While your take on the war itself is somewhat accurate if not overly simplistic, I know the political situation leading up the vote a bit better than you. 'WMD's" were the
cover story for the American people. Congress supported the removal of Saddam on behalf of Israel.
Google these words without quotations. Saddam Hamas suicide.
See the top stories on those 995,000 hits?
Click the first few from CBS, BBC and Fox. Notice the
dates.
Palestinians Get Saddam Charity Checks
Family Of Suicide Bomber Among Those Given $10,000 By His Charity
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/14/world/main543981.shtml
March 13, 2003
(CBS) Saddam Hussein has distributed $260,000 to 26 families of Palestinians killed in 29 months of fighting with Israel, including a $10,000 check to the family of a Hamas suicide bomber.
In a packed banquet hall on Wednesday, the families came one-by-one to receive their $10,000 checks. A large banner said: "The Arab Baath Party Welcomes the Families of the Martyrs for the Distribution of Blessings of Saddam Hussein."
Not kosher. Especially after one signs a U.N. peace treaty (UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991) that states: Iraq must not commit or
support terrorism, or allow terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq.
Now why didn't the U.N. enforce something beyond sanctions after Saddam generously supported Hamas? Well for starters in 2002 Syria became a member of the U.N.
Security Council.
"Syria refuses to apply a terrorist label to Hezbollah, the Lebanon-based group that once held Americans hostage and continues to attack Israeli forces on the Lebanese border. And it gives Palestinian terrorist groups a haven. "
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/membship/election/2002/syria.htm
Against this backdrop one could agree-and obviously both Congress and Parliament did-the removal of Saddam was warranted by his gross violation of his surrender pact. He ultimately lost a game of chicken and got what he deserved. It wasn't worth the cost to America though.....
Quote from IShopAtPublix:
Selected democrats in the senate were forced to vote for the "Authorization to use force in Iraq" for pragmatic reasons. They knew the thing would pass anyway and the popular opinion was firmly with king george. If they did not act "mushroom clouds" would be all over as condi said. It was done before the 2002 congressional elections...
The war in Iraq was sold on the basis of WMDs. They never were there and were not found. The basis for the war was a SHAM. Now what are we doing there right now? Then the rationale for the war was conveniently changed to spreading freedom and fighting terrorists.
Anybody remember Al Zarqawi? From the descriptions it seemed nobody takes a piss in Iraq without his approval. Almost everything bad in Iraq was blamed on him. Then it turned he was a fat moron who could not fire a machine gun. After that video surfaced I knew his "bogeyman value" was diminished and there was no need for him anymore which is exactly what happened.
The "surge" is like plugging a leaking boat with a hand. After 2006 elections W knew that he had to change the strategy but could not do what the democrats wanted so he created an artificial change simply to steal democrats thunder and destroy any sense of enthusiasm for them from 2006 elections. Using Iraq Study group as a cover a fake strategy was implemented.
A new figurehead was introduced to act as a more attractive mouthpiece for the bush administration. A careerist by the name of David Petraeus. Btw David Petraeus married daughter of then superintendent of US Military Academy at West Point(4 star general William A. Knowlton) 2 months after graduation from the aforementioned academy...
Why did the "Surge" "work" Very simple. Selected sunni tribal leaders in the sunni triangle were simply bribed and many sunnis got a job in the "awakening councils" which gave them a steady income and a job. The official explanation was that Sunnis rallied against Al-Qaeda which is laughable since somebody putting a roadside bomb in is already a terrorist and for him/her to be afraid of other terrorists is a bit silly.
Now I am against using the term "victory" in conjunction with Iraq. After squandering 4000 lives, tens of thousands wounded and traumatized, hundreds of billions wasted (and when all is said and done trillions) and 130000+ troops stationed in Iraq stationed so it does not degenerate into chaos that is not a victory nor will it ever be.
