The American left changes gears in Iraq

on Jul 13, 2004

That's not a resolution. That's a speech. If you want to participate, please avoid strawman arguments.

The question was about Kerry seeing the same info that Bush did and voting in favor of military action in Iraq. You said that Kerry voted on a resolution that required UN authorization. That is simply untrue. The resolution included nothing about the UN.

But let's let Kerry speak for himself about the vote:

“The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10171)

You were saying?

62

Eswiv

on Jul 13, 2004

I keep explaining this, but you clearly missed it. I will copy and paste it yet another time.

People continue to support the war because first, they think removing Saddam from power was the right thing to do, regardless of the situation it was done in. They don't know much about, or care much about, or both, the foundations of international law or procedure, and they just figure that Saddam was a bad guy and it's good he's gone. Then there are the people who think we should have gone into Iraq just to spite the UN and prove that the United States is not to be denied what it wants by anyone. There are people who support the war because they want the Iraqi people to have democracy. There are many reasons why people still support the war.

So no, it wouldn't be a 5% plurality. There are numerous reasons why that is, but you are drastically simplifying the electorate. You forget completely that some people are just die-hard republicans and they will support the war regardless, which is a lot more than 5% all by itself, and all those groups I listed above and plenty more I'm sure. Welcome to the world of politics, where just because someone obviously was wrong about something doesn't mean they lose support. Clinton lied, yet he was reelected in a landslide and enjoyed huge support. People knew he lied, but they didn't care, they liked what he was doing. Same deal with Iraq, it's not that hard to understand.

Here's the thing. You've completely ignored the real issue here. I don't give a damn what you think of the war or why it was right, I don't care what that plurality cares, I care what the justification provided by the administration was. That is the only thing that matters. Yeah, if people only supported the war in Iraq because of a fear of WMD support would be lower than it is now. Not as low as you claim it would be I don't think, but I would guess more in the 30-40% range. So people wanted to go into Iraq for different reasons. That doesn't matter at all. You are not policy makers in the government, you do not make the decisions, you do not justify them. That is the government's job, the job of the White House Counsel, the Departments of State and Defense, the Justice Department, and the Intelligence community. The basis for the war, as set down by these organizations in official capacity, was the elimination of the threat posed by Iraq's WMD. That threat did not exist, and hence the problem. It matters nothing that a plurality of Americans support the war, it really doesn't. Pluralities of Americans don't make international law. Several thousand years of precedent makes international law, and that is what we judge the actions of a government by.

P.S. Vietnam has to do with Iraq in this way -- You were claiming that support for Iraq would be around 5% if it was about WMD. I was saying that was silly because it's hard to think of a situation more unpopular than Vietman and the approval ratings for that conflict were notably higher than what you propose for Iraq.

63

Eswiv

on Jul 13, 2004

What's your point? The issue at hand isn't what Senator Kerry thought of WMD in Iraq. Senators were not provided with much information more than the public was, and the recent report shows that that information was deeply flawed. They did not have the same information as President Bush did. I mentioned this before. Here are some examples.

Members of the Administration repeatedly claimed, and these claims were also given to the Congress, that Iraq posed an "imminent" threat. At the time, no one knew that Director Tenet had urged the White House not to claim Iraq was an imminent threat, as they had no intelligence to substantiate that claim.

The Administration pointed to several examples of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons facilities or parts as evidence of programs. These were also pushed on the Congress. We know now that the mobile weapons labs were used for producing hydrogen for weather balloons, and the aluminum tubes for rockets.

There are numerous similar claims that have since been disproven, but were, at the time, seemingly accurate. The Congress did not have access to the memos from Tenet and other Intelligence analysts and agencies, and thus no, they were not on the same page with the President.

By the way, that's a direct quote from the text of the resolution. That says that the President is obligated to fulfill what he said he would, in working with the UN.

64

Draginol

on Jul 13, 2004

I don't believe in "International law". It doesn't exist as a practical matter. Anything that is unenforceable is not a law. It's a wish list.

You believe that the administration used WMD stockpiles as its major emphasis for justfying the war. I disagree.

You back up your assertion with little quote snippets. That's fine. I back up my assertion by providing the entire contents of websites that were vocal about why we should go in: nationalreview.com, weeklystandard.com, denbeste.nu, and so forth.

