General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: One lucky winner: George W. Bush [View all]Polybius
(22,130 posts)Looking back, I don't think it was worth it. As for the war in Iraq, Bill Clinton was technically justified for going to war with them, but he didn't. Iraq repeatedly violated its sanctions, and on numerous occasions ignored the no-fly zone and kicked out UN weapons inspectors. Clinton bombed them several times, and Saddam hated him for this.
Now, I don't recall Iraq violating anything in from January 2001 (Bush's inaugural) to the time of the war, but I'm sure they did. If there was no 9/11, he could have went to war. Yes, it would have been a weak excuse for war, but Bush could have just added what he did before with the "hiding weapons of mass destruction" BS. He wouldn't be impeached for it, and the general population would still have rallied behind him.
I agree his administration was stacked with neo-cons. At the time, the entire Republican Party was neo-con, save for a few.
I also agree with you that Bush ran against war and "nation-building" as he called it. Something changed him. Perhaps it was 9/11. Perhaps it was the neo-cons in his administration beating the drums of war everyday. Or perhaps he was just lying. I have no idea.
I do think Trump would start a war if he knew it would help him in November. I think he could have went to war with Iran after they struck us back for killing their general. The neo-cons were actually mad at him for holding back.
Now, I don't think he's a dove. But I do think he's less pro-war than Kristol, Cheney, Bolton, McCain, and Wolfowitz. Can we at least agree on that much?