« Why the Fairness Doctrine is definitely 100% needed | Main | Memory retention »

Thanks to Bush and Blair

A few years ago most on the left declared the war in Iraq lost. A couple of years ago those on the left said the surge could not work. A year ago some on the left were still saying the surge was not working. Several months ago Obama belatedly admitted the surge had been successful (when it became impossible to deny), but said he still would have voted against it. Even today many on the left laugh at the idea that one day history might judge Bush's decision to invade Iraq in a positive light. I am sure they assumed if that ever happened it would be decades from now and they would probably be dead anyway. They might have assumed wrong.

William Shallcross wrote the following in The Guardian:

There were lamentable failures in the subsequent US occupation, which allowed the rise of the hideous sectarian violence that threatened to tear the country to pieces. But in the last two years the "surge" of US troops under General David Petraeus appears to have destroyed much of the terrorists' infrastructure and support. Now, as US troops begin their phased withdrawal, the new American-trained Iraqi army is defending the country against Islamist violence.

There will be further setbacks. But who knows, Iraq may yet even become a model for democratic change in other Arab countries. If so, who deserves some credit? The much maligned President Bush. And Tony Blair.

Michael Goldfarb:

For the defeatists who two years ago believed that a military solution to the violence and chaos in Iraq was impossible -- and Obama must be included among them -- now is the time for revision. According to Joe Klein, Maliki and his Dawa party succeeded in these elections because "he wooed and won Muqtada al-Sadr supporters." That's a funny way to describe a strategy that, last April, Klein was attacking as "the Maliki government's recent abortive offensive against Sadr's forces in Basra." In fact, the offensive was just one of many tactical success facilitated by the surge of U.S. forces ordered by President Bush and almost universally opposed by his betters at Time, Newsweek, and the New York Times.

Every time I have written about success in Iraq I have added the warning that things are still extremely fragile and could easily be reversed. I still believe things there are fragile, but it appears democracy and freedom in Iraq are a big hit. When people achieve a certain level of liberty it becomes harder to ever want to "go back." I still worry that an abrupt change in our Iraq policy could reverse the progress we have made there. Obama told us he would have withdrawn our troops a couple of years ago -- before the mission was completed. We would have been withdrawing in defeat. I hope that the situation in Iraq has improved to the point that it cannot easily be "undone." If we continue to see the kind of progress we are seeing now in Iraq, those on the left may even be forced to admit Bush and Blair were right during this lifetime. I'll bet a year ago that would have been more than even George Bush would have dared hope. What is more likely is that those on the left will spin and "revise" as William Goldfarb discusses. Who knows? If Iraq eventually becomes an undeniable success those on the left might even figure out a way to take credit for it.

Update: This is the scariest, and most outrageous thing I have read in a while. I really hope the report is flawed because if Barack Obama is doing what Frank Gaffney and Bill Gertz report, I don't see how he can be trusted with the security of this country.

Diplomatic sources said Barack Obama has engaged several Arab intermediaries to relay messages to and from al Qaeda in the months before his elections as the 44th U.S. president. The sources said al Qaeda has offered what they termed a truce in exchange for a U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan. 'For the last few months, Obama has been receiving and sending feelers to those close to al Qaeda on whether the group would end its terrorist campaign against the United States,' a diplomatic source said. 'Obama sees this as helpful to his plans to essentially withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq during his first term in office.' "
I find this incredibly hard to believe. I sincerely hope this is not true because if it is I fear for this country. I will follow this one and update when confirmed or debunked.

UPDATE:I just heard back from a couple of people with some national security connections who say they think the story from the "diplomatic source" Gertz reported is bunk as far as the contact with al Qaeda operatives goes. I hope they are right.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments (40)

The neoconservative democra... (Below threshold)

The neoconservative democratic revolution has left the middle east more theocratic and radicalized and tilted in favor of the neoconservatives' avowed enemy, Iran. And just in time for our economic depression, too. Which the war (as all wars do) contributed to.

Thanks for not reminding us. We're fragile.

Apart from that, though (and needless maimings and death), Bush and Blair are real scholars.

Did you read any of the new... (Below threshold)

Did you read any of the news reports about the election in Iraq? Reports from people like Reuters and AP? Not surprising if you didn't. Good news from Iraq doesn't get much attention. If you bothered to read the news reports the past few days you would know that what you say is absolutely not true. I will find a few quotes if I have time, but I think you might even be able to get the message just from the headlines. Iraqis are moving to secular leaders. That was the main bit of news in most of the reports I saw.

