Can ANY Republicans admit invading Iraq was wrong?

Question

I know some in the Senate and Congress have,but I mean here on yahoo.

mustang what does 9/11 have to do with Iraq?

Answer 1

Can ANY American admit that sending their child over seas to rape and plunder was wrong??? hmmm

Answer 2

Invading Iraq wrong no. Saddam needed to be removed. Maybe you can sit back and watch people killed by the millions and if you count his own people, the Kuwaitis and the Iranians killed in their 7 year war it was in the millions. I personally would have invaded for that alone. I would also use the military to stop the Genocide in Africa. I guess I am just a dumb old hillbilly but I believe in helping people that need help if I have that ability.
Now do I believe the war was handled properly after we captured Saddam. NO!
But I am also an Independent so that may throw off your count too.
PS Pokerplay I am a vet and I have a neice, a nephew and three friends in Iraq at this time. Including one that is an Iraqi shiite. So yes we are willing to strap on a rifle and go. Cowards like you wouldn't be able to whine about G.W. if we didn't

Answer 3

We regularly admit when those we supported make mistakes. Nearly all of us have admitted that mistakes have been made in Iraq. The reason we don't admit that going to war in Iraq was wrong is that it wasn't. Saddam himself claims to this day that our reasons for going in are true.

Answer 4

Damned good question, yet it relatively is my handle that project on the "mistake" area of all this. it relatively is , what if we had no longer? What if W &corporation had weasled out of any agressive action in any respect placed up 9/11? could there have been finger pointing then? a convincing specific! The very ones who ***** approximately being too agressive could be whining" the place are those damned Marines once you like them?" 20/20 hindsight is often good, yet in the 2d of a rustic coming aside because it on no account had previously, W took the observe of his advisors and did his terrific , in simple terms as anybody human beings could do. You watch ,Obama is going to take the warmth on those financial themes , as they are going undesirable on the instant, and you think of by using fact BHO closes Gitmo, those terrorists are going to decrease us any slack? those products gets back to hang-out Obama if issues head south, and we go through yet another assault. each and all of the Monday morning quarterbacking in the international does no good after the huge sport.

Answer 5

Well, will two wrongs make a right? Invading Iraq was wrong, in my opinion. But, leaving it in a state of civil war is wrong also.
Perhaps it's time we do something right for a change.

Answer 6

No - and I NEVER WILL. My reasons are thus:
In the 2000 election, both candidates spoke openly about the need to deal with Saddam Hussein. Al Gore was actually more emphatic on the topic than George Bush was! In 1998, Congress passed and President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act. Just to show how conspiratorial they were, they put it in the Congressional Record. In 1995, the CIA tried to organize a coup against Saddam Hussein and it failed. The coup was secret, but it has been written about in five or six books that I know of. In 1991, representatives of President George H. W. Bush went on the radio and urged the Iraqi people to rise up against Saddam Hussein. So America's policy on Saddam has been consistent.

What we have been arguing about for years are the methods. First, we tried to encourage a rebellion in Iraq, that didn't work. Then we tried coups; that didn't work. Then in 1998, we tried funding Iraqi opposition. That might have worked, but the money never actually got appropriated. Then, ultimately we tried direct military power. The idea that Saddam should go has been the policy of the United States since 1991.

Well, after September 11, it became apparent that simply going after Al-Qaeda was not going to be enough to prevent future attacks. First off, if you simply target Al-Qaeda, what happens if the core of group simply changes its name or groups with other anti-American terrorists? Furthermore, how can you effectively target terrorists protected by the power of a rogue state? The answer is, ''you can't.'' In addition, the training, resources, and protection provided by those rogue states is the very thing that enables a group like Al-Qaeda to become capable of pulling off the sort of attack we saw on 9/11. So in order to prevent future 9/11s, you have to go after not just Al-Qaeda, but all terrorist groups with global reach and the rogue
states that support them.

George Bush made that clear in his Sept 20, 2001 speech to the nation when he said:
''Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated....
''And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

Without question, Iraq was a nation that provided ''safe haven'' for terrorists with ''global reach.'' Among them were terrormaster Abu Nidal, Abdul Rahman Yasin, one of the conspirators in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing; Khala Khadr al-Salahat, the man who reputedly made the bomb for the Libyans that brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over...Scotland; Abu Abbas, mastermind of the October 1985 Achille Lauro hijacking and murder of Leon Klinghoffer; and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, formerly the director of an al Qaeda training base in Afghanistan, who was leading al Queda in Iraq, and subsequently killed there. Quite frankly, any war on terrorism that didn't tackle that nest of vipers would have been a war in name only.
After 9/11, anyone who doesn't see the potential danger of allowing terrorists like Abdul Rahman Yasin and Abu Abbas to be sheltered by an America-hating regime that was working on weaponizing ricin and that could produce mustard gas in two months (by their own account) has an insufficient understanding of the peril facing in our country.
And we ARE fighting Al-Qaeda in Iraq. And while none of us are happy that our military is risking lives fighting against terrorists in a foreign land, it could be worse. Instead of fighting the finest soldiers in the world in Iraq, Al-Qaeda could be murdering unarmed American civilians here in the U.S. at a time and a place of the terrorists' choosing. Iraq has turned out to be irresistible for terrorists and quite possibly, we here in the U.S. may have been spared terrorist attacks because we are fighting there.
So no, I will NEVER EVER admit that it is wrong.

Answer 7

Yah I am gonna watch list this one too, I am curious about the answers.
Oh and I admit that the Democrats voted for the war, because they were given the same false manipulative "evidence" as everyone else.

Edit: I dont call him an idiot, I call him a puppet.

Oh you know they will never admit, they come up with excuse after excuse trying to legitimize the invasion of Iraq.

Answer 8

Hillary & Lieberman both say it was the Right Thing to Do.
Hillary is betting on Bush.
She supports him all the way.
Hillary will be the next president.
Now that the election is over, most Democrats are supporting the war in Iraq.

Answer 9

Do you remember what happened on September 11, 2001?!?

Answer 10

Can ANY Democrats admit that their Congresspeople and their presidential candidate voted in favor of the war?

Okay then.

EDIT: Stephanie admits that the Democrats were fooled by the President that she continually refers to as an idiot. Hmmm...

EDIT2: What did Pearl Harbor have to do with Hitler?

Answer 11

No. They are of the same breed of person as bush himself. CANNOT admit a wrong.

Why do you think we are still in Iraq?