The Iraq War was necessary

It is extremely exhausting to debate with people like yourself who wish to denigrate the United States and its efforts in any way, shape, or form. Since you insist on using arguments from other works and people, I shall do the same to appease your interest. President Clinton, addressing the nation on December 16, 1998 after ordering a strike on military and security targets in Iraq, said "The mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. The purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States and indeed the interests of the people throughout the Middle East and around the world. Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas, or biological weapons. He also said "What if Saddam fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction...if we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program." Al Gore on that very same day said "If you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with these weapons? He's already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons. He poison-gassed his own people. He used poison gas and other weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors. The man has no compunction about killing lots of people. So the U.S. bombing is a way to save lives and to save the stability and peace of a region of the world that is important to the peace and security of the entire world." Senator Tom Daschle said in 1998 that a use of force resolution would "send as clear a message as possible that we are going to force, one way or another, diplomatically or militarily, Iraq to comply with international law." He then went on to further defend Clinton's decision to use force sayingm, "We have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so? That's what they're saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don't have another option. We have to force them to comply and we are doing so militarily." Senator John Kerry on February 23, 1998 said "If there is not unfettered, unrestricted, unlimited access per the UN resolution for inspections and UNSCOM cannot in our judgment appropriately perform its functions, then we obviously reserve the rights to press the case internationally and to do what we need to do as a nation in order to be able to enforce those rights...Saddam Hussein has already used weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is the threat to the stability of the Middle East." Richard Butler, who headed the team investigating Iraq's weapons programs said "The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime itself: Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to WMD." Notice anything strange? They're all Democrats. The same people who called President Bush a "liar" and said this is "Bush's War." The hypocrisy is astounding. Why do you insist on defending a man like Saddam Hussein? Why do you oppose the United States action to remove the man from power and give the Middle Eastern people a future? Why do you insist on denying the new democratic government as success? Why do you insist on leaving Saddam in power only to murder thousands more? Why do you prefer the United States to remain out of their affairs, but complain Reagan didn't do anything to help the Kurds in the 1980's? Why do you insist on believing that all of the Iraqi people don't want us there when the truth is that less than 2% of the population, the insurgency, are the only ones who don't want us there? This is all very confusing to me. It seems strange to know that there are Americans in this country who don't want to see the United States succeed in protecting the future of the people of the Middle East as well as protecting our own country. It seems strange to know that people like you despise everything the United States does, when in actuality, without military action, you would not have the right to speak out against the government. I suggest you start appreciating what you have because you have been truly blessed to be a part of this nation. You may not realize it now, which is sad, but once you start to realize just how good you have it here, then you will appreciate the efforts of our best and brightest who put their lives on the line daily to give you the right to denigrate them and the cause they are fighting for, as well as President Bush. I conclude my end of the debate.