You didn't support going in. That's your right. But don't tell me why WE supported the war. You've made it clear what your opinion is on the justification you believe Bush used to go in. I don't agree.

I don't think you have a strong argument because you would be able to pull up overwhelming evidence. But you can't. You just have snippets here and there. Cherry picked quotes.

If you want to get technical, *Bush's* specific argument to go to war (i.e. his legal reason) was that Saddam had violated the 1991 gulf war cease fire agreement.

The quibbling point is on WMD: WMD programs/intent vs. WMD stockpiles. The Kaye report said no stockpiles were found but he had WMD programs with the idea of becoming a nuclear power once the sanctions were lifted (which France and Russia were pushing for).

Why not just go to the 2003 state of the union speech. Here's the relevant part (which talks about WMD programs and what they thought he had on hand - which was mistaken):

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.
Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)
The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. (Applause.)
And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.)
The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies. The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups.

In here he clearly states that Iraq is not an imminent threat. He also spends a great deal of time talking about Saddam's working with terrorists which have subsequently been proven to be correct as seen in the infamous congressional report on the CIA. He also talks about WMD programs.

Bush in the speech definitely refers to the inventories he believes Saddam has. But that wasn't the money shot. That was not the linch pin to the argument. Saddam WAS trying to acquire the capability to build nuclear weapons. Not that the left ever wants to talk about that fact. They just ignore the parts of the Kaye report and elsewhere that point this out and focus on the fact that the tons of nerve agents haven't been found -- as if they would have supported going in if they had been found.

The technical justification for going to war, like I said, was Saddam's violation of the 1991 cease fire agreement. That part is undeniable because that was the US legal justification for going in. The political justification we can debate all day. We won't ever agree.

Just like if I wrote article after article saying that thosewho opposed going into Iraq are just moral and intellectual cowards, there's no way to prove that. And telling those who disagree with you what THEIR motivations for their position is tends to be offensive.

65

Draginol

on Jul 13, 2004

What's your point? The issue at hand isn't what Senator Kerry thought of WMD in Iraq. Senators were not provided with much information more than the public was, and the recent report shows that that information was deeply flawed. They did not have the same information as President Bush did. I mentioned this before. Here are some examples.

Members of the Administration repeatedly claimed, and these claims were also given to the Congress, that Iraq posed an "imminent" threat. At the time, no one knew that Director Tenet had urged the White House not to claim Iraq was an imminent threat, as they had no intelligence to substantiate that claim.

You are simply incorrect. Bush stated in his STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS that Iraq was NOT an imminent threat. He argued just th eopposite, that we act BEFORE Iraq became an imminent threat. How can you argue otherwise?

Second, John Kerry, who sat on the foreign intelligence committee, had the SAME information as Bush did. Just because you claim that's not the case doesn't make it so. Kerry has the same level of clearance as Bush. He saw the same stuff. He made the same conclusions. Clinton made the same conclusions as well or are you going to now claim Clinton didn't have access either? Perhaps the CIA only shows secret stuff to Republicans? Please.

66

Eswiv

on Jul 13, 2004

That is, as you say, the legal justification. However, the action was illegal. I had a discussion about this with a professor at Georgetown Law once, and we came to an agreement. The war was illegal because of what UNSC 687 states. UNSC 687 was the security council resolution setting up the post-war Iraq environment after the Gulf War. It stated that were Iraq in material breach of the conditions set down by that resolution, including the production of WMD, the Security Council would take appropriate action to inervene. The Security Council. The action we undertook was, because we initiated it wthout the nod from the UNSC, illegal. Being that that the war was illegal under the auspices of the UN, the only alternative was to resort to conventional customary Internation Law which I have already explained. Hence, the WMD were the linch pin, regardless. You can see the push towards establishing a preemptive situation clearly in the quote you use from the 2003 SOTU.

The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies.

A serious and mounting threat to our country. I think that could be categorized as an imminent threat. There's also the reference to hidden weapons.

Might I add that Internation Law does, very much, exist, and if you disregard it you'd be in a great deal of trouble. The territorial waters that exist off our mainland where we have jurisdiction, that is a creation of customary Internationa Law. As is diplomatic immunity, as is air space, as are hundreds of the foundations of the international community that keep things relatively sane. International law is exceedingly important, and it is indeed enforced. We enforce it, for one. It is dangerous to think that just because we are the most powerful nation in the world that we can flaunt international law because no one can enforce its tenents on us. That is a path to sure chaos, I believe.

