The left says it's either oil, which we haven't taken, or WMD, which wasn't there. Sometimes they say it was to enrich the President's friends, although I doubt anyone likes his friends enough to put up with the crap the President has.
"Saddam didn't attack us." No one said he did. "He had no links to al Qaeda." Not so fast. Besides, he had plenty of links to terror and terrorists before al Qaeda.
I still support this war. I'll be glad when we've won, though.
Saddam's connection with terrorism was well known and beyond any reasonable questioning. He not only armed, funded and trained Palestinian terrorists he also cut rather generous checks - $20,000 was the figure I recall - to the families of suicide bombers.
ReplyDeleteBut all that "terrorism" stuff's just a smokescreen. The reason for the invasion and toppling of Saddam was always his flagrant violation of the peace agreement he signed to end the war he started.
By the terms of the agreement, he was in material breech, i.e. we could have resumed fighting within two weeks of the signing and any time afterward.
We didn't have to find WMDs, he had to help us look for them just as Libya *did*. All he had to do, among the many things done at Saddam's behest, was to interfere with the inspectors and we would have been entirely within the bounds of the peace agreement to send in the Marines. But the provocations and abrogations went far, *far* beyond that.
As for the whole "it's-fer-the-oil" charge, that's just idiotic and appeals to people whose understanding of economics springs from the latter part of the nineteenth century. All you have to do is look at the per-diem costs of the war and the value of petroleum to get an idea how much would have to be pumped to pay for the war. And that's if we got it without paying a nickel.
Anyone outside the "troofer" camp think there's any chance of Iranian oil ending up in U.S. gas tanks without some hefty checks changing hands?