Duh!!!! Who would have gone into Iraq if we knew then what we know now???

[healthmyths]

Frequently we have idiots bitch and moan about how stupid GWB was for the Liberation of Iraq and their main meme is there were no WMDs!
RIGHT. There were none that the USA would admit after the USA dismantled Iraq's army. No question.
SO????
How many of you REALLY REALLY SMART people that constantly berate GWB for the Liberation of Iraq
make the statement there were no WMDs. WELL DUH!!!!!!
Just as Rubio said..
Rubio, asked Wednesday whether, knowing what is known now about Iraq, he would have still authorized a war, said absolutely not.

“Not only would I not have been in favor of it, President [George W.] Bush would not have been in favor of it," Rubio said following a major foreign policy speech at the Council of Foreign Relations in New York.

No, I don't believe. ... The world is a better place because Saddam Hussein is not in Iraq. Here's what I think might have happened, had we not gone. You might have had an arms race to put Iraq in Iran -- they both would pursue the weapons. I will be dealing with two problems, not just one. We forget that Iraq, at the time of the invasion, was in open defiance of numerous United Nations Security Council resolutions, that the United Nations refused to enforce. They refused to comply with allowing inspectors in. Repeatedly, this was a country whose leader had gassed his own people on numerous occasions.
So I think, hindsight is always 20/20, but we don't know what the world would look like if Saddam Hussein was still there. But I doubt it would look better in terms of -- it will be worse -- or just as bad for different reasons. I think it's very difficult to predict, I think. A better notion is, at the end of the Iraq war, Iraq had an opportunity to have a stable, peaceful future.
Marco Rubio Finds A Way Out Of Sticky Iraq Trap

So again "DUH"!!!! Obviously GWB like 90% of the world except those of you on this forum that KNEW
there were no WMDs and these Democrats totally supported the "Liberation of Iraq" based on the FACTS
they knew.
By the way those of you that KNEW better then Bush or the below there were NO WMDs... have you also made a killing on the stock market? Any of you billionaires? Because with all your sagacity you should be!
"..deny Iraq the capacity to develop WMD".Bill Clinton,1998
"..most brutal dictators of Century", Biden,1998
"Iraq compliance with Resolution 687 becomes shell game"..Daschle 1998
"He will use those WMDs again,as he has ten times since 1983" ..Berger Clinton Ntl. Secur. Advr 1998
"posed by Iraq's refusal to end its WMD programs" Levin 1998
"Saddam has been engaged in development of WMDs which is a threat.."Pelosi 1998 WHERE'D SHE GET THIS INFORMATION BEFORE BUSH?
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building WMDS.."Albright 1999
"Saddam to refine delivery systems, that will threaten the US..."Graham 2001
"Saddam has ignored the mandate of the UN and is building WMDs and the means to deliver.." Levin 2002
"Iraq's search for WMDs ...will continue as long as Saddam's in power"..Gore 2002
"Saddam retains stockpiles of WMDS.."Byrd 2002
"..give President authority to use force..to disarm Saddam because an arsenal of WMDs..threat our security"..Kerry 2002
"..Unmistakable evidence Saddam developing nuclear weapons next 5 years.."Rockefeller 2002
"Violated over 11 years every UN resolution demanding disarming WMDs.."Waxman 2002
"He's given aid,comfort & sanctuary to al Qaeda members..and keep developing WMDs"..Hillary 2002
"Compelling evidence Saddam has WMDs production storage capacity.." Graham 2002
"Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."Kerry , Jan. 23. 2003.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Frequently we have idiots bitch and moan about how stupid GWB was for the Liberation of Iraq and their main meme is there were no WMDs!
RIGHT. There were none that the USA would admit after the USA dismantled Iraq's army. No question.
SO????
How many of you REALLY REALLY SMART people that constantly berate GWB for the Liberation of Iraq
make the statement there were no WMDs. WELL DUH!!!!!!
Just as Rubio said..
Rubio, asked Wednesday whether, knowing what is known now about Iraq, he would have still authorized a war, said absolutely not.

“Not only would I not have been in favor of it, President [George W.] Bush would not have been in favor of it," Rubio said following a major foreign policy speech at the Council of Foreign Relations in New York.

No, I don't believe. ... The world is a better place because Saddam Hussein is not in Iraq. Here's what I think might have happened, had we not gone. You might have had an arms race to put Iraq in Iran -- they both would pursue the weapons. I will be dealing with two problems, not just one. We forget that Iraq, at the time of the invasion, was in open defiance of numerous United Nations Security Council resolutions, that the United Nations refused to enforce. They refused to comply with allowing inspectors in. Repeatedly, this was a country whose leader had gassed his own people on numerous occasions.
So I think, hindsight is always 20/20, but we don't know what the world would look like if Saddam Hussein was still there. But I doubt it would look better in terms of -- it will be worse -- or just as bad for different reasons. I think it's very difficult to predict, I think. A better notion is, at the end of the Iraq war, Iraq had an opportunity to have a stable, peaceful future.
Marco Rubio Finds A Way Out Of Sticky Iraq Trap

So again "DUH"!!!! Obviously GWB like 90% of the world except those of you on this forum that KNEW
there were no WMDs and these Democrats totally supported the "Liberation of Iraq" based on the FACTS
they knew.
By the way those of you that KNEW better then Bush or the below there were NO WMDs... have you also made a killing on the stock market? Any of you billionaires? Because with all your sagacity you should be!
"..deny Iraq the capacity to develop WMD".Bill Clinton,1998
"..most brutal dictators of Century", Biden,1998
"Iraq compliance with Resolution 687 becomes shell game"..Daschle 1998
"He will use those WMDs again,as he has ten times since 1983" ..Berger Clinton Ntl. Secur. Advr 1998
"posed by Iraq's refusal to end its WMD programs" Levin 1998
"Saddam has been engaged in development of WMDs which is a threat.."Pelosi 1998 WHERE'D SHE GET THIS INFORMATION BEFORE BUSH?
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building WMDS.."Albright 1999
"Saddam to refine delivery systems, that will threaten the US..."Graham 2001
"Saddam has ignored the mandate of the UN and is building WMDs and the means to deliver.." Levin 2002
"Iraq's search for WMDs ...will continue as long as Saddam's in power"..Gore 2002
"Saddam retains stockpiles of WMDS.."Byrd 2002
"..give President authority to use force..to disarm Saddam because an arsenal of WMDs..threat our security"..Kerry 2002
"..Unmistakable evidence Saddam developing nuclear weapons next 5 years.."Rockefeller 2002
"Violated over 11 years every UN resolution demanding disarming WMDs.."Waxman 2002
"He's given aid,comfort & sanctuary to al Qaeda members..and keep developing WMDs"..Hillary 2002
"Compelling evidence Saddam has WMDs production storage capacity.." Graham 2002
"Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."Kerry , Jan. 23. 2003.

A: Republicans.

This is exactly the result they wanted. Note that when America was attacked on 9-11, Bush's approval rating skyrocketed from 50ish to 90ish overnight. When America is attacked - its GOOD for Republicans, they know this - they are not idiots. So they intentionally take actions that lead America to being attacked.

 

[there4eyeM]

The US had the receipts for the 'WMD's it had sold to him, so of course the government knew he HAD HAD them. What the UN inspectors found was that they were no longer to be found. There was no menace.
In any case, the invasion was illegal and a war crime, even if 'WMD's were known to be present. That is what 'we' knew, what the legally trained members of Congress all knew, what the world and our allies knew, and why the invasion was opposed.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Hebby says yes.

And his brother is an idiot too.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Most republicans are still thrilled that we went into Iraq. And are, in fact, pissed that we left. Because they think that another 10-20,000 dead American soldiers would have fixed Iraq, and they consider that a small price to pay.

 

[U2Edge]

The invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam's regime was about more than just the level of capacity of SADDAM's WMD program or lack there of. Saddam was a proven menace to the reason and it was already the policy of the United States starting in 1998 to find a way to remove Saddam from power in Iraq. Sanctions and the weapons embargo placed on Saddam had crumbled allowing Saddam to profit from black market oil sales and begin rebuilding his military. That presented an unacceptable situation for US and Global security and Saddam had to be removed BEFORE he could rebuild his capabilities.

