Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dissention
Wrong as you are, I'm not taking the bait.  |
Okay - so the UN did not repeadtedly find SH had not accounted for his WMD and did not in the end unanimously vote to find SH in breach of his duty to prove he had disarmed - that never happened. Then, SH welcomed with open arms and a pre-inspection tea and lawn party, the US, the UN, and the inspectors and allowed them access into his palaces and other places he had formerly balked at inspections in. SH was always 100% compliant with the UN and all of this tommyrot was the US making up that SH was non complaint. Finally, the UN, France, and probably Russia had not been bought by SH to ensure no UN military action
Agan, this does not excuse W for manipulating the truth and making people think SH and OBL were in bed together - nor does it excuse his rush to a war that perhaps the end of the inpsections could have avoided and in this rush he sent in too few ill equipped troops with an ill advised plan and some of the troops were not properly trained and thus tortured prisoners. Those are nad acts that fall solidly on W's shoulders.
But, to say or imply that Iraq did not deserve a closer look after 9/11 (no direct connection to 9/11 exists, but they were still a terrorist state with a history of invading countries and with a maniac at the helm) - is not really fair.
On edit - I want to be clear that W has behaved pig headedly and without care or regard for the well being of American soldiers and the Iraqi people we are there to liberate. I just think that the initial re-look at Iraq was warranted.