Quote:
Originally Posted by tstew
I'm sorry, but it should have never become such a focal point in my opinion. The war on terror (those who attacked us) has always been primarily about Al-quaeda and their strongholds in Afghanistan/Pakistan. Iraq was becoming a distraction (in addition to being basically unwinnable)
|
No sense in arguing about it.
It's always going to be a, basic, 50/50 opinion on whether we should have gone or not. I stand on the side of yes, as I believe we do not know the scope of the intelligence, and we are better off without Saddam.
Edit: I want to add a quote by Condi Rice, which I have always, wholeheartedly, agreed with:
"The preponderance of intelligence analysis from around the world was that [Saddam] had had weapons of mass destruction, we knew he had used weapons of mass destruction . . . and the preponderance of intelligence was that he was reconstituting . . . his biological and chemical capabilities . . . so no it’s simply not the case that there was . . . evidence to say that it was likely that he did not have weapons of mass destruction."
Hybrid Mode
