If he truly believed that Saddamn Hussein had WMD's and was willing to use them on American troops then why would he send them there? Maybe, I just think differently than you guys, but I would try and keep my guys away from the madman with chemical weapons.
Geez, you sure wouldn't want to send your army of trained killers someplace where someone might get hurt!!
Of course then I wouldn't be nearly as benevolent a leader as W. wanting to save all the people living in other nations and all.
Liberating Iraqi's was about fifth on the list of priorities if you ask me. There's lots of places you can go to save people with less hassle.
Soon I guess I'll be facing accusations of being the #1 most liberal poster on the board and questions will be brought up about me throwing my flames jersey over the glass after the Fleury trade...
You did? That was a little extreme wasn't it? The guy was going to walk in a few months whether you traded him or not. Waste of a sweater if you asked me. STOP READING ERIC FRANCIS!!
In fact, I'll even go as far as saying that of the options available, the Americans are probably the best ones to be there right now, because if it wasn't them it'd be some other rich folks who weren't concerned about making it look like they were there to help.
That's right. Like the UN with its scandalalous food for oil program. Or a certain country of surrender monkeys.
Anyway, the Bill Maher Theory is that the USA should have lobbied to have those nasty sanctions dropped, propped Saddam up (once again if you will) and sent Halliburton in to bring his oil industry up to modern standards so they could export as much as they could. Better to hire people to kill others for you than to invade and do it yourself according to Maher, aka The Ugly American.
Nasty world ain't it?
By the way, there's a nice story about John Kerry, Dick Cheney and Halliburton on the front page of the New York Times site right now. Go have a look.
Those points are both questions of leadership and I mentioned them because this thread is about Bush's leadership.
I suppose we can say the election is a referendum on that very thing . . . . if we could ever get off the pot of what happened four decades ago.
Well they couldn't of been that concerned about it or there would have been an exit strategy in place.
If they lied about WMD, they would have planted the evidence to support their claims later too. If wishes were fishes. . . .
Management of the post-conflict situation has been terrible. Even Bush conceded that a little while ago.
I'll just state the obvious though - if the local lunatics weren't going around blowing things up in Iraq, there would be two-thirds less USA troops there right now and the money might be pouring in.
EDIT: FOR THOSE INTERESTED, A GOOD WASHINGTON POST EXAMINATIONT TODAY OF THE CONNECTION BETWEEN HALLIBURTON'S IRAQ CONTRACTS AND DICK CHENEY.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6032364/
Cowperson