[Alberta's Child]

How long is it going to take for all of the Bush apologists on this website to acknowledge that "Iraq" -- as it was constituted after the 2003 U.S. military campaign -- never should have existed, and probably never really existed at all?

Sure -- the U.S. military campaign was a great "success," and Iraq was a strong and stable nation after 2007.

Don't make me laugh. After Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist government was toppled, Iraq was never any more stable than Vietnam was in 1973. All that's missing now is the helicopters lifting off from the roof of the U.S. embassy.

[dfwgator]

At the very least, there should have been an acknowledgement that once we went in, we would be there for at least 20 years. Or else it would just go back to being the same hellhole once we left.

[Justa]

It’s all so confusing to you isn’t it? So you seek a solution in a brutal dictator? In case you didn’t notice Saddam was anything but stable. Too bad for your “stable dictator” idealistic fantasies. He waged war against nearly everyone around and within his country -and lost.

When the Iraqis reform their government to a federated republic validating what was recommended by many in 2005 will you then crow about the failure of Obama’s Iraq?

Nope.