All you anti-Bush folks

[stevelyn]

Remember what Hussein did to the Kurds? Mid-Late 80's?

He gassed them. I have an image etched in my mind's eye that I will never be rid of, an image from Newsweek. A Kurd woman attempting to shield her child from the gas but they both succumbed.

Now, even the right wing finds fault with G.W.
 
I, myself, do not. Count me with the lunatic fringe, I guess, on that count.  G.W. made some hard decisions, ones that no president had the balls to make, previous. G.W. ended Saddam Hussein's reign of gassing women and children. If supporting him put's me on the fringe... so be it.

Mebbe he was feeling guilty because his daddy abandoned them at at the end of GW I when they thought we were going to help them.

He gave us the Patriot Act, the TSA, Homeland Security, and Barack Obama.  His first duty is to the people of the United States.  I don't care what happens to people in Iraq or even Europe.  Just like I don't expect them to care about us.

Chris
 
 
 

I agree.

[SteveT]

For all of Bush's faults, and they were numerous, without him, we would have had Al Gore running the show. Given the choice of having Obama now, or Gore then, I'd take Obama every time. Obama maybe an ineffective narcissist, but at least he hasn't proven himself to be insane (yet).

How did Gore do that?

[TommyGunn]

How did Gore do that?

He opened his mouth. 

[longeyes]

Warrantless wiretapping.  Being groped just to partake in air transportation.  Layers upon layers of new bureacuracy, regulations, and laws.  Creeping incrementalisim of the word "terror" being attached to more and more crimes (and along with it, the loss of due process). And the growth of the police state.  Huge increases in the welfare state.
And before Obama's drunken orgy of a spending spree, Bush and the Congress were spending us down the path of indentured Chinese servitude.

I would argue the most nefarious of Bush's follies was actually his both public and corporate welfare sprees.  Increases to Medicare and Chip, as well as TARP.  Those things make slaves of the taxpayer classes, pure and simple.

Bush was elected to stop liberalism.  He didn't do that; what he did was to give liberalism new cover.  We had a serious energy problem when he took office yet he showed no serious leadership on that front, probably because of his "personal connections."  
We could have had a hundred nuclear reactors operating by now.  He got us into two diversionary wars after 9/11, neither of which go to the heart of the islamist threat; meanwhile he worked overtime, through the State Dept., to "spread democracy," not only abroad but right here in the heartland (refugee resettlement).  And the border?  Nada.  Anyone want to wager a body count on how many illegal aliens entered the U.S. during Bush's eight years in office and how many children they had and how many family members joined them?  Bush's liberalism was the inheritance of his dad's NWO agenda and the sentimentalism of his upbringing.

[MillCreek]

^^^^ I think you mean your first word to be 'Bush', not 'Nixon'.

[longeyes]

Thanks, you are right, I have corrected that.  I was simultaneously engaged in an exchange of e-mails with someone about Watergate and whether the media would have applied the same elevated journalistic ethics to a sitting Democratic President.

[TommyGunn]

Bush was elected to stop liberalism.  He didn't do that; what he did was to give liberalism new cover.  We had a serious energy problem when he took office yet he showed no serious leadership on that front, probably because of his "personal connections."  
We could have had a hundred nuclear reactors operating by now.  He got us into two diversionary wars after 9/11, neither of which go to the heart of the islamist threat; meanwhile he worked overtime, through the State Dept., to "spread democracy," not only abroad but right here in the heartland (refugee resettlement).  And the border?  Nada.  Anyone want to wager a body count on how many illegal aliens entered the U.S. during Bush's eight years in office and how many children they had and how many family members joined them?  Bush's liberalism was the inheritance of his dad's NWO agenda and the sentimentalism of his upbringing.

I would like to know just how the A'stan war was "diversionary??"  Al Qaeda was operating from there and being sheltered by the Taliban.  That was the one truly necessary war.
I understand the problem with Iraq.  I bought into that too when it started because of the WMDs but we know that excuse fizzled.  The problem was since we "broke" Iraq, we had to "fix" it, and doing that has been far too costly.
A lot of the other stuff I don't have a really big "problem" with....but I somehow missed the part where Dubya got elected to "stop liberalism."   I never thought he'd be able to do that, even at the time he was elected......