The fact that SADDAM did not have WMD to use against US forces as he invaded is NOT a tragedy, its a BLESSING. It shows that the United States invaded at the right time, when Saddam was still weaker. By invading and removing SADDAM when he was weaker and did not have WMD to use against US forces, the lives of thousands of American troops and thousands of civilians in the region were saved.

Only an idiot would suggest that the United States should have waited until Saddam had a larger military and real stocks of WMD that he could use against US troops, before deciding to Invade.

After the first Gulf War, US policy was about PREVENTING Saddam from rebuilding prior capabilities and using military force in order to accomplish that. Waiting for Saddam to rebuild his capabilities, BEFORE TAKING MILITARY ACTION, would not have been in line with that policy at all.

 

[healthmyths]

The US had the receipts for the 'WMD's it had sold to him, so of course the government knew he HAD HAD them. What the UN inspectors found was that they were no longer to be found. There was no menace.
In any case, the invasion was illegal and a war crime, even if 'WMD's were known to be present. That is what 'we' knew, what the legally trained members of Congress all knew, what the world and our allies knew, and why the invasion was opposed.

Legally trained members?
Like
"..deny Iraq the capacity to develop WMD".Bill Clinton,1998 LAWYER!!
"..most brutal dictators of Century", Biden,1998 lawyer,
"Iraq compliance with Resolution 687 becomes shell game"..Daschle 1998
"He will use those WMDs again,as he has ten times since 1983" ..Berger Clinton Ntl. Secur. Advr 1998
"posed by Iraq's refusal to end its WMD programs" Levin 1998
"Saddam has been engaged in development of WMDs which is a threat.."Pelosi 1998 WHERE'D SHE GET THIS INFORMATION BEFORE BUSH?
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building WMDS.."Albright 1999
"Saddam to refine delivery systems, that will threaten the US..."Graham 2001
"Saddam has ignored the mandate of the UN and is building WMDs and the means to deliver.." Levin 2002
"Iraq's search for WMDs ...will continue as long as Saddam's in power"..Gore 2002 Lawyer
"Saddam retains stockpiles of WMDS.."Byrd 2002
"..give President authority to use force..to disarm Saddam because an arsenal of WMDs..threat our security"..Kerry 2002
"..Unmistakable evidence Saddam developing nuclear weapons next 5 years.."Rockefeller 2002
"Violated over 11 years every UN resolution demanding disarming WMDs.."Waxman 2002
"He's given aid,comfort & sanctuary to al Qaeda members..and keep developing WMDs"..Hillary 2002 Lawyer
"Compelling evidence Saddam has WMDs production storage capacity.." Graham 2002
"Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."Kerry , Jan. 23. 2003.

 

[Mac1958]

Most republicans are still thrilled that we went into Iraq. And are, in fact, pissed that we left.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I've seen.

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Some GOP, including Dick Army and George Will and me, among others, knew it was the wrong thing from the get go.

 

[BlindBoo]

the Liberation of Iraq

Is a myth. It didn't happen. We liberated France from a foreign occupier. We invaded Iraq based on facts fixed around the invasion policy. Then we occupied it and then liberated the Iraqi oil fields to the world oil companies, opps, world oil market, yeah market.

 

[there4eyeM]

Anyone capable of any evaluation of America's military, diplomatic and world public opinion positions was against this foolish adventure.

 

[Londoner]

Frequently we have idiots bitch and moan about how stupid GWB was for the Liberation of Iraq and their main meme is there were no WMDs!
RIGHT.

Regime change in Iraq became official U.S. Policy in 1997.

The reason had nothing to do with the brutality of Hussein, whose power was protected and consolidated under the influence of Reagan, who singlehandedly removed Iraq from the official Congressional list of Terrorist Nations so he could pour money and weapons into the regime.

Reagan's support of Hussein was wise (IMHO) because the U.S. lost the Shaw (in neighboring Iran) in 1979, so we needed another asset in the region (unless you want to power your transportation and production systems w/hackie-sacks).

We continued to support Hussein through his worst atrocities because he satisfied our interests. Once he outlived his utility, we slapped him down.

But make no mistake. The Iraq War was agreed upon by the Clintons, who understood the need to build the world's largest base near the world's most necessary resource. Do you fucking morons know what would happen to the U.S. economy if hostile forces controlled the world's primary energy resources?

