When Clinton attacked Iraq in ‘98, people said he was trying to deflect attention from Monica. If you are looking for an alterior motive, or believe that the government is trying to pull the wool over your eyes…you’ll probably find what you seek.

On the other hand, I believe that Neil Armstrong walked on the moon, that Clinton wasn’t following “Wag the Dog” in ‘98, and that removing Saddam from the planet is for the best.

Those who argue that the cost of the war has not been quantified fail to propose what the cost of not having a war might be: Endless inspections. Maintenance of an armed force to enforce inspections. Possible development of undeterrable form of force by Saddam (see N. Korea) in spite of inspections.

While we’re at it, most fail to consider that an immediate benefit of regime change in Iraq is the release of the stringent sanctions that 1) keep a substantial amount of money out of Iraqi civilians hands, 2) has increased the infant and child mortality rate two-fold, and 3) reduces the overall global oil supply causing, driving worldwide prices up.

The so-called peace that was maintained up until a few hours ago comes at a price. Did any of the critics bother to calculate how much?

frickin Canada…

Dane, you shouldn’t trust CNN, I hear they like to lick donkey ballz.

Thad, Saddam is bad. Chocolate ice cream good. Need I say more?

Blame Canada!

That being said…paratroopers are cool.