[longeyes]

Diversionary because the problem with the Islamists didn't originate in Afghanistan; because most of the 9/11 perps were Saudis.  It's easier to show force in Iraq and Afghanistan than deal with the profound clash of religious cultures and civilizations.  While brave Americans were fighting--with indifferent success but at considerable cost in blood and treasdure--in two theaters of war in the Middle East, our President was winking at Wahhabism and permitting thousands of mosques teaching hostile doctrine to be built around America.  I know you don't want to hear this, but try refuting it.

Why do you think Bush was elected?  Because a lot of voters were fed up with the liberalism represented by Clinton and those around him, less the economics--though they should have been--than a host of other issues that voters recognized, if only intuitively, were changing America in ways they didn't approve of.  Bush was viewed as moderate to conservative.  Ten years later: all the stuff that Bush was elected to at least blunt has become fully ripe in Obama and Obamaism.

[MillCreek]

our President was winking at Wahhabism and permitting thousands of mosques teaching hostile doctrine to be built around America.  I know you don't want to hear this, but try refuting it.

I would like to know your thoughts as to how any President can prevent this, in a way that passes Constitutional muster.

[roo_ster]

I would like to know your thoughts as to how any President can prevent this, in a way that passes Constitutional muster.

He could have refused entry to Saudis & wahabbis and their monies for jihadi recruitment centers (AKA, Saudi financed mosques--one a few miles east of me).

IOW, border control, for both humans and monies.  We did similar things during the Cold War with particular countries & ideologies.

[TommyGunn]

Diversionary because the problem with the Islamists didn't originate in Afghanistan; because most of the 9/11 perps were Saudis.  It's easier to show force in Iraq and Afghanistan than deal with the profound clash of religious cultures and civilizations.  While brave Americans were fighting--with indifferent success but at considerable cost in blood and treasdure--in two theaters of war in the Middle East, our President was winking at Wahhabism and permitting thousands of mosques teaching hostile doctrine to be built around America.  I know you don't want to hear this, but try refuting it.

Why do you think Bush was elected?  Because a lot of voters were fed up with the liberalism represented by Clinton and those around him, less the economics--though they should have been--than a host of other issues that voters recognized, if only intuitively, were changing America in ways they didn't approve of.  Bush was viewed as moderate to conservative.  Ten years later: all the stuff that Bush was elected to at least blunt has become fully ripe in Obama and Obamaism.

"Diversionary because the problem with the Islamists didn't originate in Afghanistan; because most of the 9/11 perps were Saudis."

  Well, I suppose this is true. 
Many were Saudis.  I've heard this before.
But, do you really expect that we should have attacked Saudi Arabia?  Or that doing so would have been justified?  Were those "Saudis" acting as agents of, or on behalf of, Saudi Arabia?
Clearly, no, they were not.  Therefore attacking S.A. would never have been justified.
The terrorists may have been Saudis.  They may also have been Yemenis, or Iraqis, of Turks, or Brazilians, or Klingons (this is intended as sarcasm and is not intended to impugn all Klingons as terrorists).  Despite their soveirign heritage the 9/11 terrs were acting on behalf of Al Qaeda, and thus we must deal with AQ.

"It's easier to show force in Iraq and Afghanistan than deal with the profound clash of religious cultures and civilizations."     I am not sure I know what THIS means.  Lots of cultures and religions have "clashed"  that always was and always will be.  A'stan was a necessary war and it remains so.  AQ remains a threat; weakened, perhaps, diminished, maybe.   But that small part of Islam that wants us exterminated must still be dealt with.  And A'stan is part of the problem, and now Pakistan is also part of the problem ..... and no I have no easy answer for that.  Well, I do.  Just not one that the powers that be would ever accept as reasonable, despite how many American lives might be saved.

"While brave Americans were fighting--with indifferent success but at considerable cost in blood and treasdure--in two theaters of war in the Middle East, our President was winking at Wahhabism and permitting thousands of mosques teaching hostile doctrine to be built around America.  I know you don't want to hear this, but try refuting it."

I suppose you would expect him to have sent the 82nd Airborne into American mosques after our own wahabists?  Wow, that would have gone over so well with many in the civil rights arena --- even those in conservative circles.
The lefties would whine about American Einsatzgruppen busting into sacred religious centers and the conservatives would scream over the extinction of Posse Comitatus.
Even FBI scrutiny of these places has come under serious scrutiny ... unfortunatly.
The president is not all-powerful.  And despite the characterization foisted on Dubya, he was never Americanishe Hitler.


