2020 is the new 2003.
The so-called architect of the Iraq War says Trump would undermine U.S. credibility in the world.
If there's anyone who can work on Trump's hair, it's this guy.
Well I've been thinking 'bout all the people we've shot and bombed, and all the dummies we tricked and conned. With a dictator we made so scary, armed with weapons imaginary.
Presidential candidate Jeb Bush has confessed, given what we know now, he would not have authorized the invasion of Iraq, as his brother did. A politician with integrity should have followed that comment with an apology to the Iraqi people.
The war in Afghanistan is now in its fifteenth year, making it the longest war in our history. By turning from fighting the terrorists in Afghanistan who attacked us, to Iraq, which had not, President George W. Bush did not "keep us safe.
Could it possibly be that a Bush III administration will revive the use of torture against the Islamic state, an organization that owes its existence to the U.S.'s disastrous occupation of Iraq? And so our country prepares to wