That is the real issue that provokes my anger: the guy used a war in the service of winning an election
Scenario 1: Bush invades Iraq, causing us to inherit the full messy post-war Iraqi situation, trying to referee the Shia, Sunni and Kurds while being shot at by the Ba'athists and Wahabbis.
Scenario 2: Bush doesn't invade Iraq, just lets the containment mess fester. Let's assume the containment holds and doesn't break down totally (causing a cascade of "I told you so"s from the same people now complaining) before Nov 2004.
Now, explain to me exactly how Scenario 1 could be expected to win an election, or even to improve Bush's political situation? Surely if you want to use a war to win an election, you should schedule it closer to the election?
If the US hadn't supported Saddam with both arms and intelligence
Oh, lots of people were supporting Saddam, esp. France and Russia, to the immense relief of every surrounding nation (except Iran, of course). Talk about your multi-lateral policy, that sure was one.
BTW, why is it that the same people who are most upset about our 1980s support of Saddam are the most against our ousting him in 2003? By their reasoning, shouldn't we owe the world to get rid of him? |
