I did this over a year ago, and now it’s time to do it again. I am so sick o the “He lied!” argument from the other side of the isle. I’m sick of hearing that there was “No link between Iraq and 9/11”. So let’s talk about why we went to war in Iraq. Take the time to peruse the three speeches below given by the President during the run up to the invasion of Iraq. I mean REALLY read them. Now let’s talk.
Let’s talk about the real reasons we went to Iraq. And since the topic is the loudest rallying cry for the anti-war camp, let us start with the weapons of mass destruction argument. Were WMDs a reason we went to war with Iraq? Yes. Were they the only reason? No, but we will get to the others momentarily. Now there are many out there that will say that Bush manufactured the evidence of WMDs and that these Democrats fell for his lies hook, line and sinker…
One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."- President Clinton
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program."-President Bill Clinton
“We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA)
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."- Letter to The President- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others
“Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State
Yep, they bought it! The president was handing them a line, and the suckers fell for it! Except, take a look at the dates of the quotes…
That’s right. Every single one of those quotes was made before Bush was even the Republican nominee. So I ask you… Who was lying to these people? If Bush is a liar, then certainly all of these kind folks are too.
So what were the Iraqi’s WMD capabilities? Well, take a gander at this…
“The retention of WMD capacities by Iraq is self-evidently the core objective of the regime, for it has sacrificed all other domestic and foreign policy goals to this singular aim. It has retained this single objective, and pursued it in breach of the ceasefire and UN Security Council Resolutions that brought a conditional end to the 1991 Gulf War. Over more than eleven years the Iraqi regime has sought to evade its obligations and undermine support for the sanctions and inspections regime meant to eliminate its WMD capacities and contain its ambitions.”
“Our second stream of information was that the United Nations could not—and Saddam would not—account for all the weapons the Iraqis had: tons of chemical weapons precursors, hundreds of artillery shells and bombs filled with chemical or biological agents.
“We did not take this data at face value. We did take it seriously. We worked with the inspectors, giving them leads, helping them fight Saddam’s deception strategy of “cheat and retreat.””
The simple fact of the matter was that Hussein deliberately played cat and mouse games. Have we found and WMDs? No, but who knows, we still might. But the fact remains that the inspectors’ job was not to hunt down and find everything (this is no hide and seek), but rather to gather the proof that the weapons had been destroyed. There was a lot of missing material. Missiles, chemicals, warheads, bio-precursors… These are some of the things that were either found, but never reported, or no proof was provided of their destruction. Here’s another link for you. This one is about what should happen under a disarmament treaty
Report what they have, provide evidence of its destruction. That is what is supposed to happen. That did NOT happen in Iraq. Hussein was in non-compliance with multiple resolutions as a result. There is a lot of material out there that the UN inspectors knew that Iraq was in possession of, and now can’t account for it. Where do you think it went?
Don’t you think that the more plausible explanation is not that Bush lied because he wanted to go to war, but instead a) Saddam still has them hidden, b) Saddam managed to get them out of the country or c) Bush acted in good faith on bad intelligence? Personally, I think that the most plausible explanations are b and c.
Alright, enough on the WMD front. Let’s talk about the other reasons we were in Iraq. There are two main ones that I can discern; Iraq’s ties with terrorist organizations and the liberation of the Iraqi people. I’ll deal with them in reverse order, because the easier of the two is Iraqi liberation. I am so tired of hearing the anti-war sect say, “We didn’t go there for Iraqi freedom! We went for WMDs and since Bush didn’t find any, he had to spin it to be about freedom and democracy! BusHitler lied!!” It wasn’t about freedom…
“In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities—which the Council said, threatened international peace and security in the region. This demand goes ignored… If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi’a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions.”
“Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them. If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you. As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near.”
“Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human liberty. And when the dictator has departed, they can set an example to all the Middle East of a vital and peaceful and self-governing nation.
“The United States, with other countries, will work to advance liberty and peace in that region. Our goal will not be achieved overnight, but it can come over time. The power and appeal of human liberty is felt in every life and every land. And the greatest power of freedom is to overcome hatred and violence, and turn the creative gifts of men and women to the pursuits of peace. “
“A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region, by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions. America’s interests in security, and America’s belief in liberty, both lead in the same direction: to a free and peaceful Iraq.
“The first to benefit from a free Iraq would be the Iraqi people, themselves. Today they live in scarcity and fear, under a dictator who has brought them nothing but war, and misery, and torture. Their lives and their freedom matter little to Saddam Hussein—but Iraqi lives and freedom matter greatly to us.”
