Revisiting Reasons for the Second Iraqi War
The basis for going to war included (at least) the following reasons:
* Non-compliance with the existing cease fire agreement
* Non-compliance with UN weapons agreements and inspectors (1)
-- Medium Range Ballistic missiles
-- Chemical Weapons
-- Biological weapons
-- Nuclear program
* Past demonstrated use of WMDs
* Past demonstrated attacks on neighboring nations
* Past demonstrated assassination attempts on US gov't officials
* Ongoing support for Palestinian terrorist actions (this wasn't part of the GWB's public reasons)
* Suspected ties to Muslim terrorists
* Suspected existence of Muslim Terrorist training camps
* Promotion of a new Democratic System within the Arab world
* Ending a tyrannical regime
* Ending genocidal activities
* Ending the corruption of oil funds into:
-- The UN
-- Terrorists
-- Iraqi military
There is supporting evidence for each of the listed reasons with the possible exception of WMDs (1). The facts collected on the ground in post-war Iraq do not conclusively prove that large stockpiles of WMDs existed at the time of the invasion. It is possible that these did exist and that the evidence has been removed. I will set this aside because it is not a defendable position, although it may be true. There is circumstantial evidence of WMD activities within Iraq; WMD antidotes, HazMat suits, protected bunkers.
This extensive list of justifications leads to the question that should be asked now: Why have so many Democrats flip-flopped on their support for this country's foreign policy? Is it their position that all of the reason listed above that have proved out do not remain a significant justification for the war?
* Non-compliance with the existing cease fire agreement
* Non-compliance with UN weapons agreements and inspectors (1)
-- Medium Range Ballistic missiles
-- Chemical Weapons
-- Biological weapons
-- Nuclear program
* Past demonstrated use of WMDs
* Past demonstrated attacks on neighboring nations
* Past demonstrated assassination attempts on US gov't officials
* Ongoing support for Palestinian terrorist actions (this wasn't part of the GWB's public reasons)
* Suspected ties to Muslim terrorists
* Suspected existence of Muslim Terrorist training camps
* Promotion of a new Democratic System within the Arab world
* Ending a tyrannical regime
* Ending genocidal activities
* Ending the corruption of oil funds into:
-- The UN
-- Terrorists
-- Iraqi military
There is supporting evidence for each of the listed reasons with the possible exception of WMDs (1). The facts collected on the ground in post-war Iraq do not conclusively prove that large stockpiles of WMDs existed at the time of the invasion. It is possible that these did exist and that the evidence has been removed. I will set this aside because it is not a defendable position, although it may be true. There is circumstantial evidence of WMD activities within Iraq; WMD antidotes, HazMat suits, protected bunkers.
This extensive list of justifications leads to the question that should be asked now: Why have so many Democrats flip-flopped on their support for this country's foreign policy? Is it their position that all of the reason listed above that have proved out do not remain a significant justification for the war?
posted by Fred Kleindenst at 3:03 PM | Permalink
2 Comments:
If a pilot pulls out of a nose dive; is that a flip-flop. You guys are ridiculas.
There are times when changing policy 180 degrees is exactly the correct thing to do. If this were to be the case you'd expect that circumstances to have drastically changed.
The point of my post is that much of the pre-war situation has proved out; therefore the prior policy conclusions are justified by the current facts.
Post a Comment
<< Home