|
|
New blogger comments on the story at Hope is Not a Foreign Policy. Bottom line: it’s tough being a war time president in a democracy but history has generally vindicated ours and it sure looks like Bush will be vindicated as well.
11 Responses to “Iraq was stockpiling uranium after all”
Feel free to leave a comment...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!
The JeffersoniadCopyright © 2008 · All rights reserved · Revolution Pro Media theme by Brian Gardner · WordPress · XHTML · Log in ·
·
Bearing Drift :: Virginia Politics and Podcasts is using WP-Gravatar
How exactly were they going to do ANYTHING with this raw resource? It’s like saying that Iraq had access to oil, thus we need to attack them before they create a space program and colonize Mars and form an alliance with the Martians…
Do you honestly believe this will vindicate Bush, or is that just partisan puffery??? Seriously, could anyone be that naive? Speaking of Hope…
Gee, perhaps they could put it inside a bomb and make a dity nuclear bomb? Nah. No one would ever think of that. What possible harm could come from radioactive isotopes floating in the air of a Western city - Rome, London, Barcelona; anywhere with a port to deliver the bomb by ship. Besides, a dirty bomb wouldn’t have any real impact on the world’s economy. So why do it?
Ragnar, get your head out of your rear end. Why, exactly, would Saddam Hussein need processed uranium? To show it off to his sons and assorted other crackpots? It was there just in case he wanted to use it. And NO, I have no idea why he didn’t use it against US troops when the war started. Maybe because we damn near killed him on the first day of combat operations he never had the command and control to issue the order. Saddam is dead by hanging so we’ll never know the answer to this question.
It is also well established that Saddam was pursuing a centrifuge program, which is one way to enrich uranium for use in weaponry.
Sometimes I think liberals are simply unwilling to believe that Saddam was up to anything naughty at all.
Unfortunately the yellowcake was under control of the U.N. weapons inspectors before the war, Saddam in fact DID allow weapons inspectors in the country contrary to what Bush has said since the war began.
As a progressive, I’d hoped for the sake of the troops that gave the ultimate sacrifice that WMDs would be found to at least somewhat justify this war…
Just to second Crake, from CBS News
A known quantity. Please, give it a rest already. The administration has changed its “justification” for invading so many times, why even bother to pick one to try and support.
Jeremy I agree with you, this was an illegal war, but could you imagine the anguish of the troops when they find out that their brothers in arms died fighting for Halliburton and Israeli interests? This Administration needs to be strung up ala Mussolinis fascist government.
Crake and Jeremy. To find out why it’s important for America to be present in Iraq, the greater Middle East and elsewhere, for that matter, I suggest you read the book “Colossus” by Naill Ferguson. It’s an equally annoying book to liberals and conservatives, but it is a damn fine work of political science.
I’m not going to engage in partisan bickering here. But there are very tangible and real reasons for Americans having paid the ultimate sacrifice.
Illegal war? C’mon come up with better catch phrases. I don’t think I have ever heard the term legal war before, so illegal war means nothing.
Ask Hitler, and I’m sure he would say we engaged in a illegal war against him.
War is not legal or illegal; it is.
You may not think the war was justified or not, but please don’t use nonsense phrases.
Speaking of nonsense phrases and such:
I love this term “progressive.”
How Orwellian. As in: “yes, we’re progressive, which means looking and moving forward, despite the fact that we are looking and moving backwards and attempting to enact the New Deal and Great Society all over again.”
“Regressive” is more like it.
Is “liberal” a dirty word? Come on — I dare you to call yourself that.
I don’t see too many from our side backing off of the word “conservative.”
In fact, most I know are proud of it.
Jim - I haven’t read it, but from your statement, i would imagine its about long term strategic outlook. And i would have to agree, that is very likely the reason we invaded Iraq, specifically with the (foolish IMHO) goal of using a reshaped Iraq as a staging ground for the long-term democratization of the middle east, our own form of watered down imperialism. I just would like to hear the administration fess up and say it, and not come up with other lame justifications.
Chase - Liberal and proud buddy.
The Democrats are not liberals, they are leftists — socialists and communist. “Liberal” stems from “liberty,” in which they do not believe.
Is it “liberal” (relating to liberty) to want the government to have the only guns?
Is it “liberal” to take people’s hard-earned money and give it to others?
Is it “liberal” to want the government to dictate whom you can hire?
Is it “liberal” to want the government to dictate what you can manufacture?
Is it “liberal” to want the government to control your retirement income?
Is it “liberal” to want the government to control your access to health care?
No. These are socialist/communist positions.
What happened to all the ’60s radicals whose mantra was “Don’t Trust the Government”? Now they want the government to control every thing. They must have done “too much LDS.”