As we reported here, President Barack Obama is escalating the war in Afghanistan. In fact, by the end of this year we may see troop levels in Afghanistan at a level TWICE what it was under George W. Bush.
Give Peace A Chance, Unless Obama Wants A War
Even the Huffington Post has reported on the seemingly hypocritical silence of the anti-war movement. After all, Obama’s actions in Afghanistan have pretty much guaranteed that the war there will continue for years on end. Not even the most optimistic observers see that war ending under Obama’s first term.
Surprisingly, the liberal Huffington Post comes to roughly the same conclusion as I did regarding the peace movement. The only reason anti-war organizations are not protesting Obama is because they LIKE him.
Here’s what the Huffington post concludes:
So, why the lack of enthusiasm for protesting Obama’s warfare policies? For most, it seems to boil down to trust. For the first time in decades (for many, the first time in their lives), a considerable number of peace activists trust the President of the United States.
The Huffington Post then quotes a young activist:
“We need to give him a chance,” one activist beseeches, “I really believe that he is doing the best he can.”
How touching.
Of course, if George W. Bush had increased troop levels in Afghanistan, the hippies and peace-niks would be in the streets of San Francisco as we speak calling for an end to this oppressive/capitalist/imperialist/endless war.
Meanwhile, a suspected U.S. missile strike in Pakistan killed many civilians yesterday. U.S. troop death totals are on the rise in Iraq, reaching a high for the year in April. Five troops died yesterday when a U.S. soldier went crazy and shot his own comrades.
Doesn’t this pull at the peace movement’s liberal heart strings? Shouldn’t they be working to pressure the President through activism into deciding for a peaceful, non-violent end to these violent conflicts?
There is one group publicly calling out Obama on his Afghanistan policy, and that’s the hyper-liberal, unashamedly socialist organization ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism). Note, however, that they are marching on the streets to end the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and encouraging actions regarding everything from the increase in subway fares to Cuba travel policy, but shockingly, they have no actions planned against Obama for escalating the war in Afghanistan.
How about a little consistency? Is that too much to ask from the very well-educated throngs of young people who make up the peace movement? For people who pride themselves on being non-conformist and critical-thinkers, you are acting like a bunch of sheep before Obama’s vast glow.
Just pathetic.
May 12th, 2009 at 11:35 am
That sez, “trust” him, not “like” him. You can like someone but not trust ‘em. Or trust ‘em but not like ‘em. Or neither trust nor like ‘em, or trust AND like ‘em. I both trust AND like Obama. I guess I liked Bush all right (I’d have a beer with him), but I don’t think that I trusted him much. He lied too much.
Of course, you may have a point. But wait a minute. Wait a minute. Were these peace demonstrations really that big of a thing? I don’t remember it. You are trying to brand all people who support Obama as being the same as the small minority of people who took to the streets to demonstrate. I mean, it wasn’t exactly like Vietnam–far from it.
You see, this is what you do. You try to brand all liberals as being the same as a small minority of liberals. We don’t got to do that to you, because you ARE all the same!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And that’s your problem.
May 12th, 2009 at 11:35 am
I don’t know about the anti-war movement as I was never a part of that, but I know the Afghanistan War has always seemed totally justified to the vast majority of Dems I know. In fact, many of us feel Iraq was just a distraction from the true problem, and part of the reason we were so upset with the Bush administration among other things.
Iraq and Afghanistan are two very different wars. If you want insight into how Dems feel, then you have to understand that we feel we went into Iraq under false pretenses and just didn’t need to be there. You can agree or disagree with that, but that’s how many feel. But I don’t recall anyone of prominence saying we should never have been in Afghanistan or we should get out now (though that will change if the prospect for getting results dissipates).
Obama is getting us out of Iraq. The 9/11 attacker were headquartered in Afghanistan, and there is unfinished biz there. So it is very unlikely you will hear a lot of complaints from Dems on this b/c we are getting the course of action we want in both theaters.
May 12th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
I think Ignatius is right here; the vast majority of lefties are willing to “give [Obama] a chance” for things they would have raked Bush over the coals for. I see your point Rob, about the differences between Iraq and Afghanistan, but let’s face it: if Bush had ratcheted up the Afghanistan campaign in the same way Obama has, we would have heard a lot more about it.
