As a right-Libertarian, neither truly Republican or Democrat, I am certainly suspicious of quite a bit of what Bush and the neo-cons are trying to sell us. However, the Bush-bashers, the liberals, and Democrats (not allways the same as liberals), they some across like a pack of shrill conspiracy kooks, and those who are just really deep down outraged that America chose Bush a second time, and with a real majority this time to boot.
So essentialy, I'm kind of an agnostic on the Iraq "war". (IMO the "war" was over in a week, what we have now is a low-grade insurgency.) From a pragmatic standpoint I think we ought to finish it, and stay the course until the insurgency burns itself out, and Iraq is relatively democratic and stable, then take whatever benifit from that we can.
So I'm going to point out a few things as devil's advocate and as someone who dosen't truly support the "war". As a Libertarian, I kind of wish the U.S. was a very well-armed Switzerland that wouldn't put up with trade imbalance from countries like China, but I digress...
- If the Iraq WMD's didn't exist, why did the U.N., the previous Clinton administration, the U.K. and a host of other countries believe they had them as well?
- If the Iraq WMD's didn't exist, why didn't Saddam Hussein allow the U.N. inspectors full access? Was the constant obstruction, cargo trucks leaving as inspectors arrived, and their final ejection from Iraq just a game for his ego? He and his sons would stil be in charge of Iraq, fat happy and rich if they had just allowed the Kumbyah hand-wringers at the U.N. some access so Iraq could be left alone?
- If the insurgency is the "Iraqi's defending themselves" how come so many of them are not Iraqi's? How come 2/3'rds of the country is happy to have the U.S. and Britian there? And even in the dangerous 1/3rd over half the people feel that they're better off with Saddam gone?
And before you say the insurgents are fellow Mid-Easterners come to "help", remember that before in the 80's, and during Iraq war #1, Iraq bullied and stomped most all of their neighbors.
Again, I'm saying this as someone who'd rather all this crap over there not be going on, but at the same time, I can't ignore that those opposing the "war" don't have good responses for these questions. I usually just get more volume in response.
Again, I'm just playing devi's advocate, and I suspect as usual the "truth is somewhere in between". Bush and the Neo-Conservatives can correctly claim they've never tried to link Iraq and 9/11, but OTOH, they've certainly done nothing to stop anyone from getting that impression either. However, that's also a long way from those who would accuse them of making the connection either.
There certainly are some hard questions the Administration needs to answer, but when you take the protestors desparate for a cause to re-live Viet Nam and the 60's over again, and the minority party shrill screaming as they pander to keep their base energized for the next election cycle, the list of those "hard questions" is somewhat smaller.