NYT: Thrree Things Abut Iraq

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

To have the sober conversation about the war in Iraq that America badly needs, it is vital to acknowledge three facts:


The war has nothing to do with Sept. 11. Saddam Hussein was a sworn enemy of Washington, but there was no Iraq-Qaeda axis, no connection between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist attacks on the United States. Yet the president and his supporters continue to duck behind 9/11 whenever they feel pressure about what is happening in Iraq. The most cynical recent example was Karl Rove's absurd and offensive declaration this week that conservatives and liberals had different reactions to 9/11. Let's be clear: Americans of every political stripe were united in their outrage and grief, united in their determination to punish those who plotted the mass murder, and united behind the war in Afghanistan, which was an assault on terrorists. Trying to pretend otherwise is the surest recipe for turning political dialogue into meaningless squabbling.

More: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/25/opinion/25sat1.html

[babylonsister]

1. Good, honest editorial and In the NY Times! I'm thinking

people are waking up. However, I don't put as much stock in McCain as the writer does. I think at this point he'll say or do whatever it takes to give him more exposure; I'm not buying it.

[whistle]

2. Correcto mundo Tandalayo_Scheisskopf!

[Wright Patman]

3. The U.S. targeted Saddam as the enemy

and not the other way around. If you read up on the history of the relationship, he was seeking to cooperate with the U.S. even after the first Gulf War. It reminded me of the Aggie joke where the Aggie is shoved out of the top floor of a building, lives through it, takes the elevator back up to the top floor and tells the guy who shoved him out, "I'm not mad."

After the Iran-Iraq war ended (during which we "tilted" toward Iraq and supplied them with all sorts of stuff), trade and commercial relationships between the Iraqis and U.S. companies were thriving.

Human rights advocates would say it was wrong to trade with a dictatorship like that, but if that's the case, then why are we still trading with China?