"Bush was viewed as moderate to conservative.  Ten years later: all the stuff that Bush was elected to at least blunt has become fully ripe in Obama and Obamaism."

Huh?  Obama was elected because ,  in the midst of a serious economic downturn, people were sick & tired of Bush and wanted the "hopey-changey" stuff -- and got it.
Bush was never a true conservative.  He was never a leader in the conservative field, he was a republican.  Nothing really more than that.  He grew government light prior to 2006 and didn't fight the libs hard enough after the demorats took over.  Obama is of a wholly DIFFERENT ilk.  He is a leftie, a Keynesian, a nominal socialist, who if anything has been forced to temper his ideology by realpolitik concerns. 

[seeker_two]

Here's the main question.....does one combat the new face of terrorism by using the same tactics used in prior wars (large armies, invasions, curbing civil liberties, etc.)?.....or does one adapt to the new kind of warfare and act accordingly (covert actions, special warfare, spycraft, counterterrorism) while still upholding the ideas and liberties for which the terrorists target us?.....

This is the new face of war.....time to quit fighting the old ones.....

[TommyGunn]

That is a good question, Seeker Two .... I think Dubya had an idea when all this started it wasn't going to be a "normal" war, ie., one between two soveirign nations.  I think he realized that would mean it would be fought over a long period of time.
That doesn't mean I think we've been doing a stupendously aggressive job, and while I agree we've suffered some civil rights erosion (primarily in airports and some 4th amendment problems: the "sneak & peak" provisions), I also happen to view the war as serious and the threat posed by the Islamonazis to be very serious and real.
Doesn't mean I have brilliant answers for the whole thing .... just examining the whol **** mess and praying we come out the right side .....

[longeyes]

"Diversionary because the problem with the Islamists didn't originate in Afghanistan; because most of the 9/11 perps were Saudis."

  Well, I suppose this is true.  
Many were Saudis.  I've heard this before.
But, do you really expect that we should have attacked Saudi Arabia?  Or that doing so would have been justified?  Were those "Saudis" acting as agents of, or on behalf of, Saudi Arabia?
Clearly, no, they were not.  Therefore attacking S.A. would never have been justified.
The terrorists may have been Saudis.  They may also have been Yemenis, or Iraqis, of Turks, or Brazilians, or Klingons (this is intended as sarcasm and is not intended to impugn all Klingons as terrorists).  Despite their soveirign heritage the 9/11 terrs were acting on behalf of Al Qaeda, and thus we must deal with AQ.

Follow the money.  So long as the right pockets remain filled, our government will find ways of fighting Everyone But The Real Threats.  Who are the real threats?  The entities with the military capability to offer true existential danger to the U.S. and its way of life.  Iran.  Pakistan.  Entities with the capability to subvert the core values of the Republic and destroy us from inside as well as bankroll the asymmetric paramilitary groups hostile to us.  Saudi Arabia.

[longeyes]

"It's easier to show force in Iraq and Afghanistan than deal with the profound clash of religious cultures and civilizations."     I am not sure I know what THIS means.  Lots of cultures and religions have "clashed"  that always was and always will be.  A'stan was a necessary war and it remains so.  AQ remains a threat; weakened, perhaps, diminished, maybe.   But that small part of Islam that wants us exterminated must still be dealt with.  And A'stan is part of the problem, and now Pakistan is also part of the problem ..... and no I have no easy answer for that.  Well, I do.  Just not one that the powers that be would ever accept as reasonable, despite how many American lives might be saved.

Afghanistan was never a threat to the U.S.  But Pakistan is.  If you truly want to neutralize Afghanistan get ready to occupy that nation; that will take a monumental American conscription.  And it will still fail.  You are not going to change a tribal culture that is millennia old; you can, however, make sure they are "quarantined" and innocuous.

There is only one issue that matters with Pakistan: making sure they can't use their nuclear weapons.  How do we do that?  I don't know.   No doubt others do.  Perhaps sabotaging their delivery systems.  Hacking into their computers.  Bribing the right military people.  Making sure they don't fund other dangerous Islamist forces.

[longeyes]

"While brave Americans were fighting--with indifferent success but at considerable cost in blood and treasdure--in two theaters of war in the Middle East, our President was winking at Wahhabism and permitting thousands of mosques teaching hostile doctrine to be built around America.  I know you don't want to hear this, but try refuting it."

