You have to admit now, Bush's "way" was the wrong way.
Hardly, the removal of Saddam's regime has been a smashing success - that's good for the US. The "stabilization" of Iraq hasn't gone as well, but we'll find out in about 12-18 months if it is going to succeed and produce a stable, ongoing Middle East Muslim democracry (good for everyone, including the US), or fail and descend into anarchy (bad for everyone, but primarily bad for the Iraqis and others in the ME).
In other words, of the two parts of the operation (remove Saddam, and deliver an ongoing democracy to the ME) one is complete (and totally successful), and the jury is still out on part two.
Can't disagree, however, that if Bush had presented his objectives as they are now (reduce terrorism by bringing democracy and freedom to the ME) rather than how he did present them (Saddam has poison gas and may use it any day!!!), the chances of success in part two would probably have been much higher. However, if he had presented it as an effort to liberate Iraq, the UN and the US would probably had told him not to bother. |