I for one am very glad and ... (Below threshold)

I for one am very glad and appreciative that GW went into Iraq and took the fight to the islamofacists. I am deeply grateful for the service and sacrifice our military men and women gave. Veterans understand the personal importance of serving your country.

I have no doubt that 10 years or more down the road GW will be reflected on in a great way. He is steadfast in his beliefs and he was determined to protect us no matter what the polls or nay sayers said.

Now look what we have. ww

Wow. This took a whole 60 ... (Below threshold)

Wow. This took a whole 60 seconds or so to find. Here is a NY Times headline and lede:

Headline: Secular Parties and Premier Lead in Iraq

Lede: BAGHDAD -- Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki and several secular parties appeared to score significant gains in Iraq's provincial elections on Saturday, preliminary reports showed Sunday...

The relative success of the secular parties may be a sign that a significant number of Iraqis are disillusioned with the religious parties that have been in power but have done little to deliver needed services.


It is getting harder and harder for the Bush haters to downplay the success being seen in Iraq. When the NY Times even admits progress you know it must be significant. I would think that even those on the left would be happy to see success in Iraq and would celebrate it, but I am not seeing it. It is really sad.

bryanD - "The neoconser... (Below threshold)

bryanD - "The neoconservative democratic revolution has left the middle east more theocratic and radicalized"

So, can you name the Mid-East countries that have turned to a more theocratic government?

Well, the Hamas government ... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Well, the Hamas government in Gaza, for one. And Hizbollah now has seats in the Lebanese parliament, It didn't hold those seats before. And the Taliban controls almost as much of Afghanistan as it did in 2001. Somalia has devolved even further into a sectarian, lawless clusterfuck. Pakistan (nuclear-armed) is in danger of slipping into Islamist control.
Aside from that, everything's peachy. Thanks, George!

They wanted Bush to fail be... (Below threshold)

They wanted Bush to fail because they hate him. Their hatred of Bush outweighed their concern for the Iraqis or for the security of this country. This is in contrast to those who want Obama to fail because their love for this country exceeds their love for Obama.

Oh, and I almost forgot. Mu... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Oh, and I almost forgot. Mubarak only beat the Muslim Brotherhood-type parties in Egypt's last election by fraud and intimidation.

b henry - "Well, the Ha... (Below threshold)

b henry - "Well, the Hamas government in Gaza, for one. And Hizbollah now has seats in the Lebanese parliament, It didn't hold those seats before. And the Taliban controls almost as much of Afghanistan as it did in 2001."

And Hamas is a degradation of what was before? The only difference is they were elected, other than that, not much difference at all.

Hezbollah. Sorry, they turned "politcal" in 1982 with the decision to participate in elections and Ali Khamenei, supreme leader of Iran, endorsed it.

They gained all of the twelve seats which were on the electoral list. They hold 14 seats now, a gain of two over the course of 27 years. That gain can arguably attributed to the 2006 Lebanon War not Bush's polices. (They gained them after that war)

Taliban, rabbit hole noted, they aren't a "government," although they have gained strength and I suspect it's a result of many terrorists getting their ass handed to them in Iraq and shifted focus to Afghanistan.

Somalia has devolved eve... (Below threshold)

Somalia has devolved even further into a sectarian, lawless clusterfuck.

You can thank President Clinton for that.

Man, it's amazing how these epic, sweeping statements by people like Bruce H here can be said without providing a shred of evidence to support or demonstrate a cause and effect relationship.

If this is true, it would a... (Below threshold)

If this is true, it would appear that a certain unnamed president, currently in the White House, violated several laws, for which he could be, dare I say the word, impeached? Or is it just a wash, seeing as He's The One?

And BTW, isn't Afghanistan ... (Below threshold)

And BTW, isn't Afghanistan where the left said we were supposed to be fighting? Or has that changed?

Imagine - Iraq goes all sec... (Below threshold)

Imagine - Iraq goes all secular and constitutional, and we're stuck here in the US with the Obama fanatics that gave us the One and new sweeping socialism. Thanks, oatmeal-heads!

Sometimes I get the ... (Below threshold)
gracecurl Author Profile Page:

Sometimes I get the feeling you guys are pushing WAY to hard to make yourselves believe that the price we have paid to let some group of disparate peoples forced together by western "wisdom" "vote?

I am forced to believe that none of you ever doubted for a second the truthfulness of the Bush administration in 2002.

