http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2003/02/27/un_documents/index.html Glad you asked. On the one hand, I disagree with Bush's policy wrt Iraq. But even moreso, the blundering execution of said policy is hurting the US. There's a reason the US isn't trusted in so many places around the world.
OK, fair enough. But you obviously didn't read the link. In it, Conason references and links to others' reporting. He writes "reportedly" because he didn't do the work, he's just blogging. Here are the links: http://www.sundayherald.com/31710 http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0309/ridgeway.php Have fun.
So, on the one hand you disagree with Bush but on the other hand you disagree with Bush. How is this any different than your other posts?
exactly. and does it matter? no. The ONLY reason I would be against a war with Iraq is the very real possibility of scores of dead civies. Our soldiers sign up for this stuff, and while their deaths are terrible in their own right, they know the risks when they sign up. As the world gets smaller there is less and less room for morons like Saddam. While I don't like the precedent we could set by going in unprovoked I can't help feeling that it is for the best, especially considering Saddam's history and future potential to be a royal pain in the a$$. But by the same token, I also can't help feeling that he isn't capable of BEING much MORE than a royal pain in the a$$. Is it worth going in and risking the lives of god knows how many civilians, risking hundreds if not thousands of soldiers lives, all on the chance that Saddam could invade a neigbhbor or attack a target with a WMD? Short of firing off a large nuke Saddam couldn't do much damage. We will risk causing more death and destruction in a war with Iraq then we might see if we let these inspections run their course and explore other means of neutralizing Saddam. Another terrorist attack would be devastating, and if Bush would show some real evidence that Saddam and Bin Laden, or any other terrorists, are linked then his case would carry much more water. But until then it doesn't seem that war is neccesary. But then, again, there is the other voice in my head that says going in now is the surest way of avoiding any possible atrocities that Saddam could directly or indirectly contribute to. I don't believe a war could make the situation in the middle east any worse than it is. People want me to believe that things are too good and smooth in the region to mess it all up with a war. What? Nothing works in the middle east. The people are poor, the few and powerful are in charge, and basically it is the region of the world only slightly ahead of Africa as being most behind everyone else. And that is in large part due to folks like Saddam. Has the U.S. surely "backed" him as the lesser of two evils in the past? I wouldn't doubt it. And so what? When you are put in the position of having to support the lesser of two, or three, or four, evils then you don't have much choice but to look a bit shady farther down the road when you then have to deal with the monster that the evil became, as in the case of Saddam.