ace....you are conveniently ignoring all post 9-11 history.

The world supported the US after we were attacked by al Queda. Even most moderate muslim governments in the ME (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan....) supported our response to take out the Talliban and al Queda.

And we abandoned that mission and invaded a sovereign nation in the ME that posed no direct threat to the US and was effectively marginalized in the region after the first gulf war.

The result has been a level of anti-Americanism in the ME and around the world never seen before and a recruitment tool for Muslim extremists so that the terrorist threat is greater and al Queda in Afghanistan/Pakistan is stronger than before.

The policy you support has failed at every level.

If we want influence in the region, we need friends in the region and the Bush policy (and your policy) has alienated every moderate leader in the ME.

A Democratic strategy for the region will differ significantly from the failed Bush policy and is likely to include:

* a serious and ongoing high level commitment to the Israeli-Palestinian issue....Bush has done virtually nothing for six years.

* a policy that respects our treaty obligations and how we treat detainees only "suspected" of some questionable "terrorist" activity....rather than the Bush torture policy.

* serious diplomatic pressure on Saudi Arabia to remove islamic extremists from their government and extemists teachings in their schools and to provide greater cooperation in tracking down saudi terrorist....Democrats dont have family ties to the House of Saud.

* diplomatic and economic pressure on Egypt to move towards real democratic elections....Bush has only given it lip service.

* and talking with our enemies in the region to help create a stable Iraq.

How about this: I make no connection between our invasion of Iraq and 9-11. Do you?

UN resolution 678 authorized doing whatever was needed to enforce subsequent resolutions involving the ME. Saddam was in violation of several of them. Bush was an opportunist. And let's not pretend that Congress was unaware of what Bush was doing. No one can really believe they were that stupid or perhaps they do. But some how they lead you to believe they were duped by Bush but are still worthy of your support. To that I say - they are truly skilled in the art of twisting truth.

... so we went before the UN and made our case for invasion, riddled with blatant inaccuracies, rumor, and hearsay, and were overruled by the only body legally allowed to give permission to enforce their own resolutions. Go on...
This is about the impeachment of Bush, not the inability and/or corruption of Congress. Two wrongs don't make a right. They're both wrong, and both deserve to get crapped on.

ace...what the fuck?

Your typical response with an irrelevant question and a convenient way to ignore my last post that explained how the policy you supported has failed at every level.....the ME is less stable than any time in recent years....the terrorist threat is greater...and our reputation as a nation is at its lowest.

Indeed, "Al Qaeda In Iraq" is made up by the Bush propaganda machine. They don't call themselves that. They have only tenuous links with anyone who was ever associated with Al Qaeda proper. There's NO Al Qaeda in Iraq, and there never has been. Saddam Hussein was vigilant about keeping them OUT, in fact.

Remember operation Desert Fox in December of 1998. Were you calling for the impeachment of Clinton?

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcrip...nscriptid=1791

I responded to the first item in your post. I can certainly respond to the others, I just seek resolution on items one at a time. Do you think 9-11 had anything to do with our invasion of Iraq? I don't, and I assumed you did not either. Your statement was a surprise to me. I was shocked by the implication that 9-11 was connected to the overthrow of Saddam.

I agree that Saddam had no use for Al Qaeda in Iraq. However, after Saddam and his government was overthrown Al Qaeda has been making unsuccessful attempts at controlling the country. I also agree that Al Qaeda is a term that does not always accurately describe some of the people who share the Al Qaeda agenda.

Of course I was. Clinton had no legal right to unilaterally enforce a UN resolution. Even if you disregard the timing of the campaign, it was absolutely wrong. A lot of innocent people died. No where near as many as have died in the 2003-present Iraq war, of course.

You keep looking for double standards, as if that would excuse Bush. Even if I were hypocritical and supported Clinton in Desert Fox, would that make Bush right? Absolutely not. Absolutely not. Absolutely not.

Just read IBD's editorial, timely:

http://www.investors.com/editorial/e...70082876172616

O.k., let's try to focus. We already know the editorial staff at IBD are far right-wingers who support Bush and the war. They may even be "lackies" for Bush's propaganda machine, but they point to something that may be a positive development. So let's focus on what they comment on and not who or what they are.

I respect your consistency. We disagree on the underlying issue. Your consistency is rare, many simply make their arguments on the basis of their dislike of Bush.

