George F. Will: Rescuing U.S. citizens from the consequences of U.S. policy

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Jack Aurora, CO
    June 18, 2014 8:35 p.m.

    @GaryO, No,I mean the chemical weapons my unit we didn't find them? Says who? Someone who wasn't there, like you? That intel was from several sources, the Brits and Germany to name a couple. They were there with us in 2003, along with Canada, Japan, Poland, Georgia and many others......

    France? We caught them red handed subverting the embargo on Iraq to contain Saddam, which allowed him to amass loads of cash and weapons despite the sanctions and the no-fly zone, which Saddam also thumbed his nose at by shooting at our patrol aircraft.... remember? Oh, that's right, you weren't there so you couldn't remember.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    June 18, 2014 4:44 a.m.

    I always found it "interesting" that George pulled the inspection teams searching for WMDs out of Iraq, and launched his invasion and occupation of the country, just when those teams were about to report that they found no WMDs. "Interesting" timing that. I guess he just didn't want to lose his excuse to attack. And now Iraq is turning out to be George's gift that just keeps on giving. It's too bad that we can't be rescued from the consequences of George's so-called policy.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    June 17, 2014 9:16 p.m.

    Jack -

    Yes Jack Really.

    Although Saddam did have chemical and biological weapons a decade earlier, they were long gone before GW decided to attack, occupy, and destroy Iraq.

    Sure, there was some yellow cake uranium lying around that wouldn't even make a decent dirty bomb, and there might have been a few gas shells lost and buried in the sand somewhere, but there were no VIABLE WMD's that Iraq could have used against us.

    " . . . most of the free world intelligence agencies believed Saddam had nuclear and biological weapons . . ."

    No they didn't. That's why we couldn't get the coalition of nations we wanted to back our hand. That's why the Bush administration was so angry with France. The French and other Western nations wisely wouldn't buy GW's half-baked stories about WMD's threatening the West.

  • Jack Aurora, CO
    June 17, 2014 8:05 p.m.

    @GaryO - really? so those chemical weapons we found in Iraq and those Saddam shipped to Syria that are now being used to kill civilians are just a figment of imagination? I haven't been able to figure out how they weren't WMDs in Iraq, but they were in Syria.....Care to enlighten us?

    You keep leaving out the facts that most of the free world intelligence agencies believed Saddam had nuclear and biological weapons, is that just another unwarranted shot at Mr Bush? All the MSNBC accusations about "Bush lied" don't make them true. You can have at Mssrs Rumsfeld and Feith as they showed themselves unqualified for the job, but accusing someone of lying needs more evidence than just talking heads rambling.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    June 17, 2014 8:27 a.m.

    This op-ed is ridiculous, another neo-con shot at the President. Is he saying we should have invaded Libya up front? Or is he saying we should have done nothing at all? I assume it is the former, because other countries led on Libya. (I'm not sure why we always have to do it). How many Americans lost their lives in that campaign. None, I believe.

    As for the Benghazi committee, Will wants to expand its mission beyond its stated purpose, to delve into bigger issues, presumably in another effort to undermine the Administration. This phony reliance on principle was never present when Bush was President, was it Mr. Will? Nor when Reagan was President and similar problems in the Middle East were going on. The hypocrisy knows no bounds when it comes to the attacks on the current President.

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    June 17, 2014 4:00 a.m.

    "...Given the absence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, and given that we now know how little we know about "nation-building" and about the promotion of democracy in nations that need to be "built," and given that Saddam Hussein's horrific tyranny at least controlled Iraq's sectarian furies, and given that Iraq under him was Iran's adversary, and given that 10-year wars make Americans indiscriminately averse to military undertakings — given all this, if you could rewind history to March 2003, would you favor invading Iraq?...".


  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    June 16, 2014 8:55 p.m.

    I'm glad that George didn't just speak on Libya, but rather go so far back as to ask if we'd want to invade Iraq knowing then what we do now.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    June 16, 2014 8:35 p.m.

    George Will is ignoring the fact that the Bush administration misled Congress and the American people into believing Iraq was preparing WMD's to be used against us.

    And WE the People, including Hillary Clinton, made the mistake of believing the Republican Bush administration.

    "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
    - Dick Cheney August 26, 2002

    "Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."
    -George W. Bush September 12, 2002

    "We do know that the Iraqi regime has chemical and biological weapons. His regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons -- including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas. ... His regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of biological weapons—including anthrax and botulism toxin, and possibly smallpox."
    - 09/18/2002, Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense (before Congress)

    " . . . we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
    - Condie Rice

    Knowing now that what the Bush administration was saying was completely untrue, almost all of us who were fooled would not want the US to attack Iraq if we had it to do all over again.