Would you have REALLY preferred we just ignored Osama Bin Ladin and continued the exact same thing Clinton did with him during the 1990s, which amounted to treating him like a schoolyard bully and ignoring him? That led directly to 9/11, and made our having to go to Afghanistan inevitable (heck, forget 9/11, we had the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing, that bombing of that airport, and also U.S.S. Cole). Besides, by your logic, we might as well just not even bother fighting against Japan in World War II even after Pearl Harbor.
I’m not fond of Bill Kristol, and I’m mixed with globalism (the only reason I even CONSIDER it is because we Americans unfortunately were pretty much guilty of getting Lenin into power in part, not to mention made a mess with China during World War II where we effectively backstabbed Kai Shek and handed it to China on a silver platter, so globalism is OUR punishment for pretty much aiding Communism despite fighting against it.), and quite frankly, I think we should outright end the UN altogether, get rid of one of the last instances of Marxist influences in America. However, under Just War doctrine, Afghanistan WAS necessary, especially after they bombed us, repeatedly, and we under Clinton were too stupid to try and take Osama bin Ladin out despite multiple opportunities. And ultimately, Iraq WAS necessary due to CIA documents confirming they had trained al Qaeda. If it was okay for us to go after Nazis and Italian Fascists in World War II despite their having no direct role in Pearl Harbor, I see no reason why we can’t fight Iraq for its indirect role in 9/11. If I have to blame Bush for one thing regarding Iraq, it’s screwing up by trying to make Iraq into a democracy (I’m mixed with nation building. I’m not exactly for it in practice, but then again, nationbuilding Afghanistan probably would have at the very least made it more difficult for Osama bin Ladin from gaining a foothold and establishing al Qaeda.), especially when “democracy” is what ruined France and Germany, heck, several other countries.
I never said that. I said that it was foolish if not outright lying to spin a yard about WMD in IRAQ. There were NO WMDs found - it was all a hoax and a lie. The proof of this was that there were no WMDs found in our 17+ years of being there.
I guess my question to the war's supporters in 2020 is this: Was it worth it? Was it worth the $11 trillion we spent/will spend to satisfy some cowboy's wild goose chase for non existent WMDs? Was it worth the 4000+ young soldiers cut down in the prime of their life? Was it worth the tens of thousands who were wounded and now require a lifetime of hospital services. That's not to mention the hundreds of thousands of Iraq innocent civilians who were killed or wounded. Again was it worth it?
As for the rest of your response, well those were at best presented as tangential arguments. Bush and his neo-con buddies never aggressively pressed that point because they knew it would never fly with the America people. The overwhelming thrust of the pro-war argument at the time centered around WMDs which didn't exist.