I suppose you would expect him to have sent the 82nd Airborne into American mosques after our own wahabists?  Wow, that would have gone over so well with many in the civil rights arena --- even those in conservative circles.
The lefties would whine about American Einsatzgruppen busting into sacred religious centers and the conservatives would scream over the extinction of Posse Comitatus.
Even FBI scrutiny of these places has come under serious scrutiny ... unfortunatly.
The president is not all-powerful.  And despite the characterization foisted on Dubya, he was never Americanishe Hitler.

No, the 82nd isn't needed; what is needed is clarity about who and what poses the threat.  Maybe honesty about Wahhabism instead of fatuous rationalizations--outright lies--that remain official DHS doctrine right up until the present day, subverting everything we do to defend ourselves.  Maybe I wouldn't be confusing religious freedom with disseminating ideas antithetical to everything we hold sacred as a nation and culture?  Maybe I wouldn't be letting the State Dept., with its dubious motives and missions (and this is an old, old story) continue to place foreign priorities over our own, importing thousands of students and refugees from terror-sponsoring nations without any Congressional or public oversight or vetting?

No one wanted Bush to be Hitler.  We did want him to be armed with more than sanctimonious and self-serving platitudes.

[longeyes]

"Bush was viewed as moderate to conservative.  Ten years later: all the stuff that Bush was elected to at least blunt has become fully ripe in Obama and Obamaism."

Huh?  Obama was elected because ,  in the midst of a serious economic downturn, people were sick & tired of Bush and wanted the "hopey-changey" stuff -- and got it.
Bush was never a true conservative.  He was never a leader in the conservative field, he was a republican.  Nothing really more than that.  He grew government light prior to 2006 and didn't fight the libs hard enough after the demorats took over.  Obama is of a wholly DIFFERENT ilk.  He is a leftie, a Keynesian, a nominal socialist, who if anything has been forced to temper his ideology by realpolitik concerns.

Of course Bush was never a true conservative; that was my point.  But he pretended to be one and many people in this country, in government and in the media, reinforced that fantasy. Bush is at most a liberal Republican, at worse a regent of the New World Order so cherished by his father.  I never said Bush and Obama were kissin' cousins philosophically, but one global autocrat isn't so different from another global autocrat.  I believe overtime we will see that they aren't quite as different as some would like to think and that both work for the same people who figured so prominently in the Crash of 2008, with its repercussions for the last election, and who are hard at work today saving the world for autocracy.

[TommyGunn]

Afghanistan was never a threat to the U.S.  But Pakistan is.  If you truly want to neutralize Afghanistan get ready to occupy that nation; that will take a monumental American conscription.  And it will still fail.  You are not going to change a tribal culture that is millennia old; you can, however, make sure they are "quarantined" and innocuous.

There is only one issue that matters with Pakistan: making sure they can't use their nuclear weapons.  How do we do that?  I don't know.   No doubt others do.  Perhaps sabotaging their delivery systems.  Hacking into their computers.  Bribing the right military people.  Making sure they don't fund other dangerous Islamist forces.

Wow.  It was from A'stan that Al Qaeda launched the 9/11 attack.  It was being harbored by the Taliban. 
That's like saying Japan wasn't a threat to the U.S. in WW2 .....
I can tell you how to handle Pakistan's nukes .... but it will never matter, 'cause we'll never do it.

No, the 82nd isn't needed; what is needed is clarity about who and what poses the threat.  Maybe honesty about Wahhabism instead of fatuous rationalizations--outright lies--that remain official DHS doctrine right up until the present day, subverting everything we do to defend ourselves.  Maybe I wouldn't be confusing religious freedom with disseminating ideas antithetical to everything we hold sacred as a nation and culture?  Maybe I wouldn't be letting the State Dept., with its dubious motives and missions (and this is an old, old story) continue to place foreign priorities over our own, importing thousands of students and refugees from terror-sponsoring nations without any Congressional or public oversight or vetting?

No one wanted Bush to be Hitler.  We did want him to be armed with more than sanctimonious and self-serving platitudes.

