Senator Biden: Turning the Corner in Iraq

First, it is helpful to use the quote function properly.

Sure it does. You simply prefer a different reality than the one that exists ... ... Actually, as you well know (even though you won't let on), there is good reasoning behind their position even if you disagree with it. Teh truth is that they know much more than you do, and much more than virtually all of Congress. That is a fact you will just have to accept.

I don't recall that being said, and it certainly wasn't the emphasis. But history is easy to revise when you don't like what it actually was, and you are certainly revising history. The fact is that everyone, including teh loudmouths complaining dems, agreed that Saddam was a danger. Bush's point was that a 9/11 type event would be a horrible way to find out.

Again, revisionist. The links between Saddam and terrorism were well known, and still are. It is also well known that Saddam was the enemy of this country, was in repeated violation of hte UN agreement, and was daily shooting at our soldiers (an act of war).

Neither of which were in 12 year violation of UN sanctions. Don't leave out the parts that refute you.

There was widespread disagreement about this.

All administrations do this. It is the way decisions are made. If they had agreed with teh advice, they would have taken it. But all decisions are made on a give and take of information.

Your original premise from page one was, "I see it every time the president of the secretary of defense speaks." The "it" you referred to was my comment that " it is rare to see someone with so little knowledge and thought speak so much." Don't try to change the subject.

However, this may not have been a necessary war in hindsight, but there was no way to know that at the time. History showed repeated violations by Saddam and it was time for the world to have the character to stand up and say so.

The US and the army are not worse off. That is absurd.

When you present two bad options, it is always helpful to take the lesser one. But the fact that these are the only two that were "obvious" to you shows that you are not fully aware of the magnitude of the situation. There were many more choices.

Really?? I have never seen them deny that. Unlike others, Bush and this administration have stood up and owned their choices. They have made it clear why they did what they did.

So? What makes your consideration right? What evidence are you prepared to accept that contradicts your position?

You are right about this. My suspicion is that history will look more kindly on Bush than the present does. I suspect that within 20 years there will be burgeoning democracies in the middle east and within 50 the Middle East will be entirely different. Remember 20 years ago when the Iron Curtain began to fall. I think we will see a similar thing in teh Middle East, hastened by the war. Without the war, it may never have happened. But today, people live in freedom, and that's good.

That's fine.

You stated your original premise and conclusion -- that Bush et al weren't thinking.

It's been great so far. Have done nothing but read a little and watch the football game. Hope yours was good.

 

Does anyone remember when the U.N. Security Counsel wanted to have full access to check for weapons of mass destruction?

Until we got where we wanted to check them, they were already shipped into Syria and hidden underground.

This has been documented by the authorities closest to our government.

They were there; now they are not there!

 

I believe this is pure conjecture on your part. Please show proof that these supposedly WMD's are now buried in Syria.

 

I agree whole heartedly with this Joseph, except that Biden is not a nut job, but a cold calculating, devious Democrat, dedicated to the overthrow of the Bush administration, or any, (ANY) other thing necessary for him to have a shot at the presidential elections in 2008.