The tenth anniversary of the start of the Iraq War has occasioned a lot of interesting and anguished appraisals. For those of us who supported the decision to invade, all such occasions present a chance for reflection on what went wrong—and right—and whether our backing for the war effort was misbegotten. Most of those who initially supported the decision to go to war—including our current secretaries of state and defense—long ago disowned their early hawkishness. For my part, I have resisted the urge to “repent,” as critics of the war effort would have it.
I should make clear that, unlike some supporters of the war effort, I would not have backed the invasion if I had known what we now know—that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction. There were, to be sure, secondary reasons to act, in particular the desire to implant a democracy in the middle of the Middle East. But, while I am a firm believer in democracy promotion, I don’t believe that its spread justifies exposing our soldiers to danger unless there is an overriding threat to our own security. In the case of Iraq, it was almost universally believed prior to the invasion that such a threat existed: not just the CIA but the Mossad, MI6, and every other allied intelligence agency agreed that Saddam had WMD. Heck, even his own generals believed it—Saddam out-bluffed himself.
That’s why there was so much support in this country for the initial invasion—more support, it is worth recalling, than there was for the Gulf War precipitated by Saddam’s occupation of Kuwait. I feel no shame in being part of the 75 percent of Americans who believed at the beginning that this was a war worth waging. I am equally satisfied to have been part of the minority (roughly 40 percent of those surveyed) who continued to support the war even as it was going badly in the years from 2003 to 2007.
While I can understand why so many jumped off the bandwagon when it started to roll into a ditch, I believe this was fundamentally a short-sighted decision designed to assuage the conscience of erstwhile war-supporters at the cost of doing even greater damage to American interests. Just because we made lots of mistakes in the early going in Iraq doesn’t mean we could have simply left while the country was collapsing into civil war. The result would have looked like Syria today, only the U.S. would have been directly responsible for unleashing all that mayhem. That would have been an immoral and costly mistake.
Having started a war, we had an obligation to see it through to a satisfactory conclusion. Just because the war turned out to be a lot harder and bloodier than anyone could have imagined at the outset doesn’t mean we could have simply abandoned it—any more than we could have abandoned the Civil War when the Union armies did not win a quick victory at First Bull Run or abandoned the Second World War after the setbacks of Pearl Harbor and Kasserine Pass.
Of course, you may retort, it is easy for me to say that—I wasn’t one of the soldiers on the frontlines at risk of death and dismemberment. That’s true, although, unlike many war opponents, I did visit Iraq regularly to see conditions for myself. Admittedly I came as a (relatively) coddled visitor—not as a frontline grunt. But at least it did give me a chance to ask soldiers for their own views of the war. And while some wondered what it was all about, the majority of military personnel I spoke to were against immediate withdrawal because they knew the chaos that would result.
The real proof of military attitudes lay in the fact that, although the army had trouble recruiting during the worst years of the war (which also happened to be boom years back home), retention remained strong, especially in frontline combat units exposed to the most risk. U.S. troops are volunteers; they can vote with their feet if they no longer want to serve; and while some were there involuntarily because of “stop-loss” orders, most remained ready to fight, even if they were fighting primarily for their buddies and their unit rather than for some grand conception of Iraqi democracy.
Was their sacrifice worthwhile? From today’s vantage point, unfortunately, the answer looks increasingly to be “no”—but it did not need to turn out that way. The “surge” of 2007-2008 reduced violence by 90 percent and set Iraq on track to become a functional democracy. Alas, President Obama did not show much commitment to negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement that would have kept American forces there past 2011. The result is that U.S. influence in Iraq has plummeted while Iranian influence has soared. Left to his own devices, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is acting in increasingly sectarian fashion that is alienating the Sunnis and allowing al-Qaeda in Iraq—virtually defeated by 2009—to spring back to life. In short, we have managed to squander many of the gains that U.S. troops fought so hard to achieve during the long, bloody years of war.
But all is not lost yet. Thanks to its oil revenues, Iraq has a robust economy with some of the highest growth rates in the world. Nor is it entirely lost to the West, as Maliki’s willingness to have the CIA train his counter-terrorism forces indicates. There is still a chance, however scant, that Iraq will meet the fondest hopes of invasion supporters who wanted to establish a new democracy. It is just not as big of a chance as it was a couple of years ago.
There were indeed WMD. They are now in Syria. We must stop this lie that Bush lied saying there were WMD.
his administration deliberately mislead the public into believing that Iraq had an ongoing nuclear weapons development program. n nthe office of the vice-president and the pirck Cheney himself pressured the CIA into changing its assessment that no such program was ongoing……and does n n n"We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" n n nsound familiar? n n nnone of that was about chemical or bio weapons, noff.
I don't know, ldubinsky – your arguments would make more sense if, say, Clinton and Gore had vehemently denied that Iraq had WMDs. The reality is that practically everyone who saw or had seen the intelligence apparently believed it. And that includes other countries. As I remember it, the issue was not really about Iraq's possession of WMDs. Rather, the debate was about whether or not Hussein could be contained.
Mike.. "WMD"s is an intentionally vague and amorphouse anacronym. Virtually every country on this has "WMD"s by the Bush Admin's definition. The reason they were intentionally non-specific and utilized this "WMD" terminology is because they wanted to make the American Public visualize "mushroom clouds" and other nuclear threats, whereas that wasn't supportable by the facts within the intelligence community. So Cheney/Bush created this "WMD" bucket so that they could lump nuclear weaponry (which the US public WOULD support going to war over) in with a vile of mustard gas (which the US public would NOT go to war over), and VIOLA! Public support for a war that would not be supported if factual specifics were provided instead of vague abbreviations of scaaaaaaary sounding terms like "weapons of mass destruction!".
I don't know about this line of argument. After all, whatever goes into that bucket is a nasty business – and Hussein had a history of dipping into it. Even if you are right, and the Bush admin purposely muddled the term, that doesn't make the muddling wrong. If Americans can't be convinced of the threat of such weapons in their own right, lumping them in with the truly scary is necessary. At any rate, as I said above, and as Ekeus seemed to be saying, the nuclear threat was real – perhaps not imminent, but still very real. nBut back to the muddling point – consider FDR's policies leading up to US involvement in WW2. He knew how far the American people were willing to go, and he kept pushing that line – arming merchant ships for example, the destroyer deal, occupying Iceland and Greenland in the summer of 1941. Leaders responsible for the security of their people have to sometimes "mislead" them. (FDR, remember, had promised in 1940 to stay out of the war, a promise he surely knew was an outright lie – and I don't hold it against him.) If the Bush administration was convinced that the nuclear threat from Iraq was real, they had an obligation to lead the American people in that direction.
Let me ask you a question, CraftyB – if the Bush admin went to all this trouble to start a war with Iraq, why did they do it? Why the assumption that they were a bunch of lying manipulators? Why can't we trust that in the wake of 9/11 and Hussein's inexplicable intransigence the President of the United States was damn concerned about keeping the American people safe? Even if the war turned out to be a mistake (and I don't think so), do we have to assume evil intentions on the part of the administration responsible for it?
No response to my question? I am honestly curious…
still no response?
yeo I heard they are moving to Anartica or was that Iceland
"I should make clear that, unlike some supporters of the war effort, I would not have backed the invasion if I had known what we now know—that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction."
I don't get it. So knowing what you know now, you would not have supported the invasion. You admit that the sacrifice was not worthwhile because Iraq is not progressing as hoped, yet you don't repent for having supported the invasion. What am I missing?
WMD or not, we needed to liquidate al Qaida, and strategically, Iraq was the perfect place to create a killing ground for our enemies. Our invasion of Iraq created a great magnet for jihadists, whom we very efficiently annihilated. It was a brilliant maneuver, and in the process created a democracy in the middle of the Sand Box. History has demonstrated that Afghanistan is the wrong place to fight. Only idiots like the typical brain damaged liberals would buy the obama b.s. line that Afghanistan was the "right war". I have no doubt that the elimination of tens of thousands of jihadists in Iraq saved many American lives and prevented attacks on the Homeland.
