Well, I agree with the man who gave a speech in 1992 talking about George H. W. Bush being slack on Iraq. In fact, Al Gore fully details the reasons why I have personally always felt a full scale attack on Iraq was justified EVEN AFTER the 1991 Gulf War.
So I’ll let Mr. Gore tell it. Because this will be one of few times I allow him the floor here without debate from me 
.
Notice Gore speaks way back in 1992 of Iraq’s ties to terrorism and efforts to pursue WMDs. Gore says plainly:
Weapons of Mass Destruction, nuclear, chemical and biological
So you who are all upset about the USA going into Iraq, don’t be upset with us who have felt it was a good idea for well over a decade. It’s not like we didn’t have our reasons. Reasons Gore seems to have long forgotten.
Hat tip Drudge.
Independent Conservative - Copyright 2008 - Copyright Notice
[powered by WordPress.]
38 queries. 0.227 seconds
June 13th, 2007 at 9:42 am
I haven’t viewed the youtube yet, but I’ve always had a problem with Christians saying that what was going on in Iraq was none of our business. How do we as Christians not care about millions of people being murdered just on GP? Saddam was a weapon of mass destruction who needed to be removed from power. The Media loves portraying all of the seeming failures of our going into Iraq, but the testimony of many soldiers would show that there are many Iraqi citizens that are truly grateful for America being there, not to mention the stories of many of them coming to Christ. I’m ready for them to come home, now, but I supported the war when we first went over there. I will watch the video, but with Al Gore’s belief system, even if he told the truth I wouldn’t be interested in his opinion about anything.
June 13th, 2007 at 10:46 am
Any dealings with Muslim nations are tricky at best. While I think it was a worthwhile effort I think the methods used were prone for error.
Initially I was suspect about the “Democracy in Iraq” idea and figured the best outcome would be a leadership less brutal than Saddam. Then I bought into the whole Democracy idea for a while. Now I’m thinking the people who said they are a little too backwater to handle representative government in Iraq are right. So I think a mistake was made in the desired political structure, although it’s going better than when the Brits tried to keep their troops in Iraq after the fall of the Ottoman Empire.
I’ve mentioned in a comment before and I’ll mention again, removing an enemy’s entire military is a patently bad idea in war. So much so it’s documented as a “no, no” in the book The Art of War. You assume command of the enemy military and swap out people who refuse to follow your orders. The Bath Party was bad and all that, but totally removing that established military is why nothing in some parts of Iraq could be easily secured.
Given the lack of security in some areas, now Christians are literally on the run in Iraq.
Given the Oil for Food scam is no longer in process, the 5,000 babies dying a month in the past is not an issue any more. People are getting food and medicine much better than with Saddam. The overall daily death toll is FAR LOWER than when Saddam was in power. They won’t report that on the nightly news.
Now the sticky thing about trying to leave would be the possible civil war. Which brings me to what I see as the last big mistake made. Instead of house-to-house fighting, US forces should have worked to literally blow away the enemy without remorse. Which is proving to be the more successful strategy in Lebanon right now.
We’re investing a lot into Iraq. And at the end of this Iraq will still be a Muslim nation that sides more with other Muslim nations. One of the goals that goes unspoken (denied even) is to maintain a Middle Eastern US military base in Iraq. (US troops go in, we never leave despite what the politicians say.)
I say we won the war, but trying to remake Iraq into a mini-Muslim-America is a problem.