Of course, I don’t think this really justifies Bush in any way; it just demonstrates the hypocrisy of the political game and those who play it. It’s almost completely centered around the personalities involved; the actual circumstances at hand have very little to do with the public response. This works in both directions of course; it has everything to do with human nature, and nothing to do with philosophical differences.
May 12th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
it amazes me how much the left tolerates double standards .oh wait,that is one of the planks of their “platform” .of course,they throw a hissy fit if any outsiders try it.”outsiders “are any one who thinks with their brains as opposed to sitting on them!
May 12th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
the hypocrisy of the dems is that they are now against the war in iraq.
where were they when i an others like me were jumping up and down saying it is an idiotic move? they were busy running for president and thought we would win quickly that is where. the iraq war would not have been fought had the dems stood firm against it.
the ironic part is that afghanistan may be obama’s vietnam. more than half of the soldiers do not like obama and certainly do not want to die for him.
it may be very difficult to win in afghanistan if the soldiers do not want to take risks.
May 12th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
If I’m correct it was members of the democratic congress that led the anti war charge that came from liberals who were basically centered.
There was always and still is a movement coming from the far left code pink loony moonbat left with protests pertaining to both wars at least once a month since 911 and on into Iraq.
Then you had Murtha, Kerry and others start to bring up the question of disproportionate responses in both wars to the extent that Bush and our troops were being accused of raiding villages and burning innocents and our troops were blood thirsty murderers and bla bla bla.
This rhetoric all started very expediently about 1 1/2 year before the 04 elections began with the intention of putting a bad face on any war regardless of how justified it was.
This was also around the time we saw BDS bloom into the disease it is now where Charles Krauthammer coined the phrase
What makes this hypocrisy more than ankle deep just because Obama is in charge is that its Bushs policies that are actually being retained, in place and being executed by a leader who could do nothing but criticize them during his campaign.
Liberals hate it when we throw this in their faces and ask them weres the outrage you showed just a year ago over the same things that are being done now ?
All Obama is doing in Iraq is executing a bunch of Bush ideas and policies that were much in place last year as a result of Bushs agreements with Maliki and the parliament.
“A foreseeable horizon” is what Bush and maliki discussed the day before Obama went there when the MSM took it upon themselves to totally ditch the fact that Bush already had withdrawal plans in place and instead put Obamas name on it by framing the story to sound like Maliki had endorsed Obamas ideas fro withdrawal, which were just parroted ideas stolen from the Bush administration.
Why wouldnt it surprise anyone ?
Obama has already retained just about every security policy Bushs ever had in place ?
We had to go into Iraq for so many reasons its not even funny. The Iraq war will go down in history as one of the most strategically intelligent moves ever made in the history of American warfare.
The benefits of us establishing an ally in the GWOT on top of all the intelligence and security benefits offered by us being in the middle east is almost limitless.
After 911 we needed a place and reason to plop our butts right in the middle of the hornets nest so as to keep a better eye on things along with securing oil supplies to the world that if disrupted would make this recession were in look like a picnic.
Then there’s the benefit of having a country based on Islam that can function under democracy and capitalism as an example for the rest of the middle eastern states to see that this type of system can work for the neighboring states.
If we can convince these neighboring states to see that the capitalistic democratic model works, maintaining peace in that part of the world will be so much easier.
Just imagine how many wars will avoided if the surrounding states see Iraq succeeding and as a result decide upon themselves to infuse their existing forms of rule with capitalism, democracy and human rights comparable to what Iraq has now ?
What happens when all of a sudden everyone in the middle east wants to move to Iraq because its become what America was over 200 years ago ?
A beacon to the rest of the middle east saying “this is the place to come to”.
The remaining countries will have to follow the lead no doubt.
May 12th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Rhayader: your perception is just wrong here. The vast majority of Dems have supported the Afghan war and we would have equally supported a Bush intensifying of that effort if it was also accompanied by ending the Iraq war. Show me some quotes of high-level Dems opposing the Afghan war at any point. Otherwise there’s no basis to your claim.
