[marron]

I remember top Democrats voting for war and then coming straight outside the chambers, literally within minutes of their “yes” vote, to attack the war.

That way they were covered. If the war went well, they were for it. If it went badly, they were against it. And if necessary, both at the same time depending on the needs of the moment.

[zencycler]

Saddam was bragging all over the place about all the weapons of mass destruction he had, and they were toying around with creating a nuke, and everybody knew he had and tried to. Now, at the time this is happening, you can't afford to sit around and say, "Nah, he can't do it. Nah, he doesn't mean it. Nah, he's just bragging." You don't have that luxury.

Exactly right! I've often used the metaphor of someone one the street who is pointing a very realistic, but fake, gun in your direction, and looks like he is getting ready to shoot you. So would you fault a police officer, who is understandably convinced that there is a credible threat to your life, decides to kill this guy before he has the chance?

I think not!

[gov_bean_ counter]

I guess we (US) would need a peek at those captured Iraqi documents to see if it was all for nothing (at the time).

Oh wait. The Dems insisted they be taken out of public view. Still wonder just who they were protecting.

[colorado tanker]

It's Democrats who gloat when something bad happens to America, not Republicans. I agree with Rush, Cheney is worried about the U.S. with this bunch of damn fools in charge.

What is the regime's plan to deal with ISIS? Air strikes? Seriously? Oh, and reassure ISIS that if they survive the air strikes, which they will, they will never have to fear American "boots on the ground."

Yeah, that'll eliminate the most feared terrorist on the planet. You betcha.

[SECURE AMERICA]

The only thing that Bush did wrong was the same thing Clinton did and Obama is doing. We were not attacked by Iraq, Saddam, Iran, Al-Queda etc. We were attacked by ISLAM.
The driving force across this planet that is killing and destroying is Islam.
Until our Government admits who and what the enemy is we can never win..

[TigersEye]

We were already in a state of war with Iraq, under a cease fire.

Here are some other reasons.

• 1. Iraqi provocation of American planes patrolling the no-fly zone. "More than 42,000 sorties were flown during that time. Iraqi surface-to-air missiles and other anti-aircraft systems targeted ONW aircrews on nearly every flight." (That sounds like 42,000 reasons to me but I'll only count it as one.)
• 2. Saddam defied 17 UN resolutions that were a result of his losing the war. (again, that should count as 17 reasons.)
• 3. Saddam tried to assassinate a former U.S. President.
• 4. Saddam was killing the Marsh Arabs in southern Iraq that we had promised protection.
• 5. Iraq's nuclear weapons program.
• 6. Iraq's biological weapons program.
• 7. Iraq's chemical weapons program.
• 8. Saddam's extensive cooperation with terrorists.

I left out the 500,000+ people Saddam had killed because, after all, who cares about those filthy little brown people? Right? /s

[marron]

I know it is settled history that Saddam had nothing to do with 911.

But the key people in the first World Trade Center attack were Iraqis. Who fled to Iraq, one of whom was given a government pension for his service.

The technical leader of that attack was cousin of the guy who organized the second attack on 911.

And one more thing. Bin Ladin was recruited by Zawahiri, who was the leader of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, which was on Saddam’s payroll. Zawahiri and his EIJ then became Bin Ladin’s inner circle, forming Al Qaeda. So Osama’s Saddam connection has been right there, hiding in plain sight all along. But I don’t suppose we’re supposed to take notice of it.

In any case, it would be impossible to launch a world-wide war on terror and leave Saddam in place. He richly needed to hang, and we hanged him. He won’t be the last one we need to hang, or take out with a Predator or a Marine battalion, but he was a good start.

[Does so]

bfl