How come everyone I knew knew he was lying? There never were any WMD but that's not why we invaded that country anyway.

Bush was able to fool enough light weight Americans to have a go at their real plan.

Now we have about 3 million refugees in Iraq, Syria, Iran. Hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, 4237 dead Americans, about forty thousand in wheelcairs or worse, a cost of 350 million a day....and this is a success?

Here what sums up the empty-headedness of the right. You guys don't even get it... you've been duped:


yes it is a success. bett... (Below threshold)

yes it is a success. better to fight and protect our freedom from afar than ever having the terror happen again on our land.

go ahead gracecurl continue to live in the child-like world that got us in this mess in the first place. oh that's right O is going to have 'talks' with the country's leaders. yeah like that wasnt done before. continue to live in a vacuum.

Sometimes I get th... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Sometimes I get the feeling you guys are pushing WAY to hard to make yourselves believe that the price we have paid to let some group of disparate peoples forced together by western "wisdom" "vote?

And I'm amazed at how hard the left pushes the idea that leaving Saddam in control would be better than having a representative government.

I am forced to believe that none of you ever doubted for a second the truthfulness of the Bush administration in 2002.

But of course you are using the Michael Moore standard of "truthfulness". By any valid standard the Bush administration was telling the truth as they knew it in 2002. That's ok though, because of people like you Obama will be judged by the Michael Moore standard, which is that a statement that turns out to be false is a lie even if the President thought it was true at the time he said it.

How come everyone I knew knew he was lying?

That's because you didn't know Bill or Hillary Clinton or most of the democratic leadership, many of whom made statements that Saddam had WMD.

There never were any WMD but that's not why we invaded that country anyway.

There was lots of WMD found after the first gulf war and there was never any evidence that Saddam had come clean about how much was left after he kicked out the UN inspectors. Some minor amounts of WMD were found after Saddam was removed, but not the big stockpiles that were expected. That was an intelligence mistake, not a lie unless you are using the Michael Moore standard.

Now we have about 3 million refugees in Iraq, Syria, Iran. Hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, 4237 dead Americans, about forty thousand in wheelcairs or worse, a cost of 350 million a day....and this is a success?

The alternative would have been to leave Saddam and his sadistic sons in power. We know now that Saddam had bribed UN and other government officials and would have soon gotten out from under UN sanctions. That would have left Saddam with billions of petrol dollars to rebuild his military and fund terrorists activities like he did in the west bank. History will judge those who would have left this mad man in power as the same class of fools who failed to stop Hitler when that would have been easy.


LOL. Not may people like you even know what truth is.

"Here is a NY Times headlin... (Below threshold)

"Here is a NY Times headline and lede:"-lori byrd

I'll let the irony of your MSM citation pass, since "A friend in need..." etc.

Re: "Iraqis are moving to secular leaders."

The Shia are ahead and running out the clock. The Sunnis are being paid by the US, holding their breath, hoping against hope. The Christians are gone or in hiding. The US is promising" a share-the-wealth program which is 100% hypothetical unless you think the Calvinists (Shia) are going to feed the Pope (Sunnis). Please keep us abreast of developments. Yours truly.

"So, can you name the Mid-East countries that have turned to a more theocratic government?"-marc

Iraq. Pakistan. Reprobate Afghanistan. Gaza. To name just the salient points. And in the news: Kyrgyzstan.

The Sunnis are being pai... (Below threshold)

The Sunnis are being paid by the US, holding their breath, hoping against hope. The Christians are gone or in hiding.

Proof, proof, proof. Where's the proof....

Iraq. Pakistan. Reprobate Afghanistan. Gaza. To name just the salient points. And in the news: Kyrgyzstan.

Define theocratic in your world....

And even an unprincipled Afghanistan is better than one that's led by a truly theocratic regime such as the Taliban.

Your words are big, your thoughts and proof are small. Put up your proof, or shut up.

"The Sunnis are being paid ... (Below threshold)

"The Sunnis are being paid by the US, holding their breath, hoping against hope. The Christians are gone or in hiding.

Proof, proof, proof. Where's the proof...."-peter f

The Sunni Awakening? Paying "insurgents" not to fight us? (Coffee's ready, sleepyhead!)
As for the Christian/Assyrians: I'll let you google it.

"Define theocratic in your world...."-pf

The opposite of Humanist, i.e. (in this case:) Allah is the measure of all things. So says 80% of Iraqis, so say 80% of the leadership. And the 20/20% keep their mouths shut. We call the 20/20% Sunnis, BTW, and former "insurgents": the guys "we" knocked off in the name of a New Order now headed by the Shiites.