I'm not telling you why you went to war, because you didn't. This administration went to war, and they did it on the justification that Iraq posed a threat because of its WMD programs. It's that simple. What else could they base it on? If WMD were not a key part of the administration's justification then nobody would much care that there weren't any there. If it wasn't about WMD, then why the inspectors? Why did we send people in to try to disarm Iraq if this was not the issue?

67

Draginol

on Jul 13, 2004

That is, as you say, the legal justification. However, the action was illegal. I had a discussion about this with a professor at Georgetown Law once, and we came to an agreement. The war was illegal because of what UNSC 687 states.

Well by all means, you should file a lawsuit immediately. Do you realize how arrogant that sounds? Stating as a "fact" that the action was "illegal".

If you want to wiggle around in technicalities, then UN resolution 1441 provides over. AFter all "serious consequences" was the same language NATO used to legally justify bombing Serbia.

As for whether Bush was implying it was imminent there is no escaping this sentence:

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.

If you can't even concede that point yo should just go away and find some other blog to mess with because I'm not going to waste time on anyone dogmatic enough to deny this explicit quote.

International law is exceedingly important, and it is indeed enforced. We enforce it, for one.

As for "International law" who exactly enforces International law? Only individual nation states act on it. People argue the US has broken international law by invading Iraq. If that's the case, then I await the enforcement by "the police" or whatever. What you call "international law" I call a series of mutually agreed upon treaties that have various levels of enforcements.

But if you want to play that game, Saddam certainly broke international law and the police, in the form of the United States came in and arrested him. Hooray for "international law".

I'm not telling you why you went to war, because you didn't. This administration went to war,

Tell that to the soldiers and sailors. They may be in for quite a shock that they didn't go to war. The US went to war. As a nation state. That's how it works. I don't have to be in the adminstration or personally shooting weapons to say that WE went to war.

If WMD were not a key part of the administration's justification then nobody would much care that there weren't any there

Nonsense. The people who "care" are the same people who did't want to go in the first place. If stockpiles were found, they simply woudl have argued something else. There were so many reasons given that they could just pick the weakest one and go with it. Which is precisely what has happened.

68

Eswiv

on Jul 13, 2004

Presidents get more information on these things than Senators do. If you think there is full transparency between the Senate and White House then why does the Senate have to kick and claw and scream to drag memos and briefings out of the Administration? Why is Executive Privelidge exercised so much when dealing with the Congress if Congress gets everything the President gets anyway? Bush states in his State of the Union that Iraq is not an imminent threat. Then he states that Iraq is an imminent threat.

"But the risk of doing nothing, the risk of the security of this country being jeopardized at the hands of a madman with weapons of mass destruction far exceeds the risks of any action we may be forced to take."

"Today, the world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq."

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."

"He said he wouldn't have chemical weapons, he's got them."

"It's a man who has got connections with Al Qaida. Imagine a terrorist network with Iraq as an arsenal and as a training ground, so that a Saddam Hussein could use this shadowy group of people to attack his enemy and leave no fingerprint behind. He's a threat."

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States."

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States."

"[Iraq] possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons."

"If the Iraq regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than one year."

"On its present course, the Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. . . . it has developed weapons of mass death."

"The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons."

"The regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material, could build one within a year."

"Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year."

"The regime . . . has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda. The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other."

"But the risk of doing nothing, the risk of the security of this country being jeopardized at the hands of a madman with weapons of mass destruction far exceeds the risks of any action we may be forced to take."

"[T]he reporting that we had prior to the war this time around was all consistent with that -- basically said that he had a chemical, biological and nuclear program, and estimated that if he could acquire fissile material, he could have a nuclear weapon within a year or two."

"He's had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

"On the nuclear question, many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire such weapons fairly soon."

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."

"We know that they have chemical weapons.""We know that they have chemical weapons."

"We know that they have chemical weapons."

All of those quotes came from either the President or Vice President between 2002 and 2003. Now, are you denying that the clear indication from the summation of those remarks is that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the U.S. and it's interests? I think that's a very, very clear assertion there. There is very clearly the idea that Iraq is a threat and must be eliminated as soon as possible. Call it cherry picking or whatever, but I think that many quotes on this is no mistake. It's no accident, it's not taking things out of context. It's very clear, I think.

69

Draginol

on Jul 13, 2004

Okay, you're done, I've already politely requested knocking off the pointless cherry picking of quotes.

I provided a huge block from the 2003 state of the union address and rather dealing with that you just went back to cherry picking quotes. We already both agree that Bush believed and claimed Iraq had WMD stockpiles. So showing quotes of him saying that is meaningless. Particularly when there's no context. I'm sure there are other bloggers who have the time or inclination to go back and forth with the same pointless quote game.

I could do the same thing with John Kerry. And what would that prove? Nothing. You don't agree with my position. That's fine. I don't find your argument compelling and you don't agree with mine. Enough said.

70

Eswiv

on Jul 13, 2004

It's not a technicality. It's a pretty important point, that the Security Council is authorized to do something but no one else. I hate to break the news, but it is a fact. We weren't legally justified in going into Iraq. We were fine based on the information we provided at the time we went in, but since then the lack of WMD has stripped us of our legality. You can ask around the legal community, it's just the truth.

As for International Law, It is a series of agreements and treaties between nations, and general understandings. We are the police, and I think we definitely should have acted in regards to the infringements made by Iraq. Iraq invaded another nation in 1991 illegally, and look what they got. I agree fully with holding Iraq accountable, I disagree with the way in which we did it.

Nonsense. The people who "care" are the same people who did't want to go in the first place. If stockpiles were found, they simply woudl have argued something else. There were so many reasons given that they could just pick the weakest one and go with it. Which is precisely what has happened.

I have three big problems with the way the War in Iraq was handled, and I think this is pretty universal among opponents. First, we went in on the false assumption that Iraq had or was soon to have WMD. Second, that we discarded diplomatic and peaceful avenues to early. Third, that we were waaaay unprepared and we terribly underplanned for the post war reconstruction effort. Had we stuck with the UN, had we discovered that there were not really sizeable WMD stocks in Iraq or programs to create them, and had we eventually invaded with international support and with proper planning, I would support the war fully. I supported Afghanistan because these criterion were met, and I thought it was a just and necessary war. It's not that people are just opposed to the war and will always find some reason to oppose it. We find reasons to oppose it because we oppose it for reasons, we don't just do it to frustrate people.

71

couchman

on Jul 13, 2004

regardless of all the rhetoric on both sides....first regime change was national policy long before President Bush was in office, ....officially in the mid-90's it became law under presidential directive...but since the end of the "first" gulf war it was unofficial national policy...this is reality

as to the WMD issue...too many varibles...while i believe Iraq was attempting to procure fissionable material for its programs and in fact intelligence from many sources show just that (sorry...the niger report was not the sole basis for this) the was greater intelligence leaning towards Iraqs chem/bio program....especially with the rather large amount of precursor chemical canisters found in camo bunkers on Iraqi military arms depots....among other places....and intresting point is that VX is binary agent and Iraq was not known to have pre-mixed batches ready to go prob because of a lack of reliable containment bunkers...but who knows...as for those who still scream "where are the stockpiles!" did they expect a big neon sign with and arrow pointing down, X marks the spot style? most likely Iraqs stockpile..possible smaller than estimated is either scattered about iraq buried under the sand , moved out of the country prior to the invasion ( Kaye did assert this in his most recent report as a serious conclusion due in part to the large military vehical traffic back and forth between Iraq and Syria) or even that Saddams own scientists and generals in charge of his programs were funneling the research and production money from the program to themselves with Saddam none the wiser....but who knows....one final point....the US military uncovered nearly 2 dozen aircraft buried under the iraqi sand ..this wasnt some spirit of the moment idea on iraqs part...since all were either sealed/ protected for their stay in the elements...and despite what the general media called obsolete aircraft from long ago....many were Mig-25 Foxbat Reconnaissance aircraft ...a type never before seen in the west and carries advanced electronic warfare/surveilance equipment as well as being in current service with the russian military....using both russian and french electronics in violation of the 1990's weapons ban....(Thank you france and russia for your continued stupidity in the world arms market)

If I swayed from the point i appologise but at times i often wonder whos side the left in this country and round the world are on?

72

vincible

on Jul 14, 2004

We've got to make the distinction between weapons programs that we should worry about--ie if Hussein was a year away from having the bomb--and weapons programs we shouldn't worry about, ie development of a rail gun technology that was decades away from fruition and may never have worked anyway, which is typical of his actual programs.