I think there is and was a UN resolution authorizing us to take military action against Iraq. I supported military action after Iraq invaded Kuwait, Desert Fox and our latest invasion of Iraq. I also believe there has been a consistent concern about Saddam and Iraq's potential aggression using WMD and potentially developing nuclear weapons.

Ok, so with that logic, (there has been a consistent concern about Saddam and Iraq's potential aggression using WMD and potentially developing nuclear weapons) why have we not invaded Iran or North Korea yet then?

Saddam was locked tight and couldn't sneeze without us having him in our sights for noise pollution.

Iran has been and will be far more dangerous and yet we do nothing.

North Korea has threatened and has been saying they will develop missiles.

Saudi Arabia has closer ties to Al Quida than Iraq ever had.... and what have we done to them? Nothing but let oil prices skyrocket so that the King and his family can make more $$$.

Again, if this there has been a consistent concern about Saddam and Iraq's potential aggression using WMD and potentially developing nuclear weapons is your support and defense for the war, then where are your cries for us to invade Iran, Saudi Arabia and North Korea???????

I've only been a liberal for maybe 9-10 years. Before that, I was a big confusing mess of the opinions of people around me. Part of my introduction into politics was about being honest with myself. The honest truth us that on many fronts, Clinton was an excellent leader and president. He wasn't perfect, though. Allowing homosexuals in the military was a huge civil rights victory, but NAFTA was a huge mess. In dealing with Iraq, Clinton had inherited a military stance from Bush1, and instead of taking a more progressive, peace-oriented stance, Clinton decided that it would make him appear weak and, while in the midst of the Lewinsky circus, made a very difficult and incorrect decision.

When I say I dislike Bush, it's not on generalities. I'm a pretty easy going fellow, and I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. Bush had exhausted that before 9/11. He took endless vacations immediately preceding one of the greatest attacks on US soil. That was enough for me to go from "I didn't vote for him, but I'll support him" to "he's lost my trust". It was from there that virtually ever decision he has made has been wrong and has come with dire consequences not just for the government, not even just for the US, but for the whole world. "Dislike" isn't really the right way to put it. It's more like I think he's the wrong man for the job, and someone else should be in his office right now cleaning up his numerous messes.
There was one, and we took action, but each action requires UN permission. Had the US had it's own treaties and agreements with Iraq, we would have had the legal right to move on them unilaterally (depending on the treaties and/or agreements, of course). This was a UN resolution, and as such the UN was the organization to decide on any actions taken in response to their own resolutions. The US appeared before the security council, but was voted down.

If we had a concern about Saddam, then we needed to make a better case with real, hard evidence. Since that evidence didn't exist, there was no case to be made. Saddam, in reality, was no longer a threat to anyone. If you want proof of that, Saddam had changed all of the oil in Iraq to Euros. His plan, had the US not invaded, was to become a serious part of the European economy. Eventually that was about accumulation of more wealth, but that's several steps away from being a danger to anyone. The nice thing is that it's clear now that not only did Saddam not have the means to acquire or create any type of nuclear weapon, he didn't even try. Saddam had no WMDs, including nukes, and was not seeking to acquire them. Those were lies and factual errors.

I think we gave Iraq many opportunities and almost 10 years before we used military force to over through Saddam and his government. I also think North Korea, Iran and potentially a few other nations are carefully watching how we handle Iraq. If we fail, they will see that as weakness and take advantage of it. I think North Korea is on the verge of giving in to international demands in part because of they have concerns about the crazy cowboy in the White House. If we leave Iraq in chaos, Iran will attempt to stabilize the region in their own way to their own advantage. I don't want that, and I think many in the ME are concerned about that also.

All the above is just my take on the situation. I admit that I may be 100% wrong.

I respect what you say, but I firmly believe Saddam was of no concern and the #1 country we needed to invade if that was what we needed to do was in fact Iran. And I firmly believe we will regret that we did NOTHING to Iran.

On a side note, I predict, Afghanistan, will be more of a downfall for us than Iraq in the long run.