"And even an unprincipled Afghanistan is better than one that's led by a truly theocratic regime such as the Taliban.-pf"

The US can end the Afghan war by granting an opium concession (a'la Turkey) for pharmacological use in the west, since opium is one hella cash crop and the world needs morphine. But noooo... Ulterior motives (based in the Caspian Sea Basin) abound.
Hint: oil.
Short of that: Karzai is surrounded in Kabul. Afghanistan is the imperial graveyard. Airlift Karzai back to Sugar Land, TX. He can be Condi's date. Brute force won't work in Afghanistan. Opium concession: that's the ticket.

"Your words are big,"-pf


Bush and Blair has done so ... (Below threshold)

Bush and Blair has done so many thing to be thanked but those are really forgotten by all by some other action.

One of the brain challenged... (Below threshold)

One of the brain challenged liberal trolls actually think GW can send the troops to Iraq. Congress has to approve and appropriate the funds.

The list of Iraqie dead is growing like a fish tale. ww

#9: I stand correcte... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

I stand corrected. Hizbollah has indeed had seats in Parliament for many years. What I should have written is that it now is in the Lebanese Cabinet, and wasn't before Bush's "Israel can do no wrong" policy.
The Taliban is the closest thing to a "government" in Afghanistan. Karzai is mayor of Kabul.
And # 10:
Do you understand the meaning of the phrase "even further?"
And # 18:
"proof, proof, where's the proof?"
Common knowledge doesn't require a Google cite.
Do you own a dictionary? look up "theocratic." All of # 17's examples fit.

Look, Iraq may indeed achieve parliamentary democracy, at the cost of only 4200 dead Americans, 40,000 maimed Americans, scores of thousands of dead Iraqis, 3 million Iraqi refugees, (the equivalent of 23 million Americans), and 3 TRILLION American dollars. Does anyone here believe that, in 5-10 years, there WON'T be a coup d'etat installing a Generalissimo like Musharraf in Pakistan? Then what will our sacrifice have meant?
The only Islamic country to have long experience with anything close to democracy is (secular) Turkey.

Bruce, et al, There would'v... (Below threshold)

Bruce, et al, There would've been thousands of dead iraqis anyway. Saddam was killing them in bunches, usually by shoving them off buildings or sticking them in woodchippers for entertainment. Gracecurl, as to the "no WMD" lie, of course he moved most of it to syria when we told him we were coming, but there is still a lot of it recovered that you just aren't digging hard enough to find the truth about. We have removed tons of yellow cake uranium to canada from iraq. Where'd it come from? We didn't bring it in, it was already there. How about the tons of radiologicals that we've disposed of, or the sarin gas warheads stuck in ieds to hit our troops? That wasn't in the news, might tell people there was actually more WMD than we want to admit to. As far as the Taliban "controlling" afghanistan....well, I don't think you probably want to call it "controlling" anything. They couldn't "control" it before we moved in our troops. Sure, they're fighting us, but "controlling" the country. That's wishful thinking. Every time they stand and fight, we kick their ass. Sure we take losses, but that's the price. Yes, the guys doing the fighting resent it, hate it, and despise the need for it, but it's the cost of doing business. Soldiers understand that. We also see the reasons we do it. Like the elections last weekend in iraq. Go over and read blackfive.net about the elections. If you can help people be free, it's worth it.

Bruce, you are bordering on... (Below threshold)

Bruce, you are bordering on racial stereotypes by suggesting middle eastern countries cannot handle self governing. I for one think they can. ww

I hesitate to respond to We... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

I hesitate to respond to Wee Willie's colorful comments, but I will this time.
I didn't suggest Middle Eastern countries can't handle self governing. I merely pointed out that there are no true parliamentary democracies in the Islamic world. Can you name one? Many Islamic countries govern themselves just fine -- but they are monarchies or dictatorships, sometimes dressed up with parliamentary trappings.
Now Iraq may become a true parliamentary democracy for a while, at the cost I have mentioned. But would ANYONE here bet me money that there won't be a coup, installing a new strongman, within 5-10 years?

And Chad, where do get your... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

And Chad, where do get your info that "wasn't in the news" about yellowcake moved to Canada and WMDs moved to Syria and Sarin gas in IEDs? Some of LaMedusa's Youtube videos?

