Actually, even if we WERE to ignore WMDs in Iraq for a minute (and there’s plenty of evidence that Iraq did indeed have that, some of which was provided by General George Sada, one of Saddam Hussein’s top men, and even a plane pilot assigned to relocate the chemical weapons), Iraq STILL ultimately would have needed to be invaded since, according to the 9/11 Commission Report, they HELPED al Qaeda commit various terrorist acts, INCLUDING 9/11. And if we can fight against the Nazis and Italian Fascists during World War II despite having absolutely no direct role in Pearl Harbor, I’m pretty sure Iraq is fair game for THAT reason alone. Heck, Conservapedia even has documented evidence making clear that WMDs did exist in Iraq, as you can see here: https://www.conservapedia.com/Iraq_War#Weapons_of_Mass_Destruction And bear in mind, they were NEVER fans of GWB at all, even freely calling the Bushes RINOS, so it’s not like they agree with him or like him at all.
The only bit I’ll blame Bush for was nation-building, particularly his screwing up and trying to put in democracy (it didn’t even work out in France, why should it work in a place like Iraq?). Even there, I’m not necessarily against nation-building itself (nor am I for it, for that matter). In fact, I’d argue that if we did nation build enough in Afghanistan to allow for better infrastructure, al Qaeda wouldn’t have gotten a foothold in there.
Chuckle Chuckle. Sounds like that argument is a “save face” type of argument after the disastrous Iraq war. None of those things would have happened. Face it, deep down people know they were fooled and a lot of them can’t come to grips with the horror they sanctioned