Who says we needed to invade anyone? Iran is developing nuclear power, let em. They want to export their nuclear power to the rest of the ME and sell their oil to the East and West, strengthening their economy by leaps and bounds. They are, as far as I know, the only actual theocracy in the world. That seems to be their only real sin.

ace...if you have read anything I posted about the subject in the last year, you know that I said repeatedly that there was no connection between our invasion of Iraq (at least you properly called it an "invasion" ) and al Queda. It was a bullshit question you posed simply to avoid the more important issue of overall policy in the region

And yet, as late as today, Bush still makes a connection between our invasion/occupation of Iraq and 9/11 attack by al Queda:
DoD officials have said on numerous occasions that the so-called al Queda in Iraq possess little capacity to act outside the region and pose little real danger to the US homeland.

As to your IBD article, if you follow the actions of tribal leaders in Iraq, they have demonstrated on numerous occasions that they will make short term deals with anyone to save their positions...and then run to the other side when conditions change.

And the article propagates the fallacy that al Queda is the greatest threat to the stability of Iraq and the region when, again, numerous DoD and intel officials have said repeatedly that while al Queda in Iraq may still cause harm to US forces..the real danger is the sectarian divide and de facto civil war that unleashed religious extremists like al Sadr on the Shiia side and insurgent leaders on the Sunni side...as a result of our invasion.

Bush just wont let go of the bullshit argument about al Queda in Iraq and the need to fight them there, so we dont have to fight them here.

And you still havent addressed how, as a result of the Bush (your) ME policy, the ME is less stable now....the terrorist threat is greater...and our reputation as a nation is at its lowest.

I was writing about why I felt we used our military against Saddam and his government. You said I was ignoring post 9-11 information. My support to use military force to remove Saddam and his government from power predated 9-11. You brought up 9-11, let's at least agree on that.

I believe there is a broad war on terror. A war being fought on multiple fronts. The primary location is currently Iraq.

I agree Al Qaeda is not a major threat. I think we disagree on the reasons why. I understand the circular nature of the argument, but I think our military efforts in Iraq have helped to control Al Qaeda. I know some would argue that our presence in Iraq hurt our efforts elsewhere and that our presence in Iraq has encourage more Al Qaeda like groups, but I think this is a real war, the war of our generation. I think our enemy clearly understands that, and I think they have clearly defined goals and objectives that include control of the ME to start. I don't think we should allow that to happen, and I don't think we can negotiate a peaceful resolution.

I think history will record this war in decades (perhaps starting in the 80's), not years. If true the minor ebbs and flows over the course of months won't matter much in the big picture.

IBD quoted the opinion of a general and a reporter. If those individuals have no credibility to you, then I understand your point.

Let's break this down:
Who is terror? Can you elaborate on what you consider to be the enemy, the goals of the enemy, and how we are to war against them and win? Who is "the enemy"?
The primary location is in Iraq? There were no terrorists in Iraq before 2003. There are almost none there now. The Iraqi insurgency is a rebellion and has virtually no connection to any so called terrorist organizations.

I think you missed something I posted, ace:
Read Articles 41 and 42 of the UN Charter. In order for a member state to take action, two votes by the security council are required: the first is a vote to explore all non-military possibilities, the second is needed to allow military action. The second vote was never reached. You see, the other nations on the Security Council were satisfied with the results of the UN inspections, and with the benefit of hindsight we all have no choice but to recognize that they were right. It is in this way that the invasion of Iraq was illegal.

I don't have anything to add specifically to the discussion at this point, but I want to point out that this is the first thread in a long time I can really see people grappling with issues and bringing their opinion to the table as opinion, and it's great to see. Such a breath of fresh air after all the talking-point shouting matches we've had around here. I particularly acknowledge and thank aceventura3 for the integrity and honesty he's bringing to this conversation.

This poor bastard..... (an ex-DOJ attorney) was "one of their own"..... and when they get far enough down the pecking order that they decide that it is time to shut some of us....here...up, do you think the "pay back" they give us, for some of our posted, "queer ideas", will be as gentle as what is described, below?

From '71 until '77, I was in the "waiting for a knock on the door", mode. I have that experience....and I'm getting accustomed to thinking that way again. Consider the possible consequences, to you, your family, your wallet, and your reputation, before you post what's on your mind.... Everything here ends up on the cache of "the google". I search it all the time....I'm sure that I have company....searching....searching....

I doubt that "this poor bastard" understands the possible impact his leak had on our nation's ability to gather intelligence on terrorists.

Then we have those who "get it" like some people in Congress, but then lead people to believe they are victims of the wily ways of the Bush administration:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n3135604.shtml

Is Bush going to get what he wants? Why would the Democrats give in on this issue?