First of all a strong leader makes unpopular decisions, I don't think it can be debated that President Bush has made unpopular decisions. Secondly, the whole cooperation, "we should have waited longer" position is just a Democrat anti-war talking point. Give it a rest. What are the facts?
The War in Iraq started on January 17, 1991 (not debatable)
Iraq accepted a cease-fire agreement on March 3 , 1991 (not debatable)
Congress overwhelmingly passed a new Iraq War Resolution on October 10, 2002 (after 11 years and a multitude of resolutions) stating that restoring peace and security in the Persian Gulf region was a National Security issue, Congress agrees to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations, Iraq is in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations, members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq, Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens, the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime. (not debatable) Kerry VOTED FOR this, which is not debatable.
The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq under Saddam. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. (not debatable)
The Duelfer Report detailed disclosure and documentation of how far France, Russia, and China had benefited from the United Nation’s corrupt Oil-for-Food program. The three countries most supportive of Iraq on the U.N. Security Council. U.N. sanctions were not doing the job of denying him weapons. Through the 1990s, Saddam amassed an estimated $11 billion in revenue outside U.N.- approved methods. Saddam bought support, particularly among French, Russian, and Chinese officials to whom he would donate oil “vouchers” that could be resold for large profits. One recipient was Benon Sevan, former U.N. official in charge of humanitarian relief and the Oil-for-Food program itself. (read the report info)
The Coalition troops (both in Iraq and Kuwait): US-140,000, UK-11,400, Italy-2,700, Poland-2,400, Ukraine-1700, Nehterlands-1,400, Australia-850, Romania-700, South Korea-600 (planned expansion to 3,600), Japan-550, Denmark-496, Bulgaria-485 also El Salvador, Hungary, Mongolia, Portugal, Lithuania....11 more countries with troops around 100 or less.
There are certainly many valid reasons to be anti-war, if you are, just state it as such. We should have waited longer is another weak position against the war. Waited another 10 years? How many more resolutions? Waited for the corrupt government of France? Waited for thousands more Iraqis to die because of the corrupt "oil for food" debacle through the UN? Waiting or more diplomacy as a reason against the deployment doesn't pass the laugh test. Comparisons to the Vietnam war are also absurd, thousands a month returned in body bags, 58,000 US troops were killed, 306,000 wounded - this is no Vietnam. In 19 months, the total approximate coalition fatality count is around 1300 (each one tragic-no doubt). Bottom line is there is a pretty compelling argument for the War if you are willing to look at facts, which is why Kerry voted for it. President Bush made what WAS a relatively popular decision at the time (Gallup 73% in favor 3-2003) and has stuck by it even when it became less popular (Gallup 53% in favor now). In April 2003 76% (Gallup) thought is was worth going to Iraq, now 44% (Gallup). A leader stands by decisions, popular or not, and does not change convictions when the polls turn against it.
