Saddam was an oppressive tyrant who denied natural rights to his citizens. By the Declaration of Independence, any government that is tyrannical deserves to be overthrown. It becomes a duty when is in the best interests of those oppressed.This also applies to legitimate foreign governments who support and protect natural rights.
No.
There was a large body of circumstantial evidence tying Iraq to al-Qaeda after 9/11. The U.S. news media has done its best to bury or minimize it.
When G.W. Bush took office in 2001 he inherited a National Security Council that had endorsed “regime change” in Iraq long before 9/11. One of its most influential voices was Kenneth Pollock who wrote “The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq” in 2002.
From Wikipedia:
[Pollack is credited with persuading liberals of the case for the Iraq war. New York Times columnist Bill Keller, in supporting the Iraq war in 2003, wrote Kenneth Pollack, the Clinton National Security Council expert whose argument for invading Iraq is surely the most influential book of this season, has provided intellectual cover for every liberal who finds himself inclining toward war but uneasy about Mr. Bush. Liberal writer Matthew Yglesias in the LA Times also attested to Pollacks influence:
Of course, those of us who read Pollack's celebrated 2002 book, “The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq,” and became convinced as a result that the United States needed to . . .invade Iraq in order to dismantle Saddam Hussein's advanced nuclear weapons program (the one he didn't actually have) might feel a little too bitter to once again defer to our betters.”]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Pollack
The breadth and scope of the Second Gulf War so stunned the Middle East that Iran announced it was suspending its nuclear weapons program. Libya shuttered its WMD programs, renounced terrorism and reopened its oil fields to U.S. and European companies.
I was right.
Nope. Tipped the balance of power in that area to Iran. Now we are having to deal with that. That doesn’t count the overall monetary cost, and most important loss of young lives.
1) If one is a Republican, and the president was Republican, then it was worth it.
2) If one is a Republican, and is truly objective, and the president was Republican, then it was probably not worth it.
3) If one is a Republican, and the president was Democrat, then it was a quagmire.
4) If one is a Democrat, and the president was Democrat, then it was worth it.
5) If one is a Democrat, and is truly objective, and the president was Democrat, then it was probably not worth it.
6) If one is a Democrat, and the president was Republican, then it was a quagmire.