You realize  the F.B.I. does domestic surveillance, right?   
I do not know if they're doing a great job, or whatever .... I do know they DO NOT ADVERTISE what they are actively engaged in.
Several domestic terror plots have been defused.  One has to wonder about what was behind all of those attempts.... what undercover work was being done, what surveillance techniques, etc.
 
"Maybe honesty about Wahhabism instead of fatuous rationalizations--outright lies--that remain official DHS doctrine right up until the present day, subverting everything we do to defend ourselves."

I agree with you here 100% but as I pointed out above I don't think we're anywhere near a point of desperation ... yet.

Follow the money.  So long as the right pockets remain filled, our government will find ways of fighting Everyone But The Real Threats.  Who are the real threats?  The entities with the military capability to offer true existential danger to the U.S. and its way of life.  Iran.  Pakistan.  Entities with the capability to subvert the core values of the Republic and destroy us from inside as well as bankroll the asymmetric paramilitary groups hostile to us.  Saudi Arabia.

We're not going to fight Saudia Arabia, and I have seen no evidence to prove that the 9/11 terrorists were acting as agents of or were military operatives acting under orders from Saidia Arabia.   You  CANNOT attack a country simply because some of it's citizens went koookooo for kokopuffs and joined in a terrorist conspiracy to attack America.  It is not going to happen. 
Iran is a threat, but they have not launched any overt act on us.  Would you attack them?   They have an active nuke program, and while that is going to be a threat, we don't have the cojones to take it out, and it would be a major undertaking to do so.  Obama sure isn's going to do it.  If he does it the way he's handling Libya it won't work anyway.   

Of course Bush was never a true conservative; that was my point.  But he pretended to be one and many people in this country, in government and in the media, reinforced that fantasy. Bush is at most a liberal Republican, at worse a regent of the New World Order so cherished by his father.  I never said Bush and Obama were kissin' cousins philosophically, but one global autocrat isn't so different from another global autocrat.  I believe overtime we will see that they aren't quite as different as some would like to think and that both work for the same people who figured so prominently in the Crash of 2008, with its repercussions for the last election, and who are hard at work today saving the world for autocracy.

Shrubbie and the 'bamster are hardly "close" to each other at all.  The only reason they might appear so is that Obama has been hit in the face with "realpolitik" --- when he took office he realized he WASN'T going to "LOSE" a war.  He wasn't going to close Gitmo; despite sanctimonious, edealistic promises made in the election campaign it hit him there is not good solution for those detainees; they're dangerous and need to be confined.
The one good thing about Shrubbie is he was neither Kerry or Gore; both of those would have been utter horrors as president. 
The bad thing about Shrubbie is he wasn't Ronald Reagan.
But, then, there was only one of those.  There were two Bushies. 

[longeyes]

Didn't say attack S. Arabia.  Please note.  Said don't pretend they are what they aren't and aren't doing what they're doing.  Big diff.  If we're going to deal with the terror problem seriously, we have to be serious.  Let's get real.  I realize this interferes with various financial agendas by people of great power and moment.  It is what it is.

Al-Qaeda has limited resources to attack inside the U.S. without the active neglect--note paradox--of people in our gov't who should know better and should be doing a better job.  If the State Dept. keeps acting according to its own lights and maintains its agenda you can expect small-scale terrorism inside the U.S. borders to become a serious problem.  Anyone care?  I mean enough to challenge the right people in the right way.

Al-Qaeda is not and was not Japan in 1941.  Al-Qaeda gets aid and funding from terror-sponsoring states and organizations both outside and inside our scope of operations.  Identify and neutralize.

You say we're not near a point of desperation.  Well, thank God for that, but we are at a point where we have a mosque going up near Ground Zero, endowed chairs at Harvard, and thousands of madrassas across America.  That ought to be an issue of public debate in America, but it's not. Why not?

We'll continue to disagree on Bush and Obama.  That they appear radically different is obvious, but somehow the same financial honchos seem to run both administrations.  Odd, that.  Very odd.

[TommyGunn]

Didn't say attack S. Arabia.  Please note.  Said don't pretend they are what they aren't and aren't doing what they're doing.  Big diff.  If we're going to deal with the terror problem seriously, we have to be serious.  Let's get real.  I realize this interferes with various financial agendas by people of great power and moment.  It is what it is.

Al-Qaeda has limited resources to attack inside the U.S. without the active neglect--note paradox--of people in our gov't who should know better and should be doing a better job.  If the State Dept. keeps acting according to its own lights and maintains its agenda you can expect small-scale terrorism inside the U.S. borders to become a serious problem.  Anyone care?  I mean enough to challenge the right people in the right way.