And look Draginol, many people still believe in those WMD. There are examples all over JU. Your points about polling ignore this. Someone who believed in WMD as the rationale for war isn't going to change his mind if he still believes there are WMD.

73

Solitair

on Jul 14, 2004

Very interesting debates going on here.

Lots of the debates seem to be going in circles though and moving away from the article. Especially anything to do with politics. Lets try some facts that everyone agrees with.

1) Bush fundamentally believed Saddam had WMD

I think we all accept that Bush did believe this. He may have skewed data, or ignored conflicting evidence, or unintentionally (or even intentionally) misled people, but it doesn't matter. He believed Saddam had WMD.

2) Bush and his administration made numerous speaches highlighting the serious danger of Saddam's WMD

Again I think we can all agree with this statement. The quotes speak for themselves and don't need repeating.

3) Bush and his administration made numerous speeches highlighting the evil nature of saddam and his links to terror

Again I think we can agree on this statement. Again it's backed up by many quotes.

So what was the primary reason for the invasion of Iraq?

Judging by the circular arguements above I think the important question is FOR WHO?
Brad is argueing that the primary reason for the American people is NOT WMD.
Eswiv is argueing that the primary reason for the American adminstration IS WMD.

Both points are separate arguements. Eswiv's arguement that ONLY WMD could be legally used for an invasion is true. No other legal arguement exists and from the administrations point of view any justification for invasion had to be WMD. QED.

This does not make Brad's arguement incorrect, as he's argueing a different point.

Paul.

74

Solitair

on Jul 14, 2004

On the question of the primary reason, from the American public's point of view, of going to war in Iraq;

We agree that,

Intial support was 67% for war, 33% against.
Current support is 47% for war, 53% against

Brad is arguing that, as no WMD have been found, the drop of 20% (from 67%-47%) indicates a belief that WMD was not the primary justification for war for most people. Only 1/3 of Americans in support of the war have changed their minds. Surely if WMD was the primary reason the drop would be larger?

My problem with this arguement is that it fails to account three factors

a) people who still believe WMD are present

the people who did not support war in the first place
c) people who support the war for a different reason.

People in categories (c) never cared about the WMD arguement anyway. For these people WMD was never the primary case for war anyway.

People in category (

were never swayed by the WMD arguement in the first place, and even if they were, they did not support going to war and are therefore not part of Brad's arguement. Personally I find this separation of the official arguement for going to war from people's personal reasons for supporting the war, a severe case of data manipulation, but let's ignore it for now.

Therefore the validity of Brad's arguement lies with the size of (a). These peopel may not have changed their minds because they still believe Saddam had WMD. Amazingly, almost a third of Americans still believe Saddam has WMD. This does not suggest (a) = 33% though as some people who believe Saddam had WMD may fall into category (

or (c). Conservatively lets assume 1/3 of the population equals 1/3 of those oppossed to the war or 16%.

Therefore, of the current 47% who support the war, about 16% probably still believe in the WMD arguement, leaving only 31% who support the war for non WMD reasons.

31% is a far cry from a majority of the American public. Therefore I do understand how you can justify the arguement that WMD were not the primary reason from the American public's point fo view for the war?

paul. PS. For the record I'm in category (c), though obviously not American

75

Draginol

on Jul 14, 2004

Solitair: Surely if your premise is true you should have no trouble finding volumes of articles from people who urged us to go into Iraq saying we shoudl do so because of WMD stockpiles. Good luck.

The most vocal sites "right wing" sites pushing for action in Iraq in the run up to the war were NationalReview.com and WeeklyStandard.com. Their articles are still there to be read. I went through a bunch of them last night and I coudln't find a single one that argued we should go in because we thought Iraq had stockpiles of nerve agents. Some of the articles made passing mention of them but they weren't the thrust of the argument.

What pisses me off is a bunch of anti-war people trying to tell those of us who supported going in (and still do) why we supported it.

Maybe I'll make use of the fact I own the site and start drowning the left wingers with articles explaining that the reason people opposed the war was because they were moral cowards or corrupt or just plain ignorant. I'm sure a few weeks of that and you'd have some left wingers a bit pissed off at having their motivations told to them by someone who has the opposite point of view.