No they didn't. Just looking at the vote tells that story. But that also shows the usual water carrying by each party when they are in and out of power.
Posted on 03/26/2013 8:48:49 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
THe problem is that the enemy is over here, not over there.
To make daddy bush 41 proud of bush 43
What a load of BS.
I think flanking the Saudis economically was more critical. Now in a few years there will be a second producer with significant surplus capacity and the Saudis will lose their blackmail power over the global economy.
Is that why all the congress critters, senators and other countries did it too? Just asking.
NO mention of Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait? WTF?
Because Hussein continually thumbed his nose at the Cease Fire Agreement from the Desert Storm War.
It’s because we did the right thing there. Everything that followed was basically bull chet.
No they didn't. Just looking at the vote tells that story. But that also shows the usual water carrying by each party when they are in and out of power.
We did it to support Bush’s buddies, the saudis. They and Iran should have been the principal targets in the WOT with their societies and resources under American occupation even to the current date. We then would have seen who was willing to put up any more funny business.
Instead Bush was wandering around Camp David holding hands with that filthy saudi potentate.
‘Hey, we know you jacked us on 9/11. But we’ll go after sadam, and make it all look okay.’
It frankly makes me sick.
Always humanitarian to let your enemy go on killing, raping, torturing and re-arming so you will have to fight him again with a higher cost of life and resources.
And, of course Bush 41 was known for never finishing a fight or taking the fight to someone. Bush 43, same thing, just show compassion, be a pal to Ted Kennedy and get your ass handed to you.
And Jeb is just as guilty of shmoozing instead of fighting by virtue of yukking it up with his Dad and Obama while visiting the White Hut all the while Obama is bad-mouthing his brother.
And people think that Powell's opinion is meaningful and that Jeb would be a great presidential candidate?
Because GWB knew the real problem was Iran and they would be impossible to deal with if Saddam remained in place, playing games with the no fly zone and so forth. Iraq was the logical stepping stone to Iran but the RATs poisoned the strategy. Imagine the difference with a strong Iraq as a firm US ally.
Even Bill Maher is shocked things are going relatively well in Iraq. 0bama F’ed up Egypt more than Bush’s Iraq and that’s hard to do.
Usually enjoy VDH, but this article is lunacy. Regardless of the reasons for going to war, to sit back ten years later and claim that the war was not only justified but a good idea is to completely ignore reality. And to claim nation building as a valid justification is absolutely contrary to sound conservative thought. Fail VDH!
I thought it wasn’t all about WMD either. I went back and looked at the resolutions. It WAS about WMD.
But really it wasn’t.
I said it was a mistake then. It still is.
Bring them all home. Europe. Asia. Everywhere.
Let them all kill each other. I don’t care.
I work for a small print company, and I had the displeasure of being made to write up a letter for an aged liberal to print in the local newspaper. The basics of the letter were, “nanny-nanny-boo-boo, we were right, you were wrong.” I had to hold everything back to finish it without “adding” my own commentary to it.
But anyway, I am writing my own response it for the paper, and I needed some reference and material. Thanks for the article.
Why shouldn’T the reasons for going to war be considered 10 years later? I don’T follow your logic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.