Can't agree with either Boot or the first commenters here. the principal goal acheived in the Iraq invasion was the military defeat of Al Queda, whose flag was planted there for all in the ME to see. While it may have been an Al Queda miscalculation that got us the victory, the fact remains that we received the dividend: Tahrir square, tunisia, etc. all occurred without a hint of al queda. When you argue that the war in Iraq was merely about weapons of mass destruction, you ignore the many justifications offered by the Bush administration at the time. Among those was the prescient one: "Better to fight them over there than over here."
Oh, before I forget, breaking news this morning in Israel [Israel channel 2 & France24] was that Syrian rebels were using rockets with ABC warheads [chem or bio] against Assad's military bases and pro-Assad civilian population centers.
Max it was a mistake just admit it. waste of trillions and diverted american attention and resources to a wasteland in the desrert
So, you are not in the least concerned that Assad is decimating his own people? That Assad's nuclear programme was destroyed in one night by the Israelis, because if not…? That Assad too seems to have chem and bio WMD? nThe reason America is holding back on doing the right thing by whacking Assad is because Barry-boy is a pusillanimous potus… nSadaam was 10-20-30 times worse than Assad! and his psychotic spawn were 10-20-30 times worse than Sadaam! And George W. Bush and Tony Blair were no cowards!
not our problem. 16 trillion in debt. get someone to pick up the frieght. we are done. strap on a vest and voluteer but no more american tax dollars for stupid foreign adventures
Troops out of Japan, Germany, South Korea, Diego Garcia, Britain…not our problem… nKill the nuke programme (surely IT'S not a defensive programme!) get rid of the aircraft carriers and submarines; reduce the size of the armed forces; kill all Spec Ops; undo the CIA who only cause problems… nThen when the whole world is at peace because America is toothless you can say "We are done!" Tee hee.. nBack in the day some would have called you an isolationatist. I think you are a coward! nAnd I think you want America to be as pusillanimous as your potus and you!
and I think you are a fools and tool for the military industrial complex and probably a war profiteer and war criminal. but hey your the clowns that got where we are today. a nation that is sick of your rhectoric and are done with your fear mongering . thanks
I haven't heard 'military industrial complex' used so unironically since college. Thanks for taking me back to the SDS meetings of 1969. n"probably a war profiteer and war criminal" nHey, don't forget international banker.
Don't be so naive as to think we are not interconnected with world events. How much was spent for 40 odd years during the cold war to ensure tyrants would not have the upper hand on the global stage. The success of the US does mean we bear some responsibility as well, to aid those who desire freedoms we cherish. How selfish is it to tell the rest of the world they are not worthy of freedom. That we put a price on the cost of freedom. Obviously we should not take military action lightly or use it before exhausting other options. To simply state we should walk away is irresponsible and dangerous, IMO. n nMaybe if the government focused on it's primary responsibilities and not on dropping money down the outdated entitlement well structure, we would not need this debate of costs. As a share of GDP, the defense budget, while still large is a fraction of what it has been historically.
Wow! A fool, a tool, a war profiteer, war criminal…anything else you have proof of? nYour cowardice is blatant in your writing and your name-calling. but then I'm an Israeli Jew and we're used to being called over-the-top names by yellow-bellies! nYou lose, sweetie! nOh! and do try to remove the spittle-flecked words from your writing…Edit, baby, Edit!
A mistake? More than 10 years of failed containment via the UN, Saddam was as entrenched as ever. A corrupt food for oil program was entangling our allies and driving a wedge between us. He was becoming more aggressive again, targeting fighters patrolling the no fly zones. He slaughtered hundreds of thousands of his own people and dumped them in the desert. He had violated countless UN sanctions which were the basis for the peace. Any ONE violation could have lead to the restart of hostilities. He was still paying suicide bounties to palestinians in support of their terror efforst. Saddam's post capture interviews showed that he maintained the capability to rapidly fire up his WMD programs. n nOur distaste for war is desired and admirable, but we sometimes make problems worse by not acting. Had Saddam been removed during the first Gulf conflict or the first time he violated UN sanctions and was caught with WMD's in the mid-90's, I believe more blood and treasure would have been saved.