Each of those quotes can be found in the speeches I linked at the top of this message. If you go through Bush’s other pre-war speeches, you will find more of the same. Just because you chose to ignore that reason does not mean that it did not exist. Liberation was always a factor.
Now, how about those ties to terrorists? “But there are no ties between Iraq and 9/11!” Au contraire!
“The U.S. had been suspicious for months, partly because of Osama bin Laden’s financial ties, but also because of strong connections to Iraq. Sources say the U.S. had intercepted phone calls from the plant to a man in Iraq who runs that country’s chemical weapons program.”
“The Clinton administration heavily emphasized the Iraq link to justify its 1998 strikes against al Qaeda. Just four days before the embassy bombings, Saddam Hussein had once again stepped up his defiance of U.N. weapons inspectors, causing what Senator Richard Lugar called another Iraqi “crisis.” Undersecretary of State Thomas Pickering, one of those in the small circle of Clinton advisers involved in planning the strikes, briefed foreign reporters on August 25, 1998. He was asked about the connection directly and answered carefully.”
“An Iraqi defector to Turkey, known by his cover name as “Abu Mohammed,” told Gwynne Roberts of the Sunday Times of London that he saw bin Laden’s fighters in camps in Iraq in 1997. At the time, Mohammed was a colonel in Saddam’s Fedayeen. He described an encounter at Salman Pak, the training facility southeast of Baghdad. At that vast compound run by Iraqi intelligence, Muslim militants trained to hijack planes with knives—on a full-size Boeing 707. Col. Mohammed recalls his first visit to Salman Pak this way: “We were met by Colonel Jamil Kamil, the camp manager, and Major Ali Hawas. I noticed that a lot of people were queuing for food. (The major) said to me: ‘You’ll have nothing to do with these people. They are Osama bin Laden’s group and the PKK and Mojahedin-e Khalq.’”
But, the President never said anything about Iraq/Al Qaeda. He said Iraq/terrorist organizations…
“In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolution 687, demanded that Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism, and permit no terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Iraq’s regime agreed. It broke this promise. In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder. In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former American President. Iraq’s government openly praised the attacks of September the 11th. And al Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known to be in Iraq.
“If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.”
“We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far greater. In one year, or five years, the power of Iraq to inflict harm on all free nations would be multiplied many times over. With these capabilities, Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies could choose the moment of deadly conflict when they are strongest.”
“Terrorists and terror states do not reveal these threats with fair notice, in formal declarations—and responding to such enemies only after they have struck first is not self-defense, it is suicide. The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now.”
Al Qaeda is not the only terrorist organization out there. Osama bin Laden is not the only terrorist.
“Saddam has aided the Iranian dissident group Mujahedeen-e-Khalq and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (known by its Turkish initials, PKK), a separatist group fighting the Turkish government. Moreover, Iraq has hosted several Palestinian splinter groups that oppose peace with Israel, including the mercenary Abu Nidal Organization, whose leader, Abu Nidal, was found dead in Baghdad in August 2002. Iraq has also supported the Islamist Hamas movement and reportedly channeled money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. A secular dictator, Saddam tended to support secular terrorist groups rather than Islamists such as al-Qaeda, experts say”
So let’s look at those that Saddam did support…
Hamas- “Hamas is believed to have killed more than 500 people in more than 350 separate terrorist attacks since 1993. Not all Hamas’ attacks have been carried out by suicide bombers. The group has also accepted responsibility for assaults using mortars, short-range rockets, and small arms fire.”
Mujahedeen-e-Khalq- (Well, this one doesn’t really count though, since they only target Iranians) “The series of mortar attacks and hit-and-run raids during 2000 and 2001 against Iranian government buildings; one of these killed Iran’s chief of staff
The 2000 mortar attack on President Mohammad Khatami’s palace in Tehran
The February 2000 “Operation Great Bahman,” during which MEK launched 12 attacks against Iran”
Abu Nidal Organization- The Abu Nidal Organization—named for its leader, a veteran Palestinian terrorist known by the nom de guerre Abu Nidal—is an international terrorist group that has been sponsored by Syria, Libya, and Iraq, and has attacked a wide range of Western, Israeli, and Arab targets. Over the years, the Abu Nidal Organization (ANO) mounted terrorist operations in 20 countries, killing about 300 people and wounding hundreds more.
Let’s not forget bout our good friends the PLO and their man Abu Abbas who was captured in Iraq in 2003. You know Abu, right?
These are only a few of the groups that Saddam Hussein aided either directly or indirectly. And let’s not forget about the checks that he wrote to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.
This isn’t about only protecting our interests. No one should have to live in fear of these extremists who kill indiscriminately. Not the US, not the UK, not Spain, nor Israel. No one. Right now, things are a mess in Iraq because of terrorists. We are not targeting civilians. We are not taking the offence. We are not provoking conflict. We are standing pat and helping the Iraqi government get on its feet so that they can defend themselves.
The one thing I will say is that it all ignores the fact that before the invasion the UN inspectors were getting the access they wanted and Blix said they could get the job completed in a matter of months.
If the decision to invade relied on the inspection reports, why invade when an end was finally in sight ?
All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly.
Why did he say “almost”? Why no details about it if it were beneign?
In my last updating, I also said that a decision to cooperate on substance was indispensable in order to bring, through inspection, the disarmament task to completion and to set the monitoring system on a firm course. Such cooperation, as I have noted, requires more than the opening of doors.
To take an example, a document, which Iraq provided, suggested to us that some 1,000 tonnes of chemical agent were “unaccounted for”. One must not jump to the conclusion that they exist. However, that possibility is also not excluded. If they exist, they should be presented for destruction. If they do not exist, credible evidence to that effect should be presented.
Although I can understand that it may not be easy for Iraq in all cases to provide the evidence needed, it is not the task of the inspectors to find it. Iraq itself must squarely tackle this task and avoid belittling the questions.
At the meeting in Baghdad on 8 and 9 February, the Iraqi side addressed some of the important outstanding disarmament issues and gave us a number of papers, e.g. regarding anthrax and growth material, the nerve agent VX and missile production. Experts who were present from our side studied the papers during the evening of 8 February and met with Iraqi experts in the morning of 9 February for further clarifications. Although no new evidence was provided in the papers and no open issues were closed through them or the expert discussions, the presentation of the papers could be indicative of a more active attitude focusing on important open issues.
No evidence, no resolution, but the fact that Iraq gave them some useless paperwork might mean they are really working with us…
The Iraqi side suggested that the problem of verifying the quantities of anthrax and two VX-precursors, which had been declared unilaterally destroyed, might be tackled through certain technical and analytical methods. Although our experts are still assessing the suggestions, they are not very hopeful that it could prove possible to assess the quantities of material poured into the ground years ago. Documentary evidence and testimony by staff that dealt with the items still appears to be needed.
Just take Saddam’s word that he dumped the stuff. He has no reason to lie to you.
The two commissions could be useful tools to come up with proscribed items to be destroyed and with new documentary evidence. They evidently need to work fast and effectively to convince us, and the world, that it is a serious effort.
The matter of private interviews was discussed at length during our meeting in Baghdad. The Iraqi side confirmed the commitment, which it made to us on 20 January, to encourage persons asked to accept such interviews, whether in or out of Iraq. So far, we have only had interviews in Baghdad. A number of persons have declined to be interviewed, unless they were allowed to have an official present or were allowed to tape the interview. Three persons that had previously refused interviews on UNMOVIC’s terms, subsequently accepted such interviews just prior to our talks in Baghdad on 8 and 9 February. These interviews proved informative. No further interviews have since been accepted on our terms. I hope this will change. We feel that interviews conducted without any third party present and without tape recording would provide the greatest credibility.
A credible inspection regime requires that Iraq provide full cooperation on “process” – granting immediate access everywhere to inspectors – and on substance, providing full declarations supported by relevant information and material and evidence. However, with the closed society in Iraq of today and the history of inspections there, other sources of information, such as defectors and government intelligence agencies are required to aid the inspection process.
If Iraq had provided the necessary cooperation in 1991, the phase of disarmament – under resolution 687 (1991) – could have been short and a decade of sanctions could have been avoided. Today, three months after the adoption of resolution 1441 (2002), the period of disarmament through inspection could still be short, if “immediate, active and unconditional cooperation” with UNMOVIC and the IAEA were to be forthcoming.
In other words only if Saddam was a willing participant would the inspections have been completed in short order. To think that Saddam was willing to have full disclosure is naive. I respect Blix and the job he tried to do. And in the end he was trying to find a way to keep the war from happening. I admire that. He had enough confidence in himself that he beleived he could get the job done without war. But every time he spoke in regards to Iraq, he used very carefully chosen words and guarded optimism to decsribe the goings on. He was not speaking in absolutes. He said things like, “It seems” and “could be useful” instead of “It is” or “has been useful”. Why?
Blix was in an unenviable position and did an admirable job. But do you really think that if the US had let up on Saddam, even a little that he same thing that happened in 98 wouldn’t have happened all over again? Oh, and the dotal disarmament of South Africa took 12 years of cooperation. Do you really think that Iraq would have been totally disarmed in less than one?
Iraq, with a highly developed administrative system, should be able to provide more documentary evidence about its proscribed weapons programmes. Only a few new such documents have come to light so far and been handed over since we began inspections. It was a disappointment that Iraq’s Declaration of 7 December did not bring new documentary evidence. I hope that efforts in this respect, including the appointment of a governmental commission, will give significant results. When proscribed items are deemed unaccounted for it is above all credible accounts that is needed – or the proscribed items, if they exist.Where authentic documents do not become available, interviews with persons, who may have relevant knowledge and experience, may be another way of obtaining evidence. UNMOVIC has names of such persons in its records and they are among the people whom we seek to interview.
May have knowledge… may obtain evidence… we seek to interview… notice a pattern here? let’s look at the rest of that paragraph…
In the last month, Iraq has provided us with the names of many persons, who may be relevant sources of information, in particular, persons who took part in various phases of the unilateral destruction of biological and chemical weapons, and proscribed missiles in 1991. The provision of names prompts two reflections:
The first is that with such detailed information existing regarding those who took part in the unilateral destruction, surely there must also remain records regarding the quantities and other data concerning the various items destroyed.
The second reflection is that with relevant witnesses available it becomes even more important to be able to conduct interviews in modes and locations, which allow us to be confident that the testimony is given without outside influence. While the Iraqi side seems to have encouraged interviewees not to request the presence of Iraqi officials (so-called minders) or the taping of the interviews, conditions ensuring the absence of undue influences are difficult to attain inside Iraq. Interviews outside the country might provide such assurance. It is our intention to request such interviews shortly. Nevertheless, despite remaining shortcomings, interviews are useful. Since we started requesting interviews, 38 individuals were asked for private interviews, of which 10 accepted under our terms, 7 of these during the last week.
They had details about who, but not about what they disposed of. 25% of the people they sought to interview cooperated…
I should add that, both for the monitoring of ground transportation and for the inspection of underground facilities, we would need to increase our staff in Iraq. I am not talking about a doubling of the staff. I would rather have twice the amount of high quality information about sites to inspect than twice the number of expert inspectors to send.
A part of this effort concerns a disposal site, which was deemed too dangerous for full investigation in the past. It is now being re-excavated. To date, Iraq has unearthed eight complete bombs comprising two liquid-filled intact R-400 bombs and six other complete bombs. Bomb fragments were also found. Samples have been taken. The investigation of the destruction site could, in the best case, allow the determination of the number of bombs destroyed at that site. It should be followed by a serious and credible effort to determine the separate issue of how many R-400 type bombs were produced. In this, as in other matters, inspection work is moving on and may yield results.
More coulds and mays…
Iraq proposed an investigation using advanced technology to quantify the amount of unilaterally destroyed anthrax dumped at a site. However, even if the use of advanced technology could quantify the amount of anthrax, said to be dumped at the site, the results would still be open to interpretation. Defining the quantity of anthrax destroyed must, of course, be followed by efforts to establish what quantity was actually produced.
With respect to VX, Iraq has recently suggested a similar method to quantify a VX precursor stated to have been unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.
Aren’t there records of what was destroyed in 91? Didn’t the UN have inspectors there?
What are we to make of these activities? One can hardly avoid the impression that, after a period of somewhat reluctant cooperation, there has been an acceleration of initiatives from the Iraqi side since the end of January.
This is welcome, but the value of these measures must be soberly judged by how many question marks they actually succeed in straightening out. This is not yet clear.
You mean they could have been tying him up in so much red tape that he had no idea if anything was actually accomplished?
It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as “active”, or even “proactive”, these initiatives 3-4 months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute “immediate” cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance. They are nevertheless welcome and UNMOVIC is responding to them in the hope of solving presently unresolved disarmament issues.How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament and at any rate the verification of it cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude, induced by continued outside pressure, it would still take some time to verify sites and items, analyse documents, interview relevant persons, and draw conclusions. It would not take years, nor weeks, but months.
So only if there was a proactive attitude in the Iraqi behalf could it have taken months.
