>And that's exactly my point. We knew so much about al Qaeda, that we were able to pin it on them the moment it happened. We knew who they were, and where they were. After attacking Afghaninstan and capturing so many of those terrorists, interrogating them for years, we still had nothing to suggest collaboration between al Qaeda and Saddam. While we certainly gained a lot of other intelligence from the captured terrorists, we had nothing about a relationship between the two. You don't need to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out what that means.
Yes, it means we haven't caught the right people yet.
>Somehow we were able to come across a videotape in Afghanistan with bin Laden practically admitting to orchestrating the 9/11 attack. And as I noted above, all the intelligence we gathered from interrogating the captured terrorists. Yet somehow, nothing about a collaborative relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda. Truly amazing.
Yes, amazing. Truly. It means we haven't caught the right people yet.
>And so goes the continuing slippery slope of reasons we went to war. It's amazing how they have flip-flopped.
This was the administration's side point (of course the main one being about WMDs) right from the beginning. To quote South Park, Saddam was a "very naughty man" about whom something could be done (the UN thought so, too, I might add... right up until we went a little too cowboy for their collective taste) No flip-flop.
>You can't very well blame the rest of the world for not doing anything before 9/11 when we didn't do much ourselves. Other than the missle attack after the embassy attacks, what did we do? When the IRA was blowing up Brits, were we there helping? How about the Palestinians blowing up Israelis? Did you see any U.S. troops on the ground?
<snip>
>No, you just can't blame others for what we didn't do ourselves.
Hold on, now... is that a flip-flop?? Are you actually now saying we should have done something ourselves in 1993? Without anyone else? You know, like you're so upset about in Iraq????? BTW, I think we should have done something back then. And we should be involved in those areas you mentioned... as should the rest of the world's forces.
And yes, I can certainly blame the rest of the world for waiting for our lead... and calling us out when we don't lead (See Eritrea and Boznia-Herzogovina in the beginning, et al). Then, when we decide to take action -- what a surprise -- they call us out for taking action.
Terrorism is a global problem and the threats, due to years of global inaction -- including our own for a time -- are everywhere. Globally, we should be reacting anytime someone is attacked. Globally. Everyone. With force. Decisively.
>I always love this argument. It usually indicates you don't have any, but I'll play along. Here are my two arguments:
Yes, yes... your precious commission. In the words of Jon Stewart, "No workee." Time will tell. This argument cannot be won by either side yet. It will be years before we can look back and say definitively if Iraq as part of the global war on "Tara" made sense.