AKO news for the Sarin. Sa... (Below threshold)

AKO news for the Sarin. Satelite photos of convoys, and articles from defense websites for transfer to syria and yellow cake. I'll have to look up the book for you, maybe someone can help. I forget the authors name, but he wrote an entire book about what we've found in Iraq so far, and what the media has NOT been reporting.

Bruce, with all the qualifi... (Below threshold)

Bruce, with all the qualifiers you threw in there, my original point remains the same. I have a greater appreciation of the human ability then you. ww

Willie, the only human abil... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Willie, the only human ability I truly doubt is your ability to ever say something smart on the Internet.
Please name one true democracy in the Islamic world.
Chad, would those satellite photos resemble the ones Colin Powell showed at the UN? Also, I have news: sometimes people write books in which they make false claims and present phony evidence, hoping sheep will believe them.

And another thing. If the W... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

And another thing. If the WMDs were moved to Syria, and the point was to make sure terrorists didn't get them, why didn't we invade Syria, too? If they're STILL there, why don't we invade Syria right now? George W "Ah'm a gonna do whut's right" Bush surely would have taken out Assad if he had WMDs, right? Since when is Syria NOT a "state sponsor of terrorism?" Is Assad less of a terrorist-lover than Saddam was? Is he less likely to furnish them to al-Qaeda?

A. I'm still looking for t... (Below threshold)

A. I'm still looking for the title and author of the book, I believe the writer used to write for the NYT. Gives proof that the WMD were found.

B. I do NBC warfare. It's part of my job. I get bulletins and information that I'm not at liberty to share, but that would scare the crap out of a lot of people. Trust me, Syria's stockpile went up "considerably" in the 2 weeks before the invasion. So did Russia's stockpile.

C. There were no U.N. Sanctions against Syria that we could use to justify our actions on the world stage. Therefore, Iraq. Syria may be hostile, but they haven't been shooting at out planes, etc.

<a href="http://www.floppin... (Below threshold)

http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/08/04/us-official-iraqis-told-me-wmds-sent-to-syria/ Try out this link, Bruce, tell me what you think? I know, where's the proof. Look at the pictures. read the WHOLE article. I'm still trying to find some of the news articles and book I mentioned earlier. Google is so full of Bush and Blair Lied, that I'm having a hard time sifting through it all. Funny though, if Bush and Blair lied, didn't Clinton, Pelosi, and the rest of congress, the Cia, and MI?-whichever also lie? Saddam lied his ass off claiming he had the stuff. Journalists and un search teams lied. How can we trust any of them by the michelle moore standard? We can't.

<a href="http://www.nysun.c... (Below threshold)

Here's another link to a story about Saddam moving WMD out of the country by Iraq's former air force chief. He's written a book called Saddam's Secrets. Not the one I referenced earlier, but still looks like an "insider's" tell-all on what happened. Might be worth a look.

Here are some blog posts th... (Below threshold)

Here are some blog posts that contain links to reports about WMD in Iraq:





The Timmerman link is the one that I found really interesting and didn't see get much coverage. We thought we would find huge stockpiles, but didn't. What we found instead were smaller quantities of what would be termed WMD and large quantities of chemical agents that could be used to produce WMD, but were also dual use as pesticides and other things. There was also evidence of something being moved out to Syria prior to the war.

It's pretty easy to go from... (Below threshold)

It's pretty easy to go from pesticide production to poison production. VX (the great love of hollywood((you do NOT inject atropine into the heart or neck with a 6 gauge needle 7" long))) was initially developed as a pesticide. OOPS! It's all about the targeted pest. To Saddam that was Kurds and Iranians. I've never quite figured out how they got an outbreak of New Zeland moles, either.

Chad and Lorie, 3 out of th... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Chad and Lorie, 3 out of the 6 cites were about the same source, this Sada guy. The other three were blog posts on Wingnut websites that Lorie WROTE HERSELF, or got a "hat-tip" for! Those cites are supposed to be persuasive?
This Bordenkircher guy who says Iraqis bragged about moving WMDs to Syria. Is he aware of how many American convicts have "bragged" about helping to bury Jimmy Hoffa? And those convicts weren't even tortured, er, I mean, enhancedly interrogated. Ever hear of a case where a suspect tells his interrogator what he wants to hear?
And I know "enhancedly" isn't a real word.

