If Bush thinks his invasion of Iraq was legit, why does he continue to speak and try to justify his War on Iraq?

Meow!

response to the Michael Moores of the world.  But to answer your question, uhhhh, because carpers continue their venal lies to criticize his war to liberate Iraq.

25 million people are free and terrorists no longer enjoy the protection of the Iraqi regime.

How is this a bad result?

And as we have seen, now Zarqawi has emerged as the major threat to peace in the region, and possibly has built a stronger organization than Bin Laden.  That's all NEW, a post Saddam development.  And Bush made it possible.  He should take full credit for it in his campaign speeches.

WWII has no similarity to Iraq.  Iraq never invaded us, and Iraq was no threat to invade us.

Germany invaded our ally (France), just like Iraq invaded Kuwait.  We took care of business with Germany to help our allies, and we should have done so with Iraq during the FIRST gulf war.  IMHO.

Attacking Iraq after 9/11 would be more like attacking Spain after Pearl Harbor.

/Zin

And if we keep talking like this, some Bush supporters might have wobbly knees walking to the election booth.  

/Zin

We got involved in Korea & Vietnam to attempt to stop the northern Communist faction from taking over its southern sovereign neighbors.  Both were basically unsuccessful.  Although South Korea is free today, it is still in constant threat from its northern neighbor.  Our participation 50 years earlier, it turns out, did not eliminate the threat.

I'm not an expert on either of these conflicts, so I can't say with confidence whether the priority for our involvement was to "liberate" the northern factions (the proper place to say "liberate" here) more so than just protecting the south.  By participating, we obviously were trying to defeat the north in both cases.  If we had been successful, would it have led to a liberation of the north or a unified north and south free from Communist rule?  It's hard to say.  We helped in ridding Germany of Hitler during WWII, but the aftermath still led to Germany being a divided country for over 40 years.

There is no shame towards any of our soldiers who have died in the fight for freedom and/or democracy.  Sometimes, though, history makes it tough to justify.  That was my intended point.

-- Modified on 7/17/2004 2:40:34 AM

-- Modified on 7/17/2004 2:43:02 AM

Pearl Harbor is what brought the U.S. into WWII.  After Pearl Harbor was attacked, we immediately declared war against Japan; Germany, being part of the Axis with Italy & Japan, then declared war on us.

There is no way of ever knowing whether we would've gone to war in Europe if it hadn't been for Japan bombing Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941.  WWII had been going on for about 2 years before we became involved.  If Pearl Harbor hadn't happened, it probably would have taken an German attack on us to pull us into "fighting for our invaded allies".

You state my exact point.  We took Pearl Harbor as an excuse to have public opinion on our side to get involved in Europe.  Kind of like using 9/11 to excuse getting into Iraq?  Except on a larger scale, and with more popular support.

Most polls show no statistical difference at this point between Bush and Kerry.  It is the same reason, IMHO, that Gore lost.  He and Kerry could bore Al Qaida to death (maybe that is a good strategy).  And, IMHO, I think Bush truly has convictions by which he makes decisions.  While you may not agree with them (and if you don't, don't vote for him), but at least he doesn't stick his wet finger in the air and see what his set of values should be at the moment.