He was firing on US planes flying where they had a right to fly; that's an act of war, kids.
I never understood the WMD argument. No threat to us at all. The only rationale for the war was trying to infect the mideast with democracy. The verdict is still out on that. Short term outlook is not so good, but in a 100 years, who knows. Democracy is good. The handling of Iraq after the initial "victory" was incompetent, and that was evident at the time. You do not go into a country, totally eliminate all government producing chaos, go out of your way to alienate a substantial portion of the population (Sunnis) and expect good results. W campaigned against the folly of nation building in 2000. When he changed his mind, he had an obligation to make some effort to handle it competently. He did not
Steve, you didn't understand it because you're looking at it like a legitimate argument. "WMD" is a marketing terminology, not a ligitimate descriptor of weaponry. It's used so that the Politicians can be "right" about Saddam having "WMD" (or a little bit of mustard gas), while making the public think he's got nuclear weapons with a means to deliver them (laughable).
I believe you are off on the "only" rationale being democracy. I agree with you that Bush handled the post-fall occupation wrong (Rumsfeld) and that they sold the WMD line too heavily as justification. They eventually got it right though, just as initial failures in any conflict are righted (daytime bombing in WWII, traditional warfare against the Vietcong, etc.) n nIn reality, the first Gulf War cease fire was predicated on Saddam adhering to the UN sactions put in place. He was caught violating any number of them repeatedly. Instead of using that legal framework as justification to finish the job, we put ever more complex "containment" programs in place which resulted in wide-spread corruption that ended up helping Saddam. n nFinally, when we found Saddam's mass graves, you realize the monster we eliminated. Much like entering the first concentration camp in WWII, you come to a point where morally, to sit on the sideline and debate mundane legalities is a show of incompetence, and you must act on behalf of those who are powerless and crying for help.
OK.. first of all, we need to retire this ridiculous "WMD" term… that term was invented to conflate a crackpot dictator like Sadam having some mustard gas or a weak viral weaponry program (which they all do), with having nuclear weaponry (which none do). ____Even 10 years later, Max Boot (and poster # 1 above) is still selling the tripe that "CIA but the Mossad, MI6, and every other allied intelligence agency agreed that Saddam had WMD"… well, yes, OK… they all would have agreed that Saddam probably had some poison gas stockpiled somewhere… was it a threat to OUR security? No. Is that why the American public supported the war? No, they did because of "Mushroom Cloud", "Uranium Cake" and "Aluminum Tube" stories which scared everyone into thinking Saddam was 15 minutes from dropping a nuke on Manhattan, which is something "The CIA, Mossad, M16, and ever other allide intelligence agency" knew was a crock of shait…____
You're forgetting that the same scoundrel who claimed that the yellow cake uranium story was a fraud proved that it was true. GWB said that Saddam had tried to buy some from an African nation. The scoundrel then said "Liar! The CIA sent me to investigate, and GWB made it all up; Saddam never bought any yellow cake unranium, he only TRIED to buy some and the African nation refused." The pressl, with their usual attention span, missed the contradiction in the scoundrel's charges because they could not remember more than 5 words at a time. So they ran with "Bush lied!" when in fact GWB's charge about attempted purchases of yellow cake were true.
So get rid of this "WMD" terminology, because it allows politicians and their water carriers (Max Boot) to make any penny dictator they don't like look like a nuclear threat while technically not "lying", even though in effect, that's exactly what they are doing.
If. and i say IF, there were no WMD despite the best knowledge of the world's intelligence Services, STILL George W. Bush and Tony Blair did the RIGHT THING albeit for the wrong reason! nCan you imagine a contemporary Middle East with a Saddaam or his two psychotic spawn still ruling Iraq?!! nOf course life was better under Sadaam–or so say his supporters! But do please ask the kurds, the marsh arabs, the poor, the non-Arabs… nIraq now has a chance for betterment that it never had, and never thought it would have ever again. Someday soon the Iraqis will realise that and they will erect a statue to Messrs. Bush and Blair!
and someday unicorns will exist but only in your mind
Forget those who supported it, should those who instigated it be prosecuted?
You mean Saddam? He was prosecuted and executed. Or do you mean Hilary Rodham?
Ha! Of course, I refer to the those fabulous percussionists of the war drums, the Trotskyist neoconservatives. Or is it Trotskyites? I always get that confused. Either way, they are the ones comfortable initiating force as a tool of aggrandizement of the state, as long they themselves don't have to do the fighting. n
Here's something to think about. As we learned 30 years after the fact, early on during World War II the British broke the German military code. Reading intercepted messages, the British command learned that the Nazis were going to launch a huge bombing attack to destroy the city of Coventry and the Coventry Cathedral to reprise for a British bombing attack on Berlin. Winston Churchill had to make a decision. Should he defend the city of Coventry and thus reveal that the British could read intercepted German messages, or should he allow the city to be destroyed to protect his ability to plan a successful North African campaign, the first step in the larger campaign to liberate Europe. n nHe allowed Coventry and the Cathedral to be destroyed. n nDo you think George Bush might have been confronted with a similar dilemma? What should he have done? When?
I supported the invasion because i believed there was WMD..NOW THAT I KNOW THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION LIED AND USED COLIN POWELL..r nI think this is the greates foreign policy blundr in history,greater than THE VIETNAM WAR!!r nEveryday an average of 9 people die in Iraq…there is suppression of one sect and the Prime Minister is making up lies to to get the main opposition arrested and now he may become worse dictator than Sadam!r nPut aside the the hundred of thousands of Iraqi deaths and the almost the deaths of over 4000 us service men and women and the over 30,000 injured..the 2 billion spent and the dispalcement of over 500,000 Iraqis…r nWhat has made this the greates foreign policy blunder is that Iran has become the power in the middle east and now they are freinds with Iraq…Israel is no more in danger and Iran and Iraq has become partners in helping Asad…this would never happen if Sadam was alive and running Iraq…he was the counter to Iran and Bush and Cheney could not see what Bush Senior saw in Desert Storm…when everyone of the Republican Hawks including me wanted him to continue into Bagdad..Bush SR had the hindsight to know that Sadam was a counter balance to Iran!!Now ISRAEL is in danger becasue Iran is the only one who can match them!r nClive.
And every year Saddam was in power, 10,000 Iraqi's died. 9 a day sounds like a reduction in deaths.
Does anyone truly believe that the Arab Spring that overthrew dictators in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, and potentially Syria happens without Saddam Hussein's demise and the establishment of free elections in Iraq? n n
same lousy arguments nsame failed policy nsame lies nsame refusal to acknowledge reality n nGrand Old Potty
the damn war cost america the honor of being considered a benevolent nation once we fired the first shot… despite what we say we are no longer " exceptional ".
The only way America should have fought wars after WWII was to go in with all forces, total destruction of military assets of the enemy and then government buildings. In effect, a Blitzkrieg, shock and awe, etc. Same with North Vietnam. "Limited" war is an oxymoron, invented by lame brained politicians. n nIf the Korean War would have been fought this way, the necessity of intervention in Viet Nam would have been unnecessary. Or, if necessary, a total annihilation bombing, as Gen Curtis Lemay instructed would have ended Viet Nam inside of a year. n nThe First Gulf War was ended early. We should have pulled out all military assests and left Iraq with advisors in a non combatant capacity. If they couldn't get their acts together to pull ahead, then screw them. If they regress, then repeat the previous military action until they get it right, and have the necessary motivation to avoid pain. n nThink about this regarding Afghanistan: Letting the good guys, the ones' we support, know, that all we will do is keep killing the bad guys, using predominately materiel assets and very limited American personnel on the ground for a short period. It's up to you to make the political and administrative actions necessary to form a government. All we will do is kill and fill-supply food and material civilian supplies for a limited time. n nNo nation building!! No occupations!!
