Letters to the Editor
-
The speech Hillary should not give
In 2002 we knew Saddam Hussein had possessed at least weapons of mass destruction and the willingness to use them -- after all, he had already used gas on the Kurds. There was reason to believe that the reason he defied sanctions and inspections was that he still possessed weapons of mass destruction and was making more. There was reason to believe that Iraq was in a position to de-stabilize the entire Middle East. As much as I disliked and mistrusted Bush, at the time there was no reason to believe he was lying to Congress (by omission at the very least).
Given the perceived threat it was not at all unreasonable to vote authorization to use force -- especially since it seemed unlikely that force would actually be necessary, and inconceivable that any President would invade another country with such poor planning for the aftermath. Yes, voting to authorize force has been shown to be wrong -- on the basis of information -- that the Bush administration was lying and incompetent -- that was not available at the time. So what? I'm not especially fond of Hillary and not enthusiastic about having her as President. The best arguments for her? Three words: McCain, Giuliani, Romney. (And after that it gets worse.)