Senate report concludes: no proof of contact between

[kandrathe]

...
This comment is as illogical as the same one Cheney made. We weren't on Mars either, so I guess we should immediately have sent a manned probe up there too.

The point is that we were a target before Iraq, and there was already a raging fire sufficient to cause September 11th. Separate Iraq from WMD and terrorism for a second, since as I said before, my view was the justification for UN action in Iraq was due to a failure to comply with the armistice. Possible shenanigans with WMD, harrassing UNMOVIC, and recruiting jihadists from Lebanon, Iran, and Syria were just extra reasons for the UN to do something more substantial. I don't believe the war on Iraq was due to terrorism, or due to preventing WMD. It was due to the possibilities of combining a hostile madman (who flaunted all UN attempts to suggest rational behavior), possible WMD's, and possibly recruiting jihadists. I asked you what Iraq and the middle east would be like today with Saddam in power, after a failed sanctions effort, but you ducked that question. You don't think that "failure" would not have also emboldened and further radicalized the jihadists to have defeated the UN and the US?

Why is it that people who opposed the Iraq war from the very beginning are using 20/20 hindsight? I would simly say they have been proved right and the Bush administration has been proved horribly wrong. Small comfort, I know, but there you go.

Who mentioned anything about "people who opposed"? I am not in favor of war, and I'm not a fan of Saddam. There was an unexplored middle ground which the UN failed to achieve. You think you have been proven right? Compared to what? You refused to contemplate the scenarios above, but condemn the actions that have actually been taken. I don't believe that what has occured in the last five years is anywhere near an optimum scenario, but I can't tell you that where we are today is worse off than a world with Saddam in charge of Iraq now. There might just be that possibility that stopping Saddam was the right thing to do. History (like 50 years from now) will have a better perspective on this time.

My position is that at this point, I am patient enough to wait for better information than bits leaked by the NYT. And, regarding Iraq, I shudder everytime the US and others make a mistake in Iraq. I know it will mean hundreds more dead Iraqis and coalition troops. But, we are there and we need to deal with just that fact. The 20/20 hindsight (no matter where you were 5 years ago) is irrelevant to the current situation, and what I have been saying is that "we all" need to get to a reasonable concensus on what to do to stop terrorism. So again... What would you do? Telling me you would not have poured gasoline on a fire 5 years ago is not helpful.