"Now, let's just take one (false) item that's been repeated adnauseam by the left in various forms, that Bush lied in order to invade Iraq. Even though this has been thoroughly disproved the left still uses this as a mantra. Now I ask you is this constructive?"
That Bush's claim Iraq represented an "imminent" threat to the United States is something I don't buy now. But I believed Bush at the time. So, if he wasn't lying, please explain what the "imminent" threat was? A nuke threat, but no nukes were found. WMDs, but no none were found. Al Qaeda connection, proven false. Am I being destructive here?
I didn't mean to put words in your mouth.
"leftists seem to think that if we never invaded Iraq and played hands off in the ME that everything would just be hunkydory"
I can't speak for leftist, but my view, along with others, is that Bush, following Rumsfeld's advice and disregarding Powell's, invaded Iraq on the cheap. Rumsfeld was correct when he said victory could be achieved with the forces he proposed. But "owning" Iraq as Powell warned would be the case following the so-called "victory, required vastly larger number of troops than Rumsfeld believed were needed. Hence, victory, and then social mayhem... Sorry, the president led America to war and failed as a military tactician. He should have listend to the folks with military experience, not to Rumsfeld who had none, and not to Cheney who was a military procurment man, not a vet. |