Chad, re # 32: Politicians ... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Chad, re # 32: Politicians of both parties lie about national security matters, and whether using the military is necessary.
I was 10 years old at the time of the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and my mom told me she thought Johnson was lying us into a war.I was 16 when Nixon lied us into Cambodia, and I didn't support that. I thought Reagan was ridiculous for invading Grenada, but supported bombing Qaddafi's tent, even though it killed his daughter. I thought Bush was wrong to invade Panama, but supported Gulf War One. I was all for intervention in Bosnia, not so big on Kosovo. Nobody cheered louder than me when we took action against the Taliban, but Iraq was wrong, and based on lies.
I suggest a book called, "When Presidents Lie." I forget the author's name. It addresses how each party tries to out-toughguy the other, starting with FDR and the Yalta mess, going through Korea, Vietnam, etc. It doesn't address the current Iraq war at all, but the lessons are clear.

And re # 31;Since wh... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

And re # 31;
Since when do conservatives give a damn about what the UN says or doesn't say?

Geez Bruce, why don't you r... (Below threshold)

Geez Bruce, why don't you read my comment again. I wrote:

Here are some blog posts that contain links to reports about WMD in Iraq:"

I was not posting the links to the "wingnut" blog posts I wrote because I have ever reported anything about WMD. I have never been to Iraq. I don't have independent knowledge of what has been found in Iraq. I posted them so that people could follow the LINKS I cited in them. It was just easier to do it that way. I am juggling carpool and laundry and shopping and other stuff and just pop in and out of here to make sure people aren't being too nasty. I didn't have time to go through all those old posts and pull out the reports and quotes, but wanted to make them available to those who did want to take the time. Obviously you either didn't want to take the time to read anything other than the Sada stuff or you chose to ignore it.

The Timmerman report is fascinating, but instead of addressing the content, if you even bothered to follow the links in my old posts and read the content, you call names (wingnut) and focus on the cite rather than the reports that are linked from the blog posts.

Face it. Kerry, Gore, Clinton, the UN, and even Ted Kennedy said Saddam posed a threat with WMD. And they said it before George Bush had been in office long enough to manipulate the intelligence or cherry pick it or whatever the other excuses are liberals cite for Democrats who warned of Saddam's WMD. I have yet to hear one explanation for why so many Democrats warned of Saddam's WMD prior to Bush taking control. Not one.

I have heard all about how Bush lied about WMD. As if he would have invaded knowing there was nothing to find. He would have known he was committing political suicide. That is the dumbest idea imaginable, but almost everyone on the left believes it. They seriously believe George Bush was that hot to help his "Big Oil" buddies make an extra nickel that he would knowingly throw away his political credibility at the beginning of his presidency. Ridiculous beyond belief, but that is still what most of them argue.

I guess the obvious is just too hard to swallow. Most everyone believed Saddam had WMD. Bush and those in favor of the invasion believed we could not afford to take the chance that he would use them and those who opposed it believed it was an acceptable risk. After 9/11, Bush said never again would we ignore threats. He was not going to gamble the security of the country that as just attacked on the word of a man who vowed death to America, gassed his own people (I guess he did it with imaginary WMD), violated 17 or so UN resolutions, and shot at our planes. That is it in a nutshell.

Bruce, RE#31, I didn't say ... (Below threshold)

Bruce, RE#31, I didn't say I care what the UN thinks, I said it was justifiable. As in, we were listed as one of the entities responsible for carrying out the retaliation for violating U.N. sanctions. We were also the aggrieved party when Saddam had his military shoot at our planes in a U.N. Enforced "No-Fly" zone. Legally we were entitled to invade Iraq because he did not allow U.N. inspectors to carry out their duties in accordance with the treaty after the Gulf War. At this point we could have legally NUKED Iraq, as our troops have been attacked with chemical weapons in ieds in Iraq. We haven't because we're the good guys. Legally, we could nuke 'em. Doesn't mean I think we should, just saying LEGALLY, we could. Bill Clinton, and pretty much every member of congress (including the democrats) was saying back in 1998 how much of a threat Saddam's WMDs were, so they are just as guilty in us going to war as Bush is. He used the intelligence (which had not changed, and which Saddam was screaming at the top of his lungs) that said the exact same things the whole rest of the world believed. That Saddam was storing and ready to produce more WMD. Why should I care which wars you support or didn't? Doesn't matter. Commander in Chief says you go, and Congress approves it, you go. You can claim all you want that there's no WMD, but we have shown you multiple examples of the fact that he did, and that there are probably still others undetected in Iraq. If I gave you a 55 gallon drum full of Sarin, would you admit that he had WMD? What's the reportable quantity? Really, answer those questions.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy