D_Kaye Throttlebottom
Experimental Member
Hazel, disagree. There was cause to invade Iraq and a legal ratification under United Nations as a military enforcement of the first gulf war's cease fire agreements. When Saddam kicked out weapons inspectors under Bill Clinton's watch (the night he was impeached - Saddam was an opportunist - taking advantage of the US's in-fighting at the time) - the UN already had a mandate to militarily enforce the first gulf-war cease fire negotiations - that included weapons inspection - to completion and NATO patrolling of the northern and southern air defense areas of Iraq and adherence to the UN food for oil program to allow Iraq to rebuild and keep Iran at bay.
Clinton and the UN did not insist those inspectors return to Iraq after they were expelled. We bombed Saddam for 4 days, including the facilities he barred access to (I know, I was there). Later it is revealed UN members had their hands in the Food for oil scandal - were Saddam charged the illegal surcharges on oil anyway.
The issue - 9/11 is attacked. The UN promises unmitigated support on the war on terrorism, yet they let Hussein ride roughshod over the UN. They don't enforce their own laws.
I give Bush and Rumsfeld black eyes, b/c they had the wrong strategy from the jump. They planned on a short campaign and "shock and awe" worked for the short term. Though long term, that region has suffered with less and they waited it out and Rumsfeld did not have a plan for a protracted strategy. Something Powell was verbose about and Rumsfeld disregarded.
We had a reason to be in Iraq - but Powell was clear - if you break Iraq, then it's yours (to Rumsfeld). Bush left Rumsfeld in there - even though we were failing our objectives abysmally.
Long before this president and during my military career, the top analysts/former ranger, delta guys that I respected were clear, said you have to have a diplomatic and a military enforcement measure that works in that region. You cannot rely on one or the other. Negotiating terms and not enforcing them does not help the region, it brings more hatred to us for our oversight. Our military presence without any substantive dialogue with stakeholders that are vested - as neighbors, versus "evil neighbors" doesn't work either. Using a report that was filtered from the UK about Uranium is not the president's fault. I can tell you as intel person, uranium reports were not the reason nor the legal foundation to invade Iraq.
Now, if you want to talk about opportunism of Chenney and the stubborn histrionic personalities of Bush and Rumsfeld - we're in violent agreement.
The one thing I give McCain is that he criticized the administration vociferously for the way they prosecuted the war, the way that troops were not prepared, equipment. He was not afraid to have that dialogue w/ Bush and Rumsfeld. It's the only point I give McCain - b/c again it doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognize Rumsfeld did not work with Powell, and he didn't listen to his generals on the ground.
