I'm not a fan of the Bush Administration, and will never vote Republican again, but...
What I've never heard any pundit say is that without the removal of Saddam and his sons what we'd most likely be witnessing today is a nuclear arms race between Iraq and Iran, which may very well have spread to other Middle East nations. It's inconceivable that after the Biblical scale horror show of the Iraq/Iran war that either country would have stood by and watched the other become a nuclear power without responding in kind. I've yet to see even a single nuclear weapons expert ever mention this, even to disagree.
There's an important lesson here. Iran is within an inch of having a nuclear weapon, and Iraq is not. We might reflect on why that is.
Treaties with Iran haven't worked, and even without Trump the Obama treaties were really just a way to kick the Iran bomb can down the road to some future administration.
What worked in preventing a MidEast nuclear arms race was not the attempt to manage the weapons, but ending some of the violent men who would use them. Saddam is dead. His sons are dead. And thus, no nuclear arms race in the Middle East.
The Bush Administration has a lot to answer for. But they liberated Iraq, and the critics did not. Whether by intention or not, whether by lies or not, however incompetently, the Bush Administration prevented a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.
All the critics of the Bush Administration have been able to accomplish is a flimsy treaty with Iran, that was never intended to actually solve the problem, but only to transfer the problem to some future President. And of course, today Iran is right on the edge of having their first nuke.
I’d trust Saddam over Biden...
And yes with Obama’s illegal squash of reports on actual chemical and biological agents. Hundreds of reports were written, TF Troy reported many.
Most EOD are now suffering from exposure to chem/bio, conveniently called burn pits.
The U.K. produced a great report calling the exposure what it was, Sarin gas exposure.
General Austin took part in the cover-up of chemical agents in Iraq. A Bozo general even then.
I'm not a fan of the Bush Administration, and will never vote Republican again, but...
What I've never heard any pundit say is that without the removal of Saddam and his sons what we'd most likely be witnessing today is a nuclear arms race between Iraq and Iran, which may very well have spread to other Middle East nations. It's inconceivable that after the Biblical scale horror show of the Iraq/Iran war that either country would have stood by and watched the other become a nuclear power without responding in kind. I've yet to see even a single nuclear weapons expert ever mention this, even to disagree.
There's an important lesson here. Iran is within an inch of having a nuclear weapon, and Iraq is not. We might reflect on why that is.
Treaties with Iran haven't worked, and even without Trump the Obama treaties were really just a way to kick the Iran bomb can down the road to some future administration.
What worked in preventing a MidEast nuclear arms race was not the attempt to manage the weapons, but ending some of the violent men who would use them. Saddam is dead. His sons are dead. And thus, no nuclear arms race in the Middle East.
The Bush Administration has a lot to answer for. But they liberated Iraq, and the critics did not. Whether by intention or not, whether by lies or not, however incompetently, the Bush Administration prevented a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.
All the critics of the Bush Administration have been able to accomplish is a flimsy treaty with Iran, that was never intended to actually solve the problem, but only to transfer the problem to some future President. And of course, today Iran is right on the edge of having their first nuke.
And Iraq is not. Thank you George Bush.