programs were still active was wrong. But to think that Saddam had given up on his plans to get more weapons is naive, and European sentiments and pressures for eliminating the sanctions were not helpful to future restraints against Iraq.
I don't see a magic answer for any of this. But the Bush critics turn this calculus into cartoon math much too often. The dangers were real. And the dangers have not gone away.
And I'm still inclined to feel that Reagan was far more prescient and aware of the complex dangers than you are, even four years before his diagnosis, and a decade before Bush's war.
I agree, Clinton dropped the ball and then bush picked it up and took it home. No more Clintons, no more loyal bushies.
Obama 08
Posted March 20, 2008 | 05:05 PM (EST)