stiges of his minions, split th e
The "caring" part is obvious and mutual. Aside from the usual suspects, virtually everyone was in agreement based on the intel at hand from multiple sources, the WMDs were an issue. There was no reason, fiscal or otherwise to "create a narrative" justifying a war with no end game or benefits. The WMD issue was the factor and not the threat on his father. He had the overwhelming support of the Congress and the public. Did they screw it up? absolutely, but your premise the SOLE reason for Iraq was a vendetta, my original posit stands.
why did he have overwhelming support from Congress and the public? Because the narrative created saying they had WMDs.
Did they create the narrative or did he buy into the false information being presented to him? Paul Wolfowitz and Karl Rover were pushing for the invasion of Iraq before 9/11.
I can certainly entertain and debate that. So the "vendetta" issue is out the window I take it? Like Hatari pointed out, Hussein (the other) gambled against the mandate and lost. The "narrative" was created LONG before 9/11 and again two put the decision on just two rather low-grade individuals like the two you mentioned, I'm just not ready to buy into that. I am not a huge Bush fan, but one thing I am convinced of, he is not a frivolous and shallow kind of person to have risked all that blood and treasure on a vendetta or flimsy intelligence, let's just say I'm not ready to accept that. Did he screw up? yes, and I've said so before and many times.
I would have gone in with at least double the force, completely eradicated all his minions, split the country along tribal lines, kept their sheiks in Russian women, booze and fancy cars, and take their oil. To think you could turn that place or any other country over there into a western style democracy, was and IS stupid.
