Then, particularly since you are so verbose, 'splain to us why the Bush administration took off after a toothless, secular, despot of a ruined semi-nation instead of pursuing bin Laden or extinguishing the Wahhabi root of the terrorist plague.
You Bush-bot apologists make me puke!
Toothless?? What are you talking about?? He invaded another country and when we invaded had the strongest army in the ME. He was also thought to have WMD in large quantites and we still don't know where they went. You are insulting some very decent people on this board. Why??
Pray for W and Our Troops
Bush took off after Iraq because:
1. Security agencies of many countries (including ours) thought he had WMD.
2. Sadam had declared himself an enemy of the USA, and had sent assassins to get Bush 41.
3. Iraq was harboring terrorists.
5. There was fairly good intelligence that Iraq had funded terorists.
6. Iraq was the Middle Eastern equivalent of the Third Reich, and were torturing and killing people in mass quantities.
All of this was discussed at the UN in the run-up to the war.
You don't understand why we liberated Iraq? The Senate Intelligence Committee Report detailed the following:
#1. We had 78 reports from different sources that provided information that Hussein's regime was actively training Iraqi intelligence soldiers for terrorist attacks against America and American interests.
#2. Iraq provided Al Qaeda with bomb making, chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear training.
#3. Direct meetings betwen senior Iraqi military officers and top Al Qaeda operatives took place betwen the early 90's and 2003.
#4. The truth about yellowcake uranium was exactly the opposite of what Joe Wilson said it was. The Report reveals that Wilson lied to Congress and the press and that Iraq was indeed trying to purchase yellowcake uranium from Africa.
Russian intelligence warned Washington several times in the days immediately following 9/11 that Hussein was planning to attack the US. Putin was opposed to the war and had little reason to provide that information.
On July 21, 2001, the state-run Iraqi newspaper Al Nasiriya carried an article titled "America, an Obsession called Osama Bin Laden". Baath party writer Naeem Abd Muhalhal predicted that OBL would attacked the US and he "will try to bomb the Pentagon after he destroys the White House."
The article said that OBL "will strike America on the arm that is already hurting" and that the US "will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs" which is a reference to the Sinatra song "New York, New York".
Saddam was on the official list of state sponsored terrorism for 20 years.
His list of working with Al Qaeda is a long one and in the 90's the media wrote extensively about the world's alarm at the growing relationship between OBL and Saddam.
Links here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1327993/posts
Now if stating the facts and supporting the war makes me a Bush-bot, so be it.
"'splain to us why the Bush administration took off after a toothless, secular, despot of a ruined semi-nation instead of pursuing bin Laden or extinguishing the Wahhabi root of the terrorist plague.
You Bush-bot apologists make me puke!"
That you suffer a disconnect in geo-political reality is a right you have. You merely prove my point of your shared elitist point of view with the far left, because you spew it, makes it so.
It appears ignorance and skewed perceptions of reality are not simply the purview of the fringe left. The full scope of that reality, from the spineless UN's inaction to the Oil for Food Scandal (bribery) to self-interest of 'supposed allies', would take far more time than I care to expend in educating one who cannot express themselves beyond vitriolic rhetorical talking points. Your pusillanimous talking points of 'going after the Wahabbi (or Wahhabbi - both spellings are accepted) sect', without any sound reason of how that could be done, is further evidence of your ideological entrenchemnt. How would you make such a frontal assault ? How would you avoid negative ramifications and fallout ?
While I defend your right to regurgitate your vituperative talking points, I conclude you actually have no syllogistic defense of your position.