Well, once again history since WW2 demonstrates that republicans win the wars the democrats start and democrats lose the wars that the republicans start, and generally democrats have yet to win a war that was defined as a war. Curious, Truman recognized the state of Israel but it looks like Obama is going to liquidate the state of Israel. I can still recall the airlift from the Saigon Embassy, ’75, but it’s going to be longer flight from Kabul without a decent interval of “peace in our time.”
The US must, but has not, learned the lessons of both ‘Nam and Iraq. The first fact to learn is that an enemy can kill us, particularly with WMD. War with WMD is not a debating topic. The second unlearned lesson is that war must never again be declared until Congress does so, by a clear unequivocal vote. The back door for all the summer soldiers and Quislings must be nailed shut. The third lesson is to know your enemy, and know how to win a war, in the age of WMD. (This may take an entirely different DoD, Congress and White House). We never learned how to win, in either war. We just pour blood and treasure on a problem until we get tired of the cost. The fourth lesson is that America must never nation build unless we find a native George Washington. We can pay corrupt thieves and scoundrels but we must never bleed for them.
Obama faces, with Iran, the exact same conundrum that Bush faced with Iraq; what do they have, or when will they have it and what will they do? Every body knows that one nuke over Tel Aviv is the end of Israel. So what is our clear trigger point? And what will be our certain response, in blood and treasure? Who do we give clear, hard notice?
After damning everything that Bush did in the war, Obama has pursued the exact same policies: keeping Gitmo open, using drones, baby surges, supporting national leaders whose legitimacy ends at their driveway. Does anyone trust Obama with the multiyear Arab spring?
With the possible exception of Pope Francis, I have not had much hope, in any American leader, for a long time.
So, the Iraq War was a failure and it’s Obama’s fault.
I knew you guys were going to make this argument back in 2008. The only answer you ever had for how to make sure the war wouldn’t be a failure was, “never leave”.
I was on the ground there back in 2007. The design was to establish permanent (or “enduring”, as was the accepted terminology at the time) bases throughout the country to use it as a launchpad for further operations in the region. That was always the point of the war, and any discussion about Iraq which does not acknowledge that reality isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.
NO. Most agencies did NOT think Hussein had WMD. The Director of MI6 issued the Downing Street Memo – remember: "…the facts are being fixed to fit the policy…". The CIA was coerced into re-writing the intelligence estimate. Agents have made it clear that the intelligence was politicized by the administration. n nMax Boot knows this. Bush and company did lie. I will not forgive them.
the NIE of 2007 said that Iran was not actively developing nukes, but that assessment was somewhat less than fully sincere and was quite possibly intended as a big ole Yuck Fou to Cheney and the Bush admin. n nmike— whatever the motivation, the administration really and truly lied about the evidence concerning Iraq's nukes.
If you are correct about the CIA's motives in 2007, anything else they've done in the past few years is totally suspect and the whole organization should be disbanded. nI guess we disagree on the bottom line – you say the admin lied, I don't believe that. Like I asked another commenter below, if you believe they lied, what was their motivation?
why would the CIA slanting their assessment in 2007 be cause for them to be disbanded? n nwhy would the 2007 slant be any worse than allowing themselves to be pressured into publishing a slanted assessment used to help start a war against Iraq? n n ntheir goal was quite clear. they wanted to invade Iraq and overthrow that regime. n nI don't really have any idea why they liked the idea. n nbut if you want a guess, I would say that they thought that the best way to deter state support for terrorist groups who might attack the US was to demonstrate that the US would ruthlessly punish state regimes for acts of terrorism without letting "the rules" stand in our way.
Maybe you are bored with the discussion, but I am still curious. How do you answer the question I posed a few days ago?
wasn't bored, mike. and didn't mean to snub you. n nI typed out an answer earlier, but had a problem sending it. got a 'session expired' message from the site, but thought that I had refreshed and succeeded in posting. n n
And imagine if Bush had not invaded Iraq – would we still be trying to contain that country, perhaps now run by his charming son? How complicated would that have gotten – and yet it was the position of many of those who opposed the war, and now think we contain Iran.
thanks for the link to the ……interesting ….. article by Arthur Herman. n nOf course, the stuff that Herman has to say is, in places, almost reasonable and truthful. n nTher's no denying that Saddam Hussein's regime was not a nice one and that he deserved to be ousted and executed. n nand of course, none of that has a dam thing to do with lying to the American public and the rest of the world to justify an invasion that had no real,legal basis. n n nHerman seems to be a fairly intelligent sophist capable of crafting and saying things that are repulsive bullshift not aren't crudely wrought. n nalmost makes me want to get a copy of his book reexamining the life and legacy of Joe McCarthy…..probably a wondrous work
"I remember clearly that Sec'y of State Colin Powell brought a sketch to the UN showing a truck-mounted chemical/biological weapons lab." n n nRight, and going to war over a "Sketch" was all the evidence needed to start a war?
RE; Mr. Boot you wrote… I feel no shame in being part of the 75 percent of Americans who believed at the beginning that this was a war worth waging. n nI was part of the 25% who thought this war was a stupid idea from the onset. n* NO nation can IMPOSE democracy on another. n• We may have fought the war for Iraqi oil. I am unsure – but it is possible. n• George W. Bush brought this country to war because he was on a vendetta to depose Saddam Hussein because Hussein attempted to assassinate the Bush family. As egregious as that attempt was, Bush had no right to take this nation to war for his vendetta. n• The neocons wanted to send the U. S. of A. to war in Iraq in order to help the Israelis. (With an "ally" like Israel, who needs enemies? Remember Jonathan Pollard? The U.S.S. Liberty? The illegal settlements?) n• There were NO w.m.d.s and Cheney et al knew it. Condaleeza Rice et al SHOULD have known it. nAt the end of the day, despite all the foregoing, we went to war. And, we were "Blind Into Baghdad." The ensuing "Fiasco" was inevitable. nShame on you, Max Boot. I expected more.
"The neocons wanted to send the U. S. of A. to war in Iraq in order to help the Israelis." nReally? Even though Israel counseled the US that it was a dumb idea and would increase Iran's power? n n" (With an "ally" like Israel, who needs enemies? Remember Jonathan Pollard? The U.S.S. Liberty? The illegal settlements?) nYou forgot they also murdered your savior. And caused the Black Death. And let's not forget their choice of baking ingredients. nBut thanks for letting us know who and what you are.
I never mentioned ANYTHING about a savior, or the Black Death, and/or baking ingredients. It is outrageous of you to write that trash. I did, however, write about Jonathan Pollard, the dead and wounded as a result of the unprovoked attack on the high seas of the U.S.S. and the illegal settlements (and they are illegal). Why are those matters unimportant to you? nThe neocons put Israel's interests ahead of those of the United States of America. With your comment I suppose that you are suggesting otherwise. They and ALL other "Israel firsters" should move to Israel. I expect you are in that lot.
ATTN: Comment Screeners at Commentary – Awhile ago I posted a comment. You have neither posted it nor commented on it. Evidently, you elect against subscribing to the truth, and sharing it with your readers. In that Post, I wrote "Shame on you, Max Boot." Shame on you too, Screeners.
I've not read so many over-the-top leftist and libertarian rants for several years. Thanks for the entertainment!
We did know they didn't have WMDs at that time… the CIA, the UN, etc all pointed this out and the Bush Administration didn't care. And yes, if you supported a war that was done based on a lie, you SHOULD feel the need to repent. You should at least apologizing instead of sticking dogmatically to this idea that you can never be wrong. You were wrong, you failed to see how you were wrong then, and you're being a stubborn ass by not admitting you were wrong now and not apologizing for it. It's because of people who supported the war that our nation is trillions more in debt, has many more people disabled/dead, and will soon find us even more in debt as we need to take care of the Veterans we sent to the war that was unnecessary.