Steven must be Dubya's warmup act for tonight's lies about an Iraq Exit Strategy.

Levin is exactly right. A UN mandate would have accomplished a number of things. First, it would have lessened the burden on our troops who are already over-extended fighting the War on Some Terrorism. Because we decided to act semi-unilaterally in Iraq, US resources were diverted away from the prosecution of Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, allowing them to regroup and strike Americans on familiar ground. (BTW, today's Wash Post has an article on this) Second, a UN mandate would have very likely facilitated an easier transition of post-Saddam Iraq; Iraqis tend to see this invasion as an oil grab by the US as opposed to pre-emption of a threat.

Shockingly, I agree with you that a mandate would've lessened the burden on our troops. However, that isn't what Levin said--he claimed that the actually intent to attack US troops would be lessened by the simple fact that the UN approved the action, and that the jihadists woundn't seen the whole affair as a holy war if just the U had blessed the action. Those latter points are nonsense.

Seems to me Powell did all he could to persuade the U.N., but France was determined to keep their blood for oil($) programs intact. We should continue to challenge and not appease the position that another U.N. resolution was necessary to give the invasion legitimacy. As Kofi Annan said himself, the UNSC needs to be reformed before it can be effective in dealing with collective security issues. But JadeGold is just an Angry Leftist who jumps the gun on BUSH'S LIES and blaming America first.

Once again, Steven, you're spinning something that simply wasn't said.

There are many Iraqis who are susceptible to joining remnants of pro-Saddam factions or terrorist groups simply because they perceive -- or can be convinced--the US invasion was about oil or some kind of crusade. A UN mandate would have gone a long way to dampen such sentiments.

d-rod:

Where to begin? I suppose we could start with Powell's appearance at the UN. Yes, he did his utmost to gain UN support. His case was extraordinarily weak, however. And hindsight shows us Powell lied about, exaggerated, or misrepresented the extent, capability, and immediacy of Iraq's WMDs.

See the light, d-rod. It's not unpatriotic to expect your leaders to tell you the truth about the reasons for putting troops into harm's way. It's not unAmerican to expect your leaders not to lie to other countries when you demand they send their troops to war.

No one but you said it was unAmerican or unpatriotic, but you do seem awfully defensive. When one calls another a liar, the burden is placed on the accuser to prove it, which you clearly did not. Can anyone on the not-so-insane Left have any doubt that Saddam wanted to preserve and restart his WMD programs, soon as the spotlight moved elsewhere? You must be smoking the same stuff as Levin, Gold, not that there's anything wrong with it.

Until it can be explained why UN HQ in Iraq was bombed by terrorist, Levin's comments are nonsensical.

A UN mandate may have been useful for any number of reasons, but it would not have disuaded the jihadists one iota.

D-Rod, how am I defensive? I certainly wasn't the one saying that Saddam had tons of biological and weapons that were poised to strike the US in minutes. I wasn't the one who said--without equivocation--that Saddam had a nuclear capability. I didn't say all these things and claim that not only did Saddam have these WMDs--but that I knew exactly where they were.

Your president did.

He lied to you. I realize it must hurt to realize someone you've invested so much in--and trusted--lied to your face. If you think that's painful--imagine how the families of our troops wounded or killed in Iraq must feel.

"Until it can be explained why UN HQ in Iraq was bombed by terrorist, Levin's comments are nonsensical.

A UN mandate may have been useful for any number of reasons, but it would not have disuaded the jihadists one iota."

Again, Steven, a UN Mandate would have meant a far greater coalition. That would have freed US resources to pursue terrorist groups. It would have also facilitated Iraq's post-Saddam transition.

As I noted earlier, groups like Al Qaeda have been allowed to regroup, thanks to Dubya's Iraqi Adventure. The unilateralism of the action has also allowed groups like Al Qaeda to recruit those who perceive the US is mounting a crusade or oil grab.

Iraq has become--thanks to Dubya's idiotic lack of planning--a wonderful target of opportunity for terrorism.

You are utterly avoiding the point and re-writing what Levin said.

Gold:

Oh yeah, that was British intelligence quoted in your 16 words, which was perfectly clear in the speech unless you only listen to the “sexed up” lefty version. The Brits stand by their intel to this day while it’s clear now the BBC was “sexing up” the issue. It is painful that YOU are deliberately lying (or distorting or misrepresenting) about the Bush Admin “knowing exactly” - referring to Rummy’s statement that they knew the “region” where they were at, at that time.

I guess you would accuse these folks of being lying liars too:

Hans Blix (2003), VX in Iraq had probably been "weaponized." There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained.

Madeline Albright (1998), "Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed."

Al Gore (2003), “The removal of Saddam from power is a positive accomplishment in its own right for which the President deserves credit”

Bill Clinton (2003), "It is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted-for stocks of biological and chemical weapons in Iraq.

The fact that some chocolate making countries had different agendas and disagreed with the long-standing U.S. position, doesn’t at all prove BUSH LIED. And very interesting the leftists promoting the U.N. world view don’t look for “root causes” in the "the resistance" or say “one person’s terrorist might be another’s freedom fighter – who’s to judge?” regarding the attack on the U.N. itself.