And people wil blindly say "Bush did the right thing - it was bad intel and bad generals that caused all the problems."
Well, there was plenty of good intel - including the UN weapons inspectors saying there was zero evidence of a WMD program. And plenty of good generals - advising more troops. And, the UN offering to take on the peacekeeping effort, which we refused.
You can only throw a man so many lifelines before his drowning is his own fault. If the war on terror was a smashing success right now, would Bush be giving all the CREDIT to the generals? LMAO...
Where did you get this from? In any event they were wrong because, again, they did find plenty of WMD's that Saddam was not sposed to have destroyed after GW I(nerve gas and others)-but not near as much as the CIA and others expected to find, and of course no nuclear program of any merit. But to say there was zero is incorrect.
Forget Bush. Just imagine a different situation: If you were running this country who would you put your stock in intelligence wise-the CIA, the British MI, the Russian intelligence service, or the inept, corrupt, UN weapons inspectors who are only shown what dictators want to show them.
