Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: hotdog777
Was the President supposed to continue warning us about WMD and Saddam when neither were still there?

There is one other thing that happened at the time the emphasis shifted: Saddam's regime was deposed. This meant two things:

  1. The threat of Saddam and WMD was gone.
  2. Iraq needed a new government.

I suppose we could have said the people of Iraq haven't suffered enough and deserve further subjugation. We could have traded one thug for another. That would have been hypocritical. The obvious conclusion is that Iraq would have to have a representative government, in shorthand, a democracy. Once that decision was made, success in Iraq was inextricably tied to the success of the new Iraqi government. It still is five years later.

12 posted on 05/27/2008 6:47:04 AM PDT by Dilbert56 (Harry Reid, D-Nev.: "We're going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Dilbert56

bump and bookmark for future arguments...


13 posted on 05/27/2008 9:19:40 AM PDT by BallparkBoys
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson