THEN you go on to set up a strawman argument that anybody who believes that there weren't WMDs must somehow also believe that we have to pull out of Iraq immediately. Bollocks. General Eric Shinseki got handed his hat - and lost his career - for suggesting that what we needed were far more troops than Rumsfeld, et. al. were wanting to commit. Our problem is not that we're there and should get out, our problem is that we were never there enough in the first place. It's times like these that the Powell Doctrine makes more and more sense.
And as for suggesting that the Iraqis will face more violence if we leave - well, it depends. It could be argued - as has been done here - that our continued occupation has actually made things worse because the insurgents have something to point at as evidence of "Crusaders" in their midst. (And Bush's on-again off-again love affair with the Christian Right doesn't help that image either.)
Bah. BushCo has gotten us into the sorry mess; neither "staying the course" (as the Administration defines it) or "instant pull-out" are answers. Your conflation of viewpoints merely reflects the success of the right-wing in defining anybody with questions about Iraq as somehow traitorous. I expected better.
no subject
We've known for nearly 25 years that Saddam Hussein had nerve gas. We provided him with the capacity to make the stuff during the Iran-Iraq War. UNSCOM's efforts to find WMD were sabotaged by the activities of the US intelligence community using UNSCOM as a cover. What's quite clear is that the original reason for invading Iraq - the ability to use WMD to threaten the US and the West within less than a day - was utter hogwash.
THEN you go on to set up a strawman argument that anybody who believes that there weren't WMDs must somehow also believe that we have to pull out of Iraq immediately. Bollocks. General Eric Shinseki got handed his hat - and lost his career - for suggesting that what we needed were far more troops than Rumsfeld, et. al. were wanting to commit. Our problem is not that we're there and should get out, our problem is that we were never there enough in the first place. It's times like these that the Powell Doctrine makes more and more sense.
And as for suggesting that the Iraqis will face more violence if we leave - well, it depends. It could be argued - as has been done here - that our continued occupation has actually made things worse because the insurgents have something to point at as evidence of "Crusaders" in their midst. (And Bush's on-again off-again love affair with the Christian Right doesn't help that image either.)
Bah. BushCo has gotten us into the sorry mess; neither "staying the course" (as the Administration defines it) or "instant pull-out" are answers. Your conflation of viewpoints merely reflects the success of the right-wing in defining anybody with questions about Iraq as somehow traitorous. I expected better.