The southern border has been a problem for decades.  You're right that we will likely be experiencing terrorism in our borders .... I don't know how "small-scale" it will be.  This problem does not mitigate against dealing with AQ in other lands, however.
I have little hope our govt. is ever going to do anything about the border since the immigration issue is such a tendentious issue, and both parties are intransigently against effective measures, prefering only making a "show" of adding a few border giards here and there, and a partial, rather inept fence.  I doubt much less than rebellion would motivate the government toward real reform.
The only real hope I have is that the American people remain armed in their own defense .... to the degree it will help, which may be minimal at best.  How do you shoot a guy who is intent on planting a biological weapon?  You have to identify the perpetrator first, and they are hardly going to wear a uniform or a neon sign saying "I AM A TERRORIST WHO IS PLANTING A SARIN GAS DISPENSER" on his body.

Al-Qaeda is not and was not Japan in 1941.  Al-Qaeda gets aid and funding from terror-sponsoring states and organizations both outside and inside our scope of operations.  Identify and neutralize.

Well, I never said AQ and Japan were the "same thing."  Only in principle; both entities attacked us in an act of war.  One is a soveirign country, the other a terrorist group.  A more appropriate comparison would perhaps be the Barbary Pirates of the early 19th cenury. But we still dealt with them with military force.
We have done some things to attack AQ funding, but not enough, no doubt.

You say we're not near a point of desperation.  Well, thank God for that, but we are at a point where we have a mosque going up near Ground Zero, endowed chairs at Harvard, and thousands of madrassas across America.  That ought to be an issue of public debate in America, but it's not. Why not?

We'll continue to disagree on Bush and Obama.  That they appear radically different is obvious, but somehow the same financial honchos seem to run both administrations.  Odd, that.  Very odd.

 I know we have some madrasses here, but, I doubt the number is in the thousands. 
As for Obama retaining Shrub's financial trolls, I sincerely think Obama had no good, intelligent  economic policies himself -- beyond his Keynesian programming, and retained them because he had no one he knew in his own camp to appoint.  Or something similar.

[longeyes]

I wasn't talking about the southern border; we already know THAT's a huge problem, and one more thing Bush wouldn't deal with.  I was talking about, among other things, the State Dept.'s benign "seeding" of America with people, all for the most enlightened purposes of course, who pose a threat to our society.  Ever examined the refugee resettlement business?  Yes, it's a business, involving hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money being funneled to groups with agendas of their own--yes, NGOs and charities--and all of this kept behind the curtain.

There are a lot more mosques and madrassas in America than you are aware of, and it would be a good thing to know what's being taught and said there.   

[TommyGunn]

I wasn't talking about the southern border; we already know THAT's a huge problem, and one more thing Bush wouldn't deal with.  I was talking about, among other things, the State Dept.'s benign "seeding" of America with people, all for the most enlightened purposes of course, who pose a threat to our society.  Ever examined the refugee resettlement business?   Yes, it's a business, involving hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money being funneled to groups with agendas of their own--yes, NGOs and charities--and all of this kept behind the curtain.

There are a lot more mosques and madrassas in America than you are aware of, and it would be a good thing to know what's being taught and said there.   

   Oh. 
Really, you need to be a little more specific.  I am not a mindreader and that is not the "gist" I got from your post.

[longeyes]

Sorry, but I thought my reference to Dept. of State was a clue.  I am not blaming them for the southern border fiasco.  Yet.  We know that the southern border problem lies with Dems who want future voters, corporations that want cheap labor, and nice middle-class Americans who just want their gardens and kiddies tended to.

[henschman]

The Kurds were gassed in 1988.  The know-how for the chemical weapons that were used were given to Iraq by the United States, to help them in their war against Iran, who we didn't like because they had just recently kicked out the authoritarian puppet leader we had installed in their country (the Shah).  The massacre of the Kurds was more or less glossed over in 1988, because the US government was giving a lot of support to Iraq.  Somehow, people used this massacre as justification to attack Iraq 14 years later, in 2003. 

[Perd Hapley]

So you complain that it was glossed over, then complain when it is not. The sort of logical legerdemain we have come to expect from those who carp about the second Iraq war.