So once again I say that Blix was very careful in his optimistic language. He spoke about many hypothetical situations and downplayed many shortcomings of the process. Go back to my first post and read the .pdf about how the South African disarmament took place. Voluntary. Documented. Transparent. The inspectors were not supposed to guess at what Iraq had or where it was. Iraq was supposed to disclose it.
Providing comments from Dems and libs doesn’t really prove anything in relation to why war in Iraq was necessary -
Presumably they were going on the same half-arsed intelligence as everyone else at the time. You’ve conveniently left out the opposite comments (no threat etc) from Rice and Powell after Bush came to power. The fact that they were Dems (who largely supported the invasion anyway) is irrelevant. All politicians are inherently into self-preservation and will more often than not take the side that is best for them at the time. Taking a ‘strong’ position on national security is one of those no-brainer places to go, even when faced with intelligence that is inconclusive and unreliable.
You’ve also cherry-picked through the rest of it.
This should not be in the FAQ’s. It’s your opinion. Discuss it in Discussion forum. Or if you are to frustrated by too many people not buying it, then give up.
I am so tired of hearing the anti-war sect say, “We didn’t go there for Iraqi freedom! We went for WMDs and since Bush didn’t find any, he had to spin it to be about freedom and democracy! BusHitler lied!!” It wasn’t about freedom…
You do realise that it’s not just the US that is involved in this war, don’t you? And that the effects are significant to even those nations that didn’t sign up? Internal justifications from the leader of one country is not the be-all and end-all to the large majority of people in the world that opposed the invasion. You may feel it was sold as this and that, and you might have bought what was being sold, but most people in the world didn’t.
The key is - you are only providing internal justifications.
But, the President never said anything about Iraq/Al Qaeda.
“Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people
now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida.”
This isn’t about only protecting our interests. No one should have to live in fear of these extremists who kill indiscriminately. Not the US, not the UK, not Spain, nor Israel. No one.
Well that’s fine but if you seek to act on behalf of the someone else’s interests you need to actually have those people/nations on side before you embark on such endeavours. Not in opposition, let alone neutral. Otherwise foreseeable significant problems arise. Isn’t this what we are told on Moorewatch - “why do libs always seem to try and speak on behalf of the poor/black/whatever ?” Jabba spends many hours everyday explaining this.
Why the paternalistic double standard ? It’s what the British used to do all over the world. This attitude suggests that everyone else is too immature to know what they want.
I think this my 4th post in a row addressing your points. I’ll stop here though - I just wanted to provide enough comment to show why it’s all arguable (therefore a ‘discussion’).
EDIT: This clearly sets out the arguments of why Blair should face impeachment. Much of it can be applied to contradict your arguments
Much of it can be applied to contradict your arguments.
E.g:
47. Up to 1998, a substantial part of the work of the weapons inspectors in Iraq was to
discover what had happened to the chemical and biological agents that Iraq had
produced before their entry in 1991, and to check the documentation that showed how
much of each agent Iraq had manufactured. However, the amount of agent Iraq is
thought to have produced before 1991 was itself uncertain. UNSCOM calculated the
maximum amounts that Iraq could have produced from the biological growth media
or the chemical precursors, and subtracted from this total the amount Iraq could prove
not to have produced, used in its wars against Iran and the Kurdish population,
destroyed unilaterally, or presented to UNSCOM for destruction. The total left over -
which could not be demonstrated to have been unmanufactured, used or disposed of -
was recorded as “unaccounted for”.
48. The levels of agents that were unaccounted for in this way were large. However,
the fact that these quantities of actual and potential production were unaccounted for
did not mean that they still existed. Iraq was unable to prove that it had used specific
quantities of chemical weapons against Iran in the 1980-88 war; it had also destroyed
large quantities of its own stocks of these weapons in 1991 without keeping sufficient
proof of its actions. In the case of the growth media anthrax, for example, UNSCOM
“confirmed that [growth] media was burnt and buried there [at al-Hakam, the former
production facility] [in 1991] but the types and quantities are not known”.22 It thus
recorded the entire quantity of growth media as still unaccounted for in its final
substantive report of January 1999.
“Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people
now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida.”
State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
i was under the impression that its pretty well documented that Saddam aided members of Al Quida?
one of the trade center bombers for instance?
To be honest I don’t think people really care about this anymore
The vast majority of people around the world believe that the American government is a joke. They can’t handle war, they can’t protect the people and the president can’t get to grips with his own language!
Does it really even matter anymore? Right now, I’m more worried about getting out of Iraq then I am getting in. As far as I’m concerned. we went it under a litany of scrutiny and argument, we did some things great and did some other things not so great.
