Does he oppose the war (which is much more than just a war with a single organization) or does he oppose the nation-building the President stated he was against when he was running for office?
You’ll probably have to ask him.
It doesn’t matter which of the two Klayman opposes. He’s no good.
Further, “Nation Building” was the idea of sending American troops around the world usually as part of the UN to try to stabilize unstable govts. and prop them up, without clear military missions and goals. That was what candidate Bush said he opposed. If other nations wanted to do that it was their business but Bush didn’t want the US military used in that manner...as a kind of world policeman on every block and street corner, especially if no strategic US interest was involved.
Iraq in the heart of the Middle East and after what happened on 9-ll and the threat from al-qaeda and Iran...these don’t remotely resemble what he opposed as a candidate in 2000.
We have to help stabliize that country. We went in there and overthrew a regime that had an iron grip on the population and had practically ruined the country and people through years of despotism and savagery. To think that Bush’s stated position in 2000 somehow means we would be justified in walking away from Iraq after toppling Saddam, pretending it didn’t matter what arose in Saddam’s wake, is ludicrous and not grounded in reality.