History of W's war in Iraq, minus the WMDs

[Toe]

Bush gave us a host of reasons to invade Iraq, but half of us thought he was just using 9/11 to hijack American sentiment into supporting a personal oil war.

But then the Bush administration produced a lot of evidence showing that Saddam was actively developing WMDs and delivery systems. And that he was colluding with all kinds of terrorists. And that he posed a real threat to the United States. Oh, and maybe he was kinda linked to (read: totally responsible for) 9/11.

The evidence was pretty compelling (to the people who were allowed to see some of it, like John Kerry), and many more Americans decided that maybe the President has a point, and we should start threatening military action. And Kerry and Edwards voted to do so.

Then the Bush administration began talking about how the U.N. wasn't towing the line, and how we're going to invade anyway, and we're going to shock and awe Saddam into submission, and we're going to invade, and we're invading... you can see it on TV through ebedded journalists. Get on board and support America!

Well. All that falls apart if there weren't any WMDs or any terrorist links. Or any connections to 9/11, by the way.

[Toe]

And who could have guessed he would make such a complete mess of his military operation? Not guarding the borders, not gathering any significant coalition, not securing the alleged WMDs, not offering any substitute for the government he was toppling, not doing anything about the resulting lawlessness, not sending enough troops, not equiping those troops, and on and on.

Oh, wait. We knew this guy dodged the draft and didn't even show up for his draft-dodging military service. Why the heck would anyone think we would make a good commander-in-chief?

[zimv20]

who could have guessed he would make such a complete mess of his military operation?
me. p'brit. others.

i answer rhetorical questions.

[solvs]

You have a fairly good grasp on how things are right now. I may dispute the specifics ;) but the point is that we were mislead (I wouldn't say lied to necessarily), Kerry included. We were given all of the evidence for, without them weighing the evidence against, as if the Bush administration had already made up it's mind and was working backwards to find proof to support invading Iraq. That's not the way to do this, and we (well, some of us, not me or Howard Dean) are just starting to realize this now.

It's too late for Bush to relent. He has to continue with his idealism, despite overwhelming odds to the contrary and all of the damage it has done. We can only hope Kerry can work towards fixing this if he is elected. I don't think Bush can fix a mess he can't even admit to.

[pseudobrit]

me. p'brit. others.

i answer rhetorical questions.

Told you so.

Times infinity (no backs).

[Thomas Veil]

And who could have guessed he would make such a complete mess of his military operation?
If Bill Clinton had made such a mess of things, the Republicans would've hung him in the town square by now.

[mischief]

If Bill Clinton had made such a mess of things, the Republicans would've hung him in the town square by now.

While reading a litany of his sexual transgressions and building a bonfire around a bound-to-a-post Hillary.

One minor but important adjustment: Congress voted to authorize the option of millitary action. Congress did NOT declare war on Iraq or authorize the war as such. This is one situation where specifics count.

[IJ Reilly]

One minor but important adjustment: Congress voted to authorize the option of millitary action. Congress did NOT declare war on Iraq or authorize the war as such. This is one situation where specifics count.

Specifics are such a bore. They sound a lot like flip-flops.

[solvs]

Why bicker over details, when distortion of the facts make much better 30 second sound bites? :p