Slim,
I'm a confirmed independent with no party affiliation. I try to weigh the issues and the quality of the candidates. Often very difficult to do until they've actually been in office. Then it's too late, at least for the first term.
Actually, unless he was lying, it was no less than former Sec. of State Colin Powell who said at a press conference on 2/24/2001, "We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq..."
At a later date 5/15/2001, testifying before the Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee, he said, "The Iraqi regime militarily remains fairly weak. It doesn't have the capacity it had 10 or 12 years ago. It has been contained. And even though we have no doubt in our mind that the Iraqi regime is pursuing programs to develop weapons of mass destruction -- chemical, biological and nuclear -- I think the best intelligence estimates suggest that they have not been terribly successful. There's no question that they have some stockpiles of some of these sorts of weapons still under their control, but they have not been able to break out, they have not been able to come out with the capacity to deliver these kinds of systems or to actually have these kinds of systems that is much beyond where they were 10 years ago."
I supposed when it comes to the question of whether WMDs were removed from the country, we just have to decide whom we're going to believe. In 2005, the CIA produced a report stating in part, "Among unanswered questions, Duelfer said a group formed to investigate whether WMD-related material was shipped out of Iraq before the invasion wasn’t able to reach firm conclusions because the security situation limited and later halted their work. Investigators were focusing on transfers from Iraq to Syria.
No information gleaned from questioning Iraqis supported the possibility, one addendum said. The Iraq Survey Group believes 'it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place. However, ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials.' see
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313.Concerning your comments about regime change, you remind me of a girl who called into work when I was working at a fast food place sounding aboslutely terrible and saying she wouldn't be in for work that day. I told the boss she was sick, but when she came in the next day, she said she'd never said she was sick and if I misunderstood, that was my fault. Of COURSE I meant regime change on our whim, without provocation.
Islam is 600 years younger than Christianity. Subtract 600 years and Christianity was in exactly the same position that Islam is today. The biggest, and most significant difference is that Christians didn't have atomic bombs in the thirteeth, fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth centuries. If they had, most of Europe and North America would probably still be radioactive.
The biggest gift Christians and Jews could give to Islam is helping them through their adolescence. As with adolescent children they don't want the help. Unfortunately, they're not setting a very good example.
You say, "Depending on the situation, and with the condition that is in our best national interest it is my opinion that the US should be able to do whatever it sees fit, barring outright imperialism and subjugation, to ensure the continuation of our way of life." I guess, then, that it boils down to who gets to decide what's "outright imperialism and subjugation," and what threats really do, in fact, threaten the continuation of our way of life."
The "business as usual" refers specifically to the war. As a general comment about our day and time, my personal view (and I've never heard this stated in this way by anyone else, but then I miss a lot) is that the reason our elections have been so unprecidently close recently is because there's really not much difference between Democrats and Republicans. When the electorate can't figure out what the difference is, then it's pretty much a crap shoot when it comes to electons.
A relative of mine recommended your blog to me. Unless one is prepared to state that anything and everything one party or the other says is wrong or evil, then it should come as no surprise that those who occasionally sound like a Democrat or Republican, may, in fact, be making sense. The truth is, I didn't know I was sounding like a Democrat. I'm just trying to reason my way through what's going on, using actions and results more than words.
So, on another front, how about a Hillary, Obama ticket? Any chance in hell that #1 a woman could be elected president and #2 a black man could be elected president?
Dave