I'm guessing with the wink that this was meant to be a joke(you don't often joke so I'm not sure), if not you missed my point by miles!!!
You think that today with improved technology, access to information, communications, it takes less time for the US, history to assess how well a President has done or whether or not they approve of something.
So, had such advantages existed decades earlier, Truman might have had a higher approval rating either as President or the new assessment about his time as President and the Korean war would not have taken as long. Correct?
Well the argument of if the world is safer with or without Saddam probably won't be the question. This is something I'm pretty sure you will never understand, because honestly that's not the issue. In fact not even Rush or Hannity are making these types of accusations, that the left thinks the world would be safer with Saddam still in power.
Don't listen to Rush or Hannity, listen to what President Bill Clinton said before he left office:
The hard fact is, that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well being of his people, the peace of his region, THE SECURITY OF THE WORLD. The best way to end that threat, once and for all, is with a new Iraqi government, a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people.
Anyone who has any basic knowledge of Persian Gulf History would realize that is the issue. The United States sent half a million men to the Persian Gulf because of Saddam's actions in 1990-1991. The United States attempted to set up the largest sanctions and weapons embargo ever created in the history of the world in attempt to try to contain Saddam. The country that the United States was most likely to go to war with after the 1991 Gulf War was Iraq, because of Saddam. The United States engaged periodically in military action against Saddam through out the 1990s. But ultimately, the containment strategy fell apart as neighboring nations were unwilling to enforce the sanctions and weapons embargo for economic reasons and other countries outside the region began breaking the sanctions regime for their own reasons.
The main threat to Persian Gulf Energy supply, vital to the survival of the global economy, was Saddam. All options short of a full scale invasion to remove this threat had been tried and failed. With the erosion of sanctions and the weapons embargo, the cost of military action in the future would only grow, and the risk that Saddam would obtain new capabilties to enhance his military forces would only grow as well.
As Bill Clinton pointed out before he left office, only through regime change could the threat be removed once and for all and that is precisely what Bush did.
You still may have support for this war, but I'm guessing you are almost close to alone in your line of thinking and attack.
In the liberal bubble of FYM that is certainly true. Among the general public nearly 40% think removing Saddam was the right and necessary thing to do. Among members of the US military, the vast majority think it was the right and necessary thing to do. The publics view of the war is likely to change over time just as it did with respect to the Korean war.
The question will not be if the world thought we would be safer... The question that the history books will speak of is was this war legal, what was the true motive, why wasn't there a cohesive global backing if this was so dire, and what did it have to do with the war on terror?
The history books are not going to ignore Saddam and his past history in the Persian Gulf prior to 2003 as you and liberals constantly do. The history books will recognize Saddam and his WMD's, his threats to the region, were in issue before Bush even came to office. History will also record what Bill Clinton said about the issue before he left office.
The issues you bring up, legality, motives, global backing, whether it had anything to do with the war on terror are side issues compared to the central issue which was Saddam and his threat to the region and the security of the world.
Legally, the operation was approved by multiple UN resolutions and clearly authorized by the Gulf War Ceacefire which Saddam was in violation of. If that was not the case, WHERE are the resolutions attempting to condemn the military invasion and call for the immediate withdrawal of all coalition forces? That don't exist because no one tried to do that. Instead, the United Nations has approved of the stationing of coalition forces in Iraq ever since the summer of 2003. If the operation were illegal as some claim, that would never of happened.
Motives, just look at Saddam's history in the region and long term global and US security needs in the region. US military action in the Persian Gulf from 1990 to today has had the same motive. Protect the regions energy resources from any and all threats. In 2002, do to the crumbling of sanctions and the weapons embargo and other aspects of containment, Saddams refusal to cooperate with the UN and verifiably disarm of all WMD, the US and its allies found it necessary to remove Saddam from power.
Global backing for the war was significant in the sense that they were dozens of countries that actively supported it, it had UN resolutions behind it, the occupation then received UN backing every year, and dozens of countries sent troops to support the occupation. Europes support of the occupation in terms of troop levels during the occupation was higher than it was during the 1991 Persian Gulf War. For the first time since World War II, Japan actually sent troops into a combat zone in Iraq. Compared to the 1991 Gulf War, non-US troops made up 15% of the forces in Iraq where as in 1991 they had been 25% of the force. A drop, but not a significant drop, plus it involved heavier European and East Asian participation.
As for the war on terror, Saddam has certainly engaged in his own forms of terrorism in the past, so to totally ignore the possibility of a potential link between Al Quada and Saddam would have been irresponsible. Regardless, the war was overwhelmingly justified without any links to Al Quada. Its only after Saddam's removal and the need to build a new Iraq that the issue of Al Quada certainly became a serious one. To withdraw prematurely and let Iraq descend into Chaos as the Democrats advocated would have played right into Al Quada's hands.
And my humble guess, is that more information will slowly leak out over the years that this administration knew a little more than they admit now about not having WMDs or any real ties to the "war on terrorism".
Both the Clinton administration and the Bush administration are still in agreement about Saddam and his WMD's to this day. But the issue never was specifically about Saddam had at point x in time, but his compliance with verifiable disarmament. By nearly every estimate in March 2003, he had failed to fully and completely verifiably disarm of all WMD. To this day, there are still thousands of stocks of unaccounted for WMD according to the inspections process started in the 1990s.
The fact is, the only way to insure that Saddam would never be able to use WMD or make new WMD again was by removing him. Even if you believe that Saddam did not have any WMD in March 2003(its been confirmed that he had production related facilities and materials that were violations of the Gulf War Ceacefire), how would the US and its allies know if he had WMD or not in 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010? What about the vast amount of materials and equipment for WMD that could now freely go into Iraq because of the erosion of sanctions and the weapons embargo? The essential end of the sanctions and weapons embargo would also allow Saddam to re-equip his conventional military forces as well.
It was far better to remove Saddam in 2003 before he aquired greater capabilities that would have made that task much more difficult and costly.
The fact is, just as Bill Clinton stated before he left office, the only way to remove the threat was through regime change. The longer the United States and its allies waited to remove Saddam, the more costly such a removal would become and the risk to vital global resources would grow.
As Colin Powell said:
"It is not incumbent upon the United States or its allies to prove that Saddam has WMD, it is incumbent upon Saddam to prove that he does not".
That was the requirement that Saddam agreed to when he signed the Gulf War Ceacefire agreement in March 1991.
That is and has always been the issue.
