Quote:
|
Originally Posted by loganmule
The war against Iraq (and the cost of it, which isn't 200 billion yet) can only be criticised with the benefit of hindsight, and Kerry admitted as much in one of his several positions taken on that issue. The simple fact is that in a post 9-11 environment, ANY sitting president could not ignore the intelligence that Saddam had WMD's, or run the risk that the intelligence was innacurate. I think I stand with most of the electorate in holding the opinion that the war of terror is better fought offensively elsewhere rather than defended here. You can justify a failure to have a plan to "win the peace", but any plan would have been problematic, since it could not have effectively been carried out quickly enough for us to be seen as liberators instead of occupiers.
|
There were plenty of people who criticized the war prior to it's commencement, myself included. Some of us didn't buy that Saddam Hussein was a real threat to the security of the US. The idea that invading a secular middle eastern country actually increases our security is also debatable. Some would say that the US government has been a pretty effective recruiter for Islamic extremists.
Of course, this has been debated over and over and is more than a little off-topic.