Lisa: I supported the war in Iraq. I was very worried about the evidence presented, but ultimately I decided that The President of my country would not mess around on something like this and I was willing to assume there was info they were holding back that could not be made public. I gave my President my trust b/c this should have be non-partisan. I watched FOX News regularly during the war (b/c I hadn’t learned it was Faux News yet). And then they found nothing. And then, we weren’t there for WMD, we were there to fight the terrorists with some false 9/11 link. Then we were there to spread Democracy. And that’s when I gave up on the Bush administration. So yeah, I supported the war b/c I gave my President the support and respect that you have NEVER given Obama.
Micky: dude, I don’t have time to read and respond to all that now. I will try later to keep it short to like two or three key points.
May 12th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Micky, oh my word, it’s hard to figure out where to start. I guess the first point is about the potential prospect that Obama is carrying out plans that Bush had already set in motion. I think there is some truth to the notion of a convergence between Bush getting the results he sought and the time table that Obama was seeking. The bottom line is that Bush had exhausted his believability so he is unlikely to be given credit here.
As for your comments about the benefits of going into Iraq, there is such a mix of misinformation and delusions I don’t think I can parse it all out in a reasonable amount of time. Regarding the strategic importance, you realize that we had bases in Turkey, Kuwait, and in several countries in the region. As for “making the recession look like a picnic”, one could argue the debts incurred from this war certainly helped put us in the very financial shape we’re in. It took 100 hours to kick Saddam out of Kuwait, so your point about “watching the oil” is not valid.
Then you go into some pie in the sky idea that Iraq is some shining beacon of democracy bit that echos long ago abandoned Bush speak from 2005. There isn’t a true democracy in Iraq now, and there isn’t going to be one any time soon. There is more hope for sure, but I don’t see any countries expressing interest in being the next Iraq.
The last part really gets me. For the most part you are a realist that I can disagree with. But you are just really have delusions of grandeur with that last bit.
May 12th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
yeah, that is because i do not support obama.
i think he is dangerous for the country. i also think he is dangerous for the world.
i have almost no faith in obama. even to the extent that i MIGHT think he is trying to do what is correct for the country, i think he is too inexperienced to pull it off. thus it is my judgement that he should be opposed because almost anything he does is likely to be the wrong move.
that is, i think he has a far less than 50-50 chance of being correct on any move he makes, militarily, economically or internationally.
May 12th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
and … i was also against the iraq war.
McCain and i used to argue all the time about the war on another site — he basically taking mickey’s side.
i, quite correctly as it turned out, predicted the war would take years, thousands of lives, and billions of dollars, and i also said the liklihood of WMD’s or al qaueda was minimal given the evidence shown to the public.
i have the same skepticism about obama’s policies which i find to be economically unsound, militarily unwise, and internationally flawed.
i predict we will easily reach 10% unemployment now. i would say there is MORE than a 50-50 chance we reach 10% unemployment.
May 12th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
are we better off than we were 4 months ago?
i would argue we are far worse off economically and militarily and heading downward
as for it being bush’s fault …
obama did not have to choose this road. it is on obama.
May 12th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
and unlike the dem toadies i am willing to give definitions of sucess/failure
whatever happens the dem toadies just say that it is better than under bush
well … under bush we had GM, Chrysler, the f22, less than 8% unemployment and were not going TWO TRILLION DOLLARS in debt THIS YEAR
obama so far is a miserable failure. he has made things far worse and i predict things will get worse.
there is essentially ZERO chance obama’s policies will get the debt under control even in eight years. he has already admitted that himself. he has us in a death spiral.
May 13th, 2009 at 3:51 am
@Rob: The vast majority of Dems have supported the Afghan war and we would have equally supported a Bush intensifying of that effort if it was also accompanied by ending the Iraq war.
I’m not sure I believe that. Besides, did I miss something? Did the Iraq War end?
Show me some quotes of high-level Dems opposing the Afghan war at any point.
When did I ever say anything about “high level” democrats? I think this issue has a lot more to do with public perception and media treatment than it does any specific political bigwigs. Prominent public figures (besides Shrub and Obama) have nothing to do with the “basis for my claim”.
May 13th, 2009 at 8:44 am
High level democrats werent necessarily talking against the war, but more the way it was being executed/operated as means to tarnish Bush.
Remember the 04 campaign ?
=================================
Rob.
