Mr. Liberal Democrat, Do you think we should have invaded Iraq?

Question

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Every intelligence agency around the world said Saddam had WMD's not just the CIA. Everyone that voted for the war saw the same evidence that Bush did. If your going to blame Bush, you have to blame everyone else... including democrats and other countries... And even if there were no WMD's... the cause was just because of the ceasefire from the 1st gulf war, it had conditions that Saddam was ignoring... That was reason enough to invade...

And if you think Saddam was contained already, apparently you forget about the "Oil for food' fiasco... or as it should be called "Oil for weapons"... Thank our friends at the UN for that.

Answer 1

Thank you! I think this point needs to be pounded into the libs head every day because they are very forgetful!!

Answer 2

No. A thousand times no.

You can quote Kerry or any other Democrat all you like if it eases your troubled conscience. But it doesn't change a thing. Kerry, like the rest of America, was duped. The justification to go to war with Iraq proved completely and totally false and unfounded. How many times do you have to hear the bitter truth before it sinks in?

Yes, Saddam was a brutal dictator, and he should have been removed from power. But not in exchange for the deaths of 3,000 American troops, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians, 1/2 a trillion dollars, and a war that likely will rage on for years and years. There were other ways to remove him.

And let me ask you this: there are at least 3 dictators in the world who have slaughtered far more people than Saddam. Why haven't we invaded these countries? Here's your answer: NO OIL!

Answer 3

No!!!! Saddam was contained and was nothing more than the mayor of Baghdad when Bush invaded.
so much is going on in Iraq that nothing is being reported about the Americans being killed and maimed in afganistan.

(1) we should have finished the job in Afgan, completly wiped out the Taliban, popie fields, opium trade, and the war lords that are running the country now, caught Bin laden.help them set up an honest government of their own making, not someone that we controll.

(2) After Afgan was secure, then we could have pooled our resources, stopped in Iraq on the way home picked up Saddam.
and spent the rest of our lives paying for it like we are doing now.

Also I don't think anyone was DUPED,Powel or and of the congressmen. they just didn't have the balls to say NO, lets do a little more investigating. it would have meant that they were unpatriotic when the whole country wanted blood and Saddam was already in the Bushs and the neocons sites.

Answer 4

No, I don't think we should have.

Two things about your quote above...
First, Kerry was going off evidence provided by the Bush administration about WMDs -- as well all later learned, that evidence had been FALSIFIED. Kerry believed the Bush administration, he didn't think they would make this stuff up -- that was obviously a mistake.

Second, you'll note that he says Saddam needs to be disarmed -- he doesn't say "disarmed by invasion and war." The fact is that Saddam was "contained" already, by trade embargos, economic sanctions, and diplomatic means. He *didn't* have any WMDs. He was a threat to nobody (except perhaps his own people). We'll never know now, but it's entirely possible he could have been forced out by diplomatic means, saving hundreds of thousands of lives. The "threat" he posed was entirely manufactured by the Bush administration -- poor Kerry just trusted Bush, which was a really bad idea :(

Answer 5

Amen. And of course the same old song and dance from them, poor Kerry was LIED TO!!

Indeed? Wasn't Kerry already a senator when President Bush got elected?

9-11 was 8 months after Bush took office. Weren't the Clintons in a better position to be the LIARS, if anyone was?

Answer 6

Bush had info nobody else had, info that in the hands of a better man would have changed everything. Bush withheld said info as it would have crippled his chances of winning UN and Congressional support.

You can only work with the information that you have in front of you. With the information we now have we know that Bush lied, and that the invasion was unjustified, and that a better man in the White House would have done things differently.

Answer 7

Russia, France and Germany have been all to busy with the United countries stealing the oil from the Iraq Oil for nutrition software, ravenous the people of Iraq, yet delivering themselves low-priced oil, completely in mattress with Saddam Hussein and Kofi Annan. they did not prefer to break up the oil occasion.

Answer 8

Kerry is saying DISARM. He stops right there.

When the Feds DISARM somone they don't continue on and arrest his family, shoot up the community, and disband the local police.

Don't you think George got a little out of control there Boobie?

Answer 9

I was barely aware of Kerry when we invaded in 2003 and I was against it then. My position hasn't changed.

Answer 10

Pretty much goes to show that democrats aren't much better than Republicans.
VOTE SAMURAI IN '08

Answer 11

Let's see...how about Carl Levin who voted against it? And worked in a bipartisan manner to help Bush out of this quagmire in Iraq? I wonder if you guys only listen to those who agree with you, and not the dissenters?