- Jan 17, 2000
- 4,598
- 0
- 0
I suppose this is one of the lingering questions I have. Bush goes to war without UN support, presumably because (in his explanation) Saddam Hussein is too imminent a threat to wait longer. Yet he points to evidence of Iraq violating UN regulations over the years since the Gulf War as support that they are building WMDs. Why didn't Bush make stopping Saddam his #1 priority when campaigning for president? If Saddam really was an imminent threat, why didn't we attack Iraq in 2001? Little national attention was paid to Iraq until last year and up until recently when the media blitz began. I just can't imagine that a president who knew of such dangers would not even focus on Iraq until after the 9/11 attacks and the infamous Axis of Evil speech.
Also, it's possible we could have had the support of more countries if we gave more time to disarm. Even Chirac said he would support a 30 day disarmament period for Iraq, yet Bush declared only a 48 hour ultimatum. If we waited 12 years, what's another 28 days? It seems evident to this pinko peacenik anyway that Bush was afraid of losing any more support and morale if Iraq was allowed to continue disarming.
Also, it's possible we could have had the support of more countries if we gave more time to disarm. Even Chirac said he would support a 30 day disarmament period for Iraq, yet Bush declared only a 48 hour ultimatum. If we waited 12 years, what's another 28 days? It seems evident to this pinko peacenik anyway that Bush was afraid of losing any more support and morale if Iraq was allowed to continue disarming.