We would have been justified to invade 5 years earlier based on Saddams lack of cooperation and the UN issuing 17 resolutions.

Not to mention Clinton calling for regime change in Iraq and bombing the country.

We would have been justified in 2003 if we had a UN resolution to do what we did.

We refused; the inspections never ran their course.

Unless you are one of those all encompassing conspiracy theorists it shows BOTH sides were on the same page concerning Iraq and other middle east dealings.

And if you believe both sides are in on it how can you support Obama? He's a Democrat.

conservativism at its finest.

__________________

We already had 17 over the course of the last decade. You are one of those that would have given him another decade even after 9/11 taught us we needed to be proactive.


After Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998 4 years went by without any progress. Why?

Seems to me, that's when the games began...

And, can you blame saddam for not showing inspectors weapons that didn't exist?

We were wrong about the weapons program.

We depended on Curveaball, and other flawed intelligence.

Probably, because we had a group that decided to invade, regardless.

Our invasion lead directly to terrorism spreading to the country.

It was dumb.

None authorized regime change.

I'm one who would have let the inspectors work.

There were no weapons programs, it turns out, so I am entirely vindicated.


This is exactly why we founded the UN.

What did Obama say in 2002?

Oh, right, he predicted what would happen; Foretold the stupidity to come.


"sides" is a childishly simple way of looking at it.

Colin Powell speech to the UN:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/spr....09/index.html

AQ in Iraq with Saddam in charge was going to be the problem.

BTW Barry is wrong,AQ was in Iraq before us.

While no pictures may exist of Zawahiri sitting down to tea with Saddam the facts dont change.Zawahiri was in contact with Saddam prior to merging with AQ,why wouldnt one assume that with AQ growing in Iraq that Saddam would reach out to Zawahiri again or vice versa.There is still nothing to prove they didnt.If Saddam had as much 'control' of Iraq as the antiwar folks tell me,it wouldve been really difficult for AQ to mobilize as the did in Iraq,without his knowledge.The fact the foreign element and the Baathist elements merged and bonded so quickly as a fighting force is also intriguing.But what would the details matter right?

No warehouses with big pyrimids of WMD.

If Bush didnt really think hed find them,I wonder why he didnt just plant them.I mean he wired the entire WTC full of TNT and remote controlled jetliners into the ground.Simple cache of ricin or anthrax secretly buried and then dug up by some fine US soldiers in one of Saddam special places and the war would all of a sudden been alright.

We have never and will never be held accountable to the UN. The US is a sovereign nation and the idea that we need to check with an organization that wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for us is just plain absurd.

Connection

No matter how many articles are posted here showing a link between Sadam and terror organizations, the leftists here will always ignore them. Believe whatever you want to believe.

__________________