Why would it be so absurd to think that Obama is not carrying out strategies put in place by Bush the day after his inauguration ? Hes followed almost every other policy, even reneged on the promise to end wireless surveillance. (which he actually voted for back in the day)
The only reason Bush wasnt given credit there or on withdrawals was because as I mentioned in the previous post the MSM painted the whole deal as an Obama assertion and not the on going part of Bushs strategy that it was. Bush was there in Iraq the day before OBama was already discussing withdrawal timetables with Maliki but instead called it a “general time horizon”.(my apologies, I called it foreseeable earlier)
Maliki and Bush had already agreed on a systematic withdrawal plan long before Obama even showed his face there. But instead what we saw was Obama come prancing in with a whole slew of media, still in campaign mode, pasting every little word between Maliki and Obama all over the media thereby drowning out the real story. Shortly thereafter Maliki emerges saying he supports Obamas withdrawal plans but the part omitted was that it was all too familiar if not exactly what Bush and him had agreed on the day before, it just went by a different label.
One label gave the impression of a more definite timeline whereas Bush’s label left it open to what conditions were on the ground.
Both of them are the same goals with the same strategy, just that one name appeals to the anti war crowd a little better, that’s all.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92751642&ft=3&f=searchTerm=Nouri+al-Maliki
” ‘Time Horizon’ Marks Iraq Policy Shift. July 21, 2008. Last week, the U.S. and Iraq announced a “general time horizon” for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. The term, chosen by President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri …
Its all too clear to anyone whos been on top of this that all Obama was doing was riding Bushs coat tails and taking the credit for what had been in play long before he came into the picture.
Bush has believability by anyone whos actually willing to look at the whole picture.
Will the MSM give it to us ? Hardly.
“there isn’t a true democracy in Iraq now, and there isn’t going to be one any time soon. There is more hope for sure, but I don’t see any countries expressing interest in being the next Iraq.”
Bull, the first and most apparent display of democracy is the two elections that have already taken place thereby electing a democratic multi party institution into place.
Even here in America we only have one true form of democracy which would our electorate also.
I never said that anyone of these countries were ready as it is to break down the walls and enter into Iraqs model just yet. Like the many democracies across the planet these things take place over decades and in piecemeal. Iraq does not even resemble the country it used to look like.
If you like, I can supply you with a list of improvements to that country that would blow your mind, improvements to infrastructure and quality of life that the MSM has never found fit to print. Were talking about much more electricity than pre war levels, their currency is worth more than pre war levels, they have more schools, teachers. cops, hospitals, commerce, etc, you name it.
” for your comments about the benefits of going into Iraq, there is such a mix of misinformation and delusions I don’t think I can parse it all out in a reasonable amount of time. Regarding the strategic importance, you realize that we had bases in Turkey, Kuwait, and in several countries in the region. As for “making the recession look like a picnic”, one could argue the debts incurred from this war certainly helped put us in the very financial shape we’re in. It took 100 hours to kick Saddam out of Kuwait, so your point about “watching the oil” is not valid.”
Watching the oil is valid if you look at recent history. Upon Saddams invasion of Kuwait it was the Saudis who begged us to stop Saddam for fear of him destroying or taking over Kuwaiti fields or revenues.
You have to understand that the oil is much the reason we have already made a precense in the middle east as its one of radical Islams main goals to destroy western cultures by destroying oil supplies.
Its basic man.
Geographically and politically Iraq was the best place for us set up camp.
Afghanistan was not, simply due to the fact that it has little if any commerce for a fledgling democracy to thrive off of and geographically is not as viable.
In Iraq, we began construction of the largest US embassy ever anywhere shortly after Saddam was toppled. Do the math. Think about that.
It wasnt as much about hearts and minds or ousting Saddam as much as it was about establishing a foothold in the most turbulent part of the world.
There are already to many restrictions in place at the bases you mentioned, it would never pan out to one with the liberties and advantages we will enjoy with a precense in Iraq. Sh*t, Turkey ? are you kidding ? half the time they wont even let us do fly overs, gimme a break.
Really, think about it, what other reason would we have for doing what we did ?
