An Argument For Each Of Our Would-be Nominees

[ThomWV]

I am offering up this arguement for all of the would be nominees.

We are now being told that Sadam had to be taken out because he was a bad man in charge of brutal regime. If we had not done it when we did we would have had to do it in the future.

We are also now being told that the President was misled by faulty intelligence. Not only that but the Kay report tells us that Sadam was also being misled, that he was providing funds for weapons development but that they were being directed into private accounts, embezeled you might say.

Well, if Sadam's capability was not being built up because of corruption within his regime it follows that he did not, in fact have the power to either continue to brutilize his own country or to invade any other country. His days were comming to an end no matter what we did. In fact if it had got to the point where the defense of the nation was being embezeled how close to collapse must it have been? I'd have to say that it was very close to falling on its own.

So you have to ask, was it possible that the war was waged when it was not because Iraq posed a threat to us and the mid-east region, but in fact because it could not even defend itself within the region and its fall may have led to much greater turmoil in the region?

Thom