Who were the bids supposed to go to, the French who actually thwarted the whole process and snuck under the sanctions and oil for food program in the past, rejected the entire idea of removing Saddam, and then after he is gone they suddenly step up for a bid when it comes time for their contractors to make money? That takes a lot of nerve, but then again, that's the French. Why would the US spend money and watch that money go into the pockets of other countries? I don't remember the UN itself offering to pay for reconstruction.If Bush truly wanted to build a democratic Iraq, he had the ability to prevent Cheney from nickel and diming the post war process.
That's true, and Iraq was meant to be a warning shot to Iran.I've seen plenty to suggest that Iran is responsible for exporting terrorism as opposed to Iraq.
He didn't intentionally do that, and I explained this in detail in my last post. It just didn't work out the way they thought.So why did Bush help Iran out?
I think that the conclusion after mass graves and chemical weapons against the Kurds and Shias, was that this was never going to happen. There were years of no fly zones and other measures, and they never worked. Pussy tactics never seemed to work. In fact, the sanctions and oil for foodprogram attempt only ended up starving Iraqis, and I doubt they were Sunni Iraqis that starved, they were Kurd and Shia Iraqis that starved, because Saddam was smart enough to use tough times to consolidate his power and use what little resources that came in to go to Sunnis and thereby starving Kurds and Shias who were his enemy anyway. So liberal, and intellectual, but naive Americans who preferred sanctions as opposed to attack, actually played right into his hands. The sanctions and oil for food program played right into his hands and the suffering of his Iraqi enemies could all be blamed on the US instead of him. So the US ended up doing the dirty work for him, while the French and Russians snuck underneath these sanctions and even gave him money that nobody even knew he had, while his Iraqi Shias and Kurds starved and the US gets blamed for it. Sometimes, I have no idea why liberals are actually considered "intellectuals". If being naive was measured on an intellect test, the "intellectuals" would fail miserably. All book smart and concept smart, but no true understanding of what people will actually do, because they have nothing but book smarts and theoretical smarts.Better to have kept Saddam constrained with North and South no fly zones. If Saddam had been overthrown from within there would still have been huge casualties, as there are in Syria, but the US and the UK would not have taken the blame.