That is a conflation that liberals promoted to bash Bush with at the time. Iraq didn't have anything to do with the events of 9/11, however he was involved in supporting terrorist in that region, and that coupled with his constant refusal to comply with UN edicts, finally led to his bluff being called, and the people are better off for it.
An honest reading of history would probably serve you well friend.
I never was blaming Bush and the GOP specifically for invading Iraq. Why are you making this into some sort of partisan argument? Both Dems and Repubs are responsible.
I stand by my opinion, as I did at the start of the war, that we invaded Iraq with some very weak reasons that were based mostly on speculation, and that full country occupation was not justified.
My other opinion is that we should have hammered Afghanistan from the start.
And maybe if a frog had wings it wouldn't bump its ass when it hoped. Hindsight armchair quaterbacking is one of the things that increased the divide we see today in politics.
J-mac, so you’re saying this is all hindsight? Think again. I have opposed this war in Iraq from day 1 in 2002. And I'm not the only one (because apparently you had to be some sort of magical future predicting genius in 2002 to oppose the Iraq war and realize it was a BAD IDEA).
High ranking members of our own military opposed this war as well, often very loudly and bluntly too, citing many of the same reasons I did above – weak connection, will be costly, not worth it – in 2002. Not 2011, but in 2002, from the very beginning.
But who cares about the Military thinks? What would they know anyways?
What a dichotomy you offer here, on the one hand you say that a larger response to Afghanistan would have been better, and on the other you question why we have to have large endeavors....Which is it?
Obviously I’m referencing the fact that we created two full blown wars when we should have just put all of our force into a single target that actually made sense to attack, perhaps which may have resulted in a shorter occupation and cheaper war.
Two full blown wars > cost than one full blown war.
Are you seriously trying to come in here with a "conservative" lean, and spout dem talking points from 2003?
J-Mac – So let me get this straight; if someone says that we invaded Iraq with weak reasons, that there were weak connections between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, and that the war in that country was unjustifiable, they cannot possibly be conservative in their political lean?
Please explain how this makes any rational sense at all. I'm all ears.