As I said it wasnt about hearts and minds and it certainly isnt about us trading blood for oil. As we speak the Iraqis are squabbling over how to divide the oil amongst Sunni, Shia, and Kurds. We are no where in that picture other than demanding some of the revenues be used top pay for infrastructure repairs that had nothing to with collateral war damages.
We are there as a strategic implementation to the GWOT. Thats the only thing that makes sense when you go thru the process of elimination.
But could we sell that package of goods to the American people ?
No.
We had to package and sell it for what it was up front so the American public could digest it.
It didnt take any lying or fabricating of intelligence. What for, why ? There was already many valid legal reasons to go in without having to do that.
Yes, Saddam needed to go and few people argued with that. But the real underlying ulterior motive that was too hard to sell to the people was that it was also a perfect opportunity to put in place one of the greatest strategic implementations this world has ever seen. It was pure sheer genius.
Even Obama sees this, this is why he will be reflecting Bushs intentions and strategy by leaving 50,000 troops in place no matter what.
Right ?
Did he place that 50,000 in Turkey, Kuwait? We simply dont have that agreement with them. Iraq will always be in our debt so theres a lot more wiggle room with them when it comes to positioning military initiatives.
We are not leaving Iraq anytime soon, we’ll always be there, and its not for the oil.
“one could argue the debts incurred from this war certainly helped put us in the very financial shape we’re in.”
Oh please.
Obama has spent enough in the last 3 months to be able to repeat that war a 1000 times over.
The cost of the Iraq war is a fraction of the debt Bush left us.
The housing bubble is more likely responsible and the major element in our economic downturn.
The debt is not what put this whole recession in play.
Its not a delusion of grandeur.
It may sound that way because in re reading it myself it was a little sappy.
But its what needs to happen or we’ll all get to meet the 12th Imam a lot sooner than we’d like.
Theres an awful lot of theocratic dictatorships in that part of the world my friend and we need to get these people on a track that doesnt represent such oppression and instead show them how a democratic/capitalistic/free market system is beneficial to them. Or at least get the religious leaders out of their governments. Were talking about reversing centuries of ideology based on a theocracy, that will not happen with a couple bases in Kuwait, Turkey or even Israel.
May 13th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Micky,
Thanks for explaining the whole Iraq war thing to me. It’s all crystal clear now.
What country do you think that we had ought to invade next?
May 13th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
well considering obama is going into debt enough to invade and occupy THREE countries …
i will say
syria,
iran,
and
canada
May 13th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
A quote from a post here: “..I don’t know about the anti-war movement as I was never a part of that, but I know the Afghanistan War has always seemed totally justified to the vast majority of Dems I know…”
So when Obama bombs civilians this becomes OK? Becomes justified, now that we have a democrat in the whitehouse.
I think this all just proves that liberal groups like the anti-war groups are not so much anti-war as just anti-conservative.
All is well now that a liberal is in the whitehouse! Only a conservative murders innocent civilians in war, if a liberal bombs civilians, well that has to be called something else.
I am sure the dead women and children willtake comfort in that!
May 13th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Ug, way more here than I want to digest. Let me start with the most reasonable one first:
@Rhayader: “Did the Iraq War end?” …well, it’s ending. Draw down is imminent. So my claim is that were a theoretical Bush amplification of Afghanistan accompanied by a perceived exit strategy from Iraq, I don’t think the left would have grumbled about it (though, of course, we would have found *something* about it to grumble with, but I think the general idea would have been supported).
“I think this issue has a lot more to do with public perception and media treatment”
Ok, so no bigwigs. Then please present me some media supporting your perception. Right now I’m still stuck on your argument being unfounded. There just isn’t a history of a big push from the left to oppose the Afghan war. That’s where the terrorists came from/are.
Micky: too long, didn’t read. Will get back to it when I have some time. Thanks for the homework
@Lisa: what is this, your twitter feed or something? While the stream of thought commenting is interesting, you might be better served if you take some time to collect all your thoughts and present them in an organized fashion (I’m kind of just pulling your leg here).
I think your comments about not supporting Obama speak volumes about the type of person you are. But since you’d have to defend yourself, causing me to need to respond again, I’ll pass on pointing out those shortcomings. Let me stick to these comments “under bush we had GM, Chrysler, the f22, less than 8% unemployment”
Are you SERIOUSLY blaming Obama for the condition of GM and Chrysler?? This is just such an immature argument it cannot be countered. Two companies, in decline for over a decade, hemorrhaging money for years, and you want to blame the guy that’s been in office for 3 months. This is not even the GOP’s position. If anything, you are supposed to be mad at Obama for not letting them fail (you know gov interference, etc). Please consult with your peers on the talking points!
F22… ??? You planning on fighting some Taliban MIGs? And for the record, we do have F22’s, just less of them (187). Also, I’m not entirely sure, but I don’t think the GOP is really complaining about this either.
Lastly, the “under 8% unemployment”. This is just very immature logic. I mean, do you not know what a trend is ( http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp?StartYear=2008-01&EndYear=2009-03&submit1=Create+Report )? Do I have to explain that we were already losing hundreds of thousands of jobs each month even before Obama came to office. So yeah, we are in a recession. It was already here when Obama came into office. It will take time before it turns around. If it doesn’t turn around, then there will come a time when you can legitimately blame Obama. But you are talking 2010 for that.
@Heather: you need to disambiguate. Most liberals have never opposed the Afghan war. Those that do, probably haven’t changed their position. So I don’t think there’s been much opinion changing. To be clear, no one likes collateral damage, and it is something that both administrations have had to deal with. Question, are you opposed to the Afghan war? You talk like it.
May 13th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
“I think your comments about not supporting Obama speak volumes about the type of person you are.”
yes, a VERY CONCERNED CITIZEN
you dems took offense when people called you unpatriotic when you did not support bush. when you attacked him, mocked him, ridiculed him –and his supporters — you believed, (i hope), that you were doing it for the good of the country.
well … same thing … i honestly believe that obama is a DISASTER so big we cannot measure the immensity of his DISASTER with current technology
and i and lots of others think you and the dems are foolish beyond belief to support him
May 13th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
your statements about GM, Chrysler, the f-22 and unemployment are an example of your membership in obama’s cult
no matter what foolish or bad thing he does you say, “well it was because of bush”
no … obama is spending us into a hole. he is cancelling the best fighter plane in the world for a plane that sucks … china and russia both have fifth generation jets … we no longer do. this will be one of the few times since 1945 the usa does not have the best plane in the world.
May 13th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
as far as unemployment and gm and chrysler are concerned, obama’s choices have destroyed the two companies and made unemployment worse.
he did not have to choose to do what he did. it was his choice, and it has caused unemployment to get WORSE and those two companies to go bankrupt.
May 13th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
the reason you and the dems are cult members is because you have no success or failure standards other than
“it is not bush’s policy so it is a success”
when unemployment hits 10% nationally, you will simply blindly say … “it is bush’s fault, obama’s policy has made things better”
May 13th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
to put it in perspective of just how much a miserable failure obama has been
now obama is unsure if he can save the 3 million jobs he originally promised after going in debt 1.8 TRILLION
you could hire 3 million people at $40,000 a year for only 120 BILLION … say you hire them for 4 years … that would be 480 BILLION over 4 years compared to obama’s 1.8 TRILLION debt this year
in fact with 1.8 TRILLION obama could have hired over 11 million people at $40,000 a year for four years to give us all back massages once a week
and we would not have any unemployment
May 13th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Really.
ANSWER just held a 100,000 strong rally & march on the Pentagon in March opposing the wars/occupations in Iraq, Afghanistan, & Palestine.
United For Peace & Justice held a march on Wall St on April 4.
CODEPINK just had a 24 hour Mother’s Day Vigil in front of the White House & them protested at an Arms Fair in DC (which we shut down).
Local groups all over the country continue to hold anti-war actions & forums. The local CODEPINK here continues to have a Peace Vigil every week.
Of course, it would take all of 5 minutes on Google to find all this out. That is unless you are intentionally spreading misinformation like your cohorts in the media.
May 14th, 2009 at 8:23 am
Arch.
If thats the best return you’ve got its then apparent that nothing is clear to you.
You say “invade” as if it were a bad thing.
How else were we supposed to go in and remove Saddam ? Ask pretty please ?
And tell me, do the ulterior motives not make sense and are they not justified ?
The collateral benefits are there now and will have their effect for decades.
Iraq is now a free, sovereign and democratic society.
Sit down and shut up.