Nobody believed the WMD stories or the fabricated ties between Hussein & Al Qaeda. (Hussein was a Ba'tthest secularist, and was more opposed to radical Islam than anyone in the region. He also hated the mullahs in Iran).

Annexing Iraq was justified because of the importance of the region's resources. Again, if hostile forces took control of the region, they could shut down the global economy. The U.S. simply could not let that happen. We are the largest oil consuming nation in history by an unimaginable factor. Our need to control the world's largest remaining supply of easily-extracted petroleum is a matter of survival not choice.

Bush bungled the war because of corruption and incompetence (IMHO). The Democratic Party is just playing politics, as is the OP, who has clearly never studied geopolitics.

Everybody knows that the OP is just a "cut & paste" robot who has never undertaken a detailed analysis of our long and complicated history in the region. He just moves talking points from one place to another. He is a useful idiot - and that's coming from someone who agrees with him on how full of shit the left is on Iraq.

 

[healthmyths]

Most republicans are still thrilled that we went into Iraq. And are, in fact, pissed that we left.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I've seen.

.

OF COURSE I as a conservative (NOT GOP!!!) am pissed!
Idiots that didn't enforce the SOFA to be destroyed (not going to insult your intelligence on that !!!) seem to forget and I'm going to shout...
WE STILL HAVE 170,000 troops in Europe/Asia after 70 years! WHY???
Because military history which most people are very ignorant of teaches you just don't go away after
defeating an enemy! There will be idiots like the terrorists that remained that prolong and eventually
take over IF there isn't a strong military to enforce the gains!

Obviously people like you NEVER heard of the Werwolf (pronounced[ˈveːɐ̯vɔlf], German for "werewolf") was the name given to a Nazi plan, which began development in 1944,[2] to create a resistance force which would operate behind enemy lines as the Allies advanced through Germany. He concludes that the only significant achievement of the Werwolfs was to spark distrust of the German populace in the Allies as they occupied Germany, which caused them in some cases to act more repressively than they might have done otherwise, which in turn fostered resentments that helped to enable far right ideas to survive in Germany, at least in pockets, into the post-war era.[8]
Werwolf - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
The major reason Werwolf was NOT successful were the 200,000+ troops occupying Germany.... to this day!

BUT idiots like Obama never studied history. Never took his military's advice. Never took the concept you don't totally leave a country that you defeated because
the situation that occurred with the Terrorists will happen which it did!

 

[there4eyeM]

What if the US had, instead, apologized for installing the Shaw in the first place and pursued a policy of reconciliation with a very educated, sophisticated society that was just going through some hard times, especially as a cause of our own actions.
What if we had befriended a system that at least had contact with its people instead of a clearly cruel, power-mad, detestable dictator with not the faintest feeling for fellow humans?
We could have obviated the entire destabilization that indeed did come to pass, predictably.

 

[healthmyths]

Frequently we have idiots bitch and moan about how stupid GWB was for the Liberation of Iraq and their main meme is there were no WMDs!
RIGHT.

Regime change in Iraq became official U.S. Policy in 1997.

The reason had nothing to do with the brutality of Hussein, whose power was protected and consolidated under the influence of Reagan, who singlehandedly removed Iraq from the official Congressional list of Terrorist Nations so he could pour money and weapons into the regime.

Reagan's support of Hussein was wise (IMHO) because the U.S. lost the Shaw (in neighboring Iran) in 1979, so we needed another asset in the region (unless you want to power your transportation and production systems w/hackie-sacks).

We continued to support Hussein through his worst atrocities because he satisfied our interests. Once he outlived his utility, we slapped him down.

But make no mistake. The Iraq War was agreed upon by the Clintons, who understood the need to build the world's largest base near the world's most necessary resource. Do you fucking morons know what would happen to the U.S. economy if hostile forces controlled the world's primary energy resources?

Nobody believed the WMD stories or the fabricated ties between Hussein & Al Qaeda. (Hussein was a Ba'tthest secularist, and was more opposed to radical Islam than anyone in the region. He also hated the mullahs in Iran).

Annexing Iraq was justified because of the importance of the region's resources. Again, if hostile forces took control of the region, they could shut down the global economy. The U.S. simply could not let that happen. We are the largest oil consuming nation in history by an unimaginable factor. Our need to control the world's largest remaining supply of easily-extracted petroleum is a matter of survival not choice.

Bush bungled the war because of corruption and incompetence (IMHO). The Democratic Party is just playing politics, as is the OP, who has clearly never studied geopolitics.

Everybody knows that the OP is just a "cut & paste" robot who has never undertaken a detailed analysis of our long and complicated history in the region. He just moves talking points from one place to another. He is a useful idiot - and that's coming from someone who agrees with him on how full of shit the left is on Iraq.

AND LEAST I KNEW who the F...king "SHAH of Iran was not "SHAW"!!!!
You can't even get little details straight so how in the hell are you criticizing my documentation?
And it was "Ba'athist" dummy...NOT " BA'TTHEST"! Geez do a little research before you type it might help lend you credibility!

There was NEVER a bungling of the war especially due to your stupid tin foil hat "corruption and incompetence"!
What was a problem that caused the conflict to be extended were disloyal people like yourself that
kept telling the bad guys THEY Were the good guys and our military were the bad guys!
Like these idiots that YOU obviously agreed with:
Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."
NOTE: You are not that naive to think the terrorists didn't find Kerry calling OUR TROOPS terrorists absolutely EMBOLDENING???

Remember Kerry EARLIER wanted Bush to: "Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ....
to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ....
"Kerry , JanS. 23. 2003

U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D)"Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”
NOTE: Do you not believe the terrorists LOVED to hear our troops were cold blooded killers???

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.

then Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything "

There is a Harvard study that proves that comments like these ADDED to the violence and emboldenment of the terrorist which prolonged the conflict.
But you wouldn't understand it so I won't share as it is too complicated for a LIP like YOU!

 

[healthmyths]

Anyone capable of any evaluation of America's military, diplomatic and world public opinion positions was against this foolish adventure.

Then maybe you should contact the below people and tell them that!
But of course idiots like you have this uncanny
20/20 HINDSIGHT!!! Where were you at the time the below disagreed with you????

"..deny Iraq the capacity to develop WMD".Bill Clinton,1998
"..most brutal dictators of Century", Biden,1998
"Iraq compliance with Resolution 687 becomes shell game"..Daschle 1998
"He will use those WMDs again,as he has ten times since 1983" ..Berger Clinton Ntl. Secur. Advr 1998
"posed by Iraq's refusal to end its WMD programs" Levin 1998
"Saddam has been engaged in development of WMDs which is a threat.."Pelosi 1998 WHERE'D SHE GET THIS INFORMATION BEFORE BUSH?
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building WMDS.."Albright 1999
"Saddam to refine delivery systems, that will threaten the US..."Graham 2001
"Saddam has ignored the mandate of the UN and is building WMDs and the means to deliver.." Levin 2002
"Iraq's search for WMDs ...will continue as long as Saddam's in power"..Gore 2002
"Saddam retains stockpiles of WMDS.."Byrd 2002
"..give President authority to use force..to disarm Saddam because an arsenal of WMDs..threat our security"..Kerry 2002
"..Unmistakable evidence Saddam developing nuclear weapons next 5 years.."Rockefeller 2002
"Violated over 11 years every UN resolution demanding disarming WMDs.."Waxman 2002
"He's given aid,comfort & sanctuary to al Qaeda members..and keep developing WMDs"..Hillary 2002
"Compelling evidence Saddam has WMDs production storage capacity.." Graham 2002
"Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."Kerry , Jan. 23. 2003.

 

[there4eyeM]

Maybe in another country.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Frequently we have idiots bitch and moan about how stupid GWB was for the Liberation of Iraq and their main meme is there were no WMDs!
RIGHT. There were none that the USA would admit after the USA dismantled Iraq's army. No question.
SO????
How many of you REALLY REALLY SMART people that constantly berate GWB for the Liberation of Iraq
make the statement there were no WMDs. WELL DUH!!!!!!
Just as Rubio said..
Rubio, asked Wednesday whether, knowing what is known now about Iraq, he would have still authorized a war, said absolutely not.

“Not only would I not have been in favor of it, President [George W.] Bush would not have been in favor of it," Rubio said following a major foreign policy speech at the Council of Foreign Relations in New York.

No, I don't believe. ... The world is a better place because Saddam Hussein is not in Iraq. Here's what I think might have happened, had we not gone. You might have had an arms race to put Iraq in Iran -- they both would pursue the weapons. I will be dealing with two problems, not just one. We forget that Iraq, at the time of the invasion, was in open defiance of numerous United Nations Security Council resolutions, that the United Nations refused to enforce. They refused to comply with allowing inspectors in. Repeatedly, this was a country whose leader had gassed his own people on numerous occasions.
So I think, hindsight is always 20/20, but we don't know what the world would look like if Saddam Hussein was still there. But I doubt it would look better in terms of -- it will be worse -- or just as bad for different reasons. I think it's very difficult to predict, I think. A better notion is, at the end of the Iraq war, Iraq had an opportunity to have a stable, peaceful future.
Marco Rubio Finds A Way Out Of Sticky Iraq Trap

So again "DUH"!!!! Obviously GWB like 90% of the world except those of you on this forum that KNEW
there were no WMDs and these Democrats totally supported the "Liberation of Iraq" based on the FACTS
they knew.
By the way those of you that KNEW better then Bush or the below there were NO WMDs... have you also made a killing on the stock market? Any of you billionaires? Because with all your sagacity you should be!
"..deny Iraq the capacity to develop WMD".Bill Clinton,1998
"..most brutal dictators of Century", Biden,1998
"Iraq compliance with Resolution 687 becomes shell game"..Daschle 1998
"He will use those WMDs again,as he has ten times since 1983" ..Berger Clinton Ntl. Secur. Advr 1998
"posed by Iraq's refusal to end its WMD programs" Levin 1998
"Saddam has been engaged in development of WMDs which is a threat.."Pelosi 1998 WHERE'D SHE GET THIS INFORMATION BEFORE BUSH?
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building WMDS.."Albright 1999
"Saddam to refine delivery systems, that will threaten the US..."Graham 2001
"Saddam has ignored the mandate of the UN and is building WMDs and the means to deliver.." Levin 2002
"Iraq's search for WMDs ...will continue as long as Saddam's in power"..Gore 2002
"Saddam retains stockpiles of WMDS.."Byrd 2002
"..give President authority to use force..to disarm Saddam because an arsenal of WMDs..threat our security"..Kerry 2002
"..Unmistakable evidence Saddam developing nuclear weapons next 5 years.."Rockefeller 2002
"Violated over 11 years every UN resolution demanding disarming WMDs.."Waxman 2002
"He's given aid,comfort & sanctuary to al Qaeda members..and keep developing WMDs"..Hillary 2002
"Compelling evidence Saddam has WMDs production storage capacity.." Graham 2002
"Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."Kerry , Jan. 23. 2003.

You left out 147 Democrats who were smart enough to vote against the Iraq war resolution BEFORE the war,

not to mention President Obama who was smart enough in 2002 to see that invading Iraq was a bad idea.

Who were the Republicans who figured out BEFORE the fact that Iraq was a bad idea:?

Ron Paul? ...and?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oh, btw, Rubio flip flopped. Not long ago he was claiming it was a good idea, even knowing what we know now.

 

[Londoner]

HEALTHMYTHS,

It is not a conspiracy for a nation to protect its interests. Nor is it a conspiracy for professional politicians to couch their motives (for things like war) in terms that are meant for public consumption. (You don't really think that any nation would simply state all its intelligence, strategic goals, fears and "war room secrets" to everyone?)

The American troops were not the bad guys by any stretch of the imagination.

If the US didn't control the region, someone else would - so I have no problem with our attempt to control the region.

Please don't take my word for it. Have the courage to do some research. Reagan's support of Hussein is not hidden. Our support of Hussein (weapons and monetary) is not hidden. The reasons for supporting Hussein made sense because we needed an asset in the region.

Our job is not to liberate the people of other nations, especially when we supported the brutal dictator they lived beneath. Our job is to protect our interests, which is why annexing Iraq made sense. The least we could do is "own it" and try to do it better next time.

I agree with you that many of the comments and criticisms didn't help the cause. I do not share the liberal opposition to the war, so stop putting words in my mouth. I think controlling the region is necessary because of its resources.