Do you agree with this?

[DeadCanDance]

In hindsight, and given what you know now about Iraq, do you largely agree with this statement made back in 2002? It's a simple yes or no question:

I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.....Let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the middle east, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

 

[CharlestonChad]

In hindsight, and given what you know now about Iraq, do you largely agree with this statement made back in 2002? It's a simple yes or no question:

I agreed with it back then and I do now.

 

[Dr Grump]

Go Barack!

 

[maineman]

the statement is absolutely accurate, in my opinion.

 

[DeadCanDance]

the statement is absolutely accurate, in my opinion.

I agree. It was probably the most prescient statement ever uttered on the Iraq war, and appears to have been correct on virtually all counts.