Anyone who talks themselves into the War in Iraq making us safer can talk themselves into anything.
If you don't understand how important the Persian Gulf has been to the United States and the world for 60 years now, then you will never understand any US military intervention in the region. If you don't understand Saddam's history in the region prior to 2003 and how he threatened US and global security in the region, then your not going to understand why Saddam needed to be removed in 2003. If you don't understand many of the reasons the United States sent half a million troops to the region in 1990-1991, then your definitely not going to understand why Saddam had to be removed in 2003. If you don't know or understand what took place during the UN inspection process of the 1990s as well as limited US military action against Saddam during that time, then your not going to understand why it was necessary to remove Saddam in 2003.
When did Iraq get more dangerous between January 20, 2001 and March 20, 2003 (or whenever the fuck we decided to give an ultimatum)?
Essentially every single day that went by during that time, the sanctions and weapons embargo designed to help contain Saddam continued to erode, making it easier for Saddam to make money on the black market and potentially aquire new weapons and materials for his military. Thousands of stocks of WMD continued to remain unaccounted for according to UN weapons inspectors, who Saddam did not let into the country again until November 2002.
Why didn't Bush wait for the weapons inspectors to finish in Iraq?
The issue is not the weapons inspectors, but Saddam's LACK of full cooperation with the weapons inspectors which, based on evidence found after his removal, continued after he let the inspectors back in, in November 2002.
Why didn't Bush work with the UN?
Bush worked with the UN every step of the way. It was Bush's efforts that got UN inspectors back on the ground for the first time since November 1998. It was Bush who got a new UN resolution passed authorizing military action if Saddam did not comply. It was Bush that succeeded in getting UN approval for the operation every year after the invasion.
Why did Bush lie about weapons of mass destruction?
The only group that ever lied about WMD and WMD programs was Saddam's regime.
Why did Bush suddenly change his mind halfway through and make it no longer about weapons of mass destruction when there were none?
Bush never changed his reasons for invading, but the mission in Iraq did change, from one of regime removal to one of nation building to replace Saddam's regime.
Why did Bush take three years to figure out that the strategy they put into place was entirely destructive?
Counter insurgency and nation building are very difficult, time consuming operations. Progress was made during that time, and the Surge strategy built on the progress that had been made earlier. The military had resisted previously the stationing of troops over a wide area in small detachments, because individually they would be more vulnerable to being attacked and overrun. But doing this made it easier to intercept insurgents, work with and gain the confidence of the local population. Ultimately, it led to a huge reduction in US and Iraqi civilian casualties and the killing or capturing of large numbers of insurgents and Al Quada members.
Why don't Republicans give a straight answer to these questions?
They have time and again, but liberals refuse to listen to or acknowledge such answers.
Until a straight answer without spin is given, defenders of the War in Iraq are Republican lackeys, spreading propaganda and misinformation.
Talk about spin.
Here's some straight talk from Bill Clinton:
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.