Edited by author 03-21-2003 02:27 PM
Great, another blogger stating, in summary, that he's upset that Bush did the right thing and will get credit for it.

Clinton already said he would have gone after Saddam if he thought he could have gotten away with it politically, but didn't have the guts to take a stand. Bush wouldn't have had the guts either if it wasn't for 9/11 changing military policy. I guess the Dems are upset that Bush did it, with or without world support, because it's the right thing to do and he'll get credit for it. Heck, even Blix said "The fact that they have already demonstrated that they were lying by firing a SCUD shows that Saddam had no intention of disarming", and that he's sad that it came to this but without Saddam's cooperation the inspections were meaningless.

Sorry for not waiting until we were attacked so you all would have your "Smoking Gun" that you wanted so badly, but unfortunately not everyone wants to wait for carnage before stopping it.

Being against crime AND against punishment is a nice, liberal way of riding the fence in a meaningless way, but it makes for bad policy. If we didn't enforce the SEVENTEENTH ultimatum given to Iraq NOONE would have. Saddam has already launched scuds that he doesn't have (wink wink) so who wants to place your bets on how many violations we find? Heck, if his right-hand man didn't defect back in what, 1992?, we wouldn't have know that Saddam was enriching uranium and had a MASSIVE nuclear program. The Inspectors had NO IDEA and after inspecting the placed the defector told them about they found not only Anthrax breeders but a full-blown nuclear weapons program. They were SHOCKED, but just imagine what if the guy DIDN'T defect?!? Before the Gulf War the DOE folks thought Saddam was 10-15 YEARS away from getting a nuke, but the inspectors discovered (thanks to the defector, NOT their own skill) HE ALREADY HAD ONE but hadn't miniturized it enough to put it on a SCUD so he was less than 1 year away from nuclear tipped missiles.... Also, compared to what Iraq HAD, how much did he actually know about? 20%? 10%?

The blog mentions Powell's "Evidence" being shot down. Well POWELL was the one who wanted the UN support in the first place! Powell is the COUNTERBALANCE to the Hawks like Rumsfeld, and was AGAINST a unilateral invasion in the first place! After 1441 turned into a JOKE, Powell said "Screw the UN, if they won't enforce ANY of their 17 resolutions, then we'll have to do it". Powell wanted diplomacy, but the UN was so completely divided because of France, Germany, Russia and China and their oil deals with Saddam (plus France's arms deals with Saddam, and Saddam oweing Russia several $Billion for weapons) that the UN Sec Council was a bad joke. Knowing that the removal of Saddam would lead to nullifying of their development deals, of course they would block the UN resolutions. Powell saw the UN for what it was: A waste of time. Tell me ONE TIME where the UN has RESOLVED a world conflict? NEVER. NOT ONE good example. Everything that the UN touches is mired in indecision, from the Balkans to Far East the UN has been completely ineffective. The first Gulf War was Bush Sr. with the UN's blessing and was NOT organized by the security council, or initiated by it, so don't even count that. If the UN could drive POWELL away, that's TRULY a sad thing.

Glad the war FINALLY started, about 10 years too late. Lets just hope we did it in time.

Good to know you're following the U.S./Iraqi Empathy Schedule.