[MNJohnnie]

In fact, the first – and last – rationale presented for the war by the Bush administration in every formal government statement about the war was not the destruction of WMDs but the removal of Saddam Hussein, or regime change.

A fact the willfully ignorant on the Political Left have ignored so they can demagouge on the issue

[Monkey Face]

This is a real keeper. And also, something to be shared.

Thanks!

‘Face

[johnny7]

UN Resolution 1441...

[Young Werther]

I object! The Clinton/Gore Administration showed its manhood when it acted decisively in WACO!

Mega Sarcasm Alert!

One need only look at the Congress' apporval rating to measure the meaningless minions of the Demoronic Party! If they think that their Pelosi Reid Campaign is working then maybe Medicare treatments for the Insane is a possibility.

[sono]

Ultimately, we await the verdict of history.

[Eagles6]

save

[Remole]

Ping to read later.

[Valin]

BUMP!!!

[SShultz460]

bttt

[Filo]

So Al Gore is an idiot? I’d have never guessed! /s

[nicollo]

We went to war in Iraq because the worldwide balance of power had shifted during the Clintoon years away from U.S. interests. To address power vacuums that resulted from the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Bush I administration attempted to guide the international community into responsible cooperation, guided by U.S. military and economic power and principles

But the Clintoons instead delegated the responsibility and the power the United Nations, which, of course, was entirely incapable of wielding either.

As a result, post-Cold War power vacuums began to be filled by regional thugs, Al Queda types, and their enablers, such as the Tabliban and the UN. The Bush/Powell showdown at 42nd St prior to the Iraqi invasion was an attempt to force responsibility upon the UN. Sadly, that body proved incapable of reality, and rejected the offer. So, off we went to Iraq without the “international community,” but fully on its behalf.

The world is far, far better off for the invasion of Iraq. Without it, we’d have untenable holds on Afghanistan and those few Persian Gulf bases from which we would be unable to project or wield any real power. As much as the Iraq war has enabled Syria and Iran to counter the U.S. presence, that presence has acheieved just that: they now have incredible resistence that was otherwise absent.

This is not a chess game. It’s fixing serious, serious leadership errors during the 1990s.

[subterfuge]

Great article.

DH makes this clear and simple to understand. Even Gore could understand it!

[TeddyIke]

I believe the worst thing would be to leave before we finish this now, but I knew it would be a giant tar baby in the beginning. I believe that legally and morally the war was justified. Not strategically however. I knew the American people would not have the will for the occupation. Not yet. They don’t feel the hands around the throat that would be needed to focus our fat apathetic nation. Just because a nation is in the right to take action it doesn’t mean it is compelled. I believe we could have bombed Saddam out of power. But thats the arm chair general in me and perhaps I’m wrong.

[KC Burke]

While David makes a wonderful summary, I regret to see that the obvious interference with forcing Saddam to cave and thereby avoid war was severly undercut by the actions of French and other powers for reasons that later appear to have been motivated by corruption such as Oil For Food bribery.

[PerConPat]

From the article: In his book, Public Opinion, Lippmann observed that modern society had become so complex that only specialized experts were in a position to understand the implications of a given national policy.

I would change the word "complex' in the above quote to the term "wantonly distracted."

Obviously, Horowitz is on point, again. But when I think of the majority of this nation's voters in the context of this excellent article, I can envision only a relatively small percentage of the public getting through the first paragraph.

Saddam wanted the world to think that he had WMD capability. He believed that eventually the weaklings who chiefly run the free world would prevail and that he would be able to once again pursue his dreams of conquest. IMHO, the aftermath is another example of that rarest of historical occurrences-- a few courageous leaders taking necessary action, despite being vilified by treacherous, power-mad political opponents.

Dubya has often disappointed me, but I will give him my undying thanks for having the vision, courage, and steadfastness to at least begin what no other POTUS has had any stomach for since Islamofascim has matured into the modern threat of the last thirty years.

This is a great summary, thanks for posting it.

[usmcobra]

Bookmark

[FreedomPoster]

Ping.

This is a very well-argued piece that well-dissects the arguments and spin of the Left regarding the genesis of the Iraq war.

[Phlap]

Al Gore lost the 2000 election and he and the rest of the democrats, have not and will not recover.

What ever George Bush did, cure cancer, end world hunger, find Amelia Earhart, would have no consequence. Al and the democrats would still have lost and would still not accept that fact.

[KarlInOhio]

I still hold to the idea that the primary reason for invading Iraq was to put the last block into surrounding Iran because it is the major bad actor in the Islamic world. The Taliban was removed from Afghanistan. Turkey was an ally. Pakistan was nominally an ally. Inroads were being made with the former Soviet republics north of Iran. That left Iraq as Iran's only unguarded border. We expected to have a relatively easy time removing Saddam (check) along with an easy time controlling Iraq afterward (nope). I think the second is because we didn't expect Iran to see this move as threatening them and grossly underestimated their response.

[Lurker]

can be traced to Noam Chomsky and his Marxist screed,

One of these days I'm going to run into Chomsky. He's going to have a very, very bad day.

L

[Jack Black]

awesome