think we all agree that the coalition allies didn't have a U.N. resolution or "permission" to invade Iraq.
I am so confused. Wasn't that the whole question before some people decided that questioning a post that asserted we DID have approval for the use of military force was somehow an attack on Bush, the admin, and everything red, white, and blue, followed by a sort of moot court argument that the fact of the failure of France et al. to approve didn't count because they are corrupt?
Why is it that these factors should affect the initial correction-- that there was no formal approval for our invasion? Unlike some others, you seem to understand the differentiation between this and the other issues that have been raised (which may be argued til our faces are purple-- or red white and blue depending on your belief, I guess)
You're correct that I didn't support the war from the beginning, and I still believe we made serious mistakes. And it's a lot more than a tinge of regret. I was opposed to the war from the beginning for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was a belief that we were not in any way prepared for the aftermath and went in with a willful disregard for those who had legitimate, informed but opposing opinions. I voted for Bush, was a long term Republican, and have no real sympathies with the Democratic party, but in this yes, I believe we made some terrible errors in judgment and are paying heavily for it.
That is, of course, just my opinion, which anyone may reject as a messy plate of scrambled eggs, an admittedly easy and rather shallow way to deal with people who think differently.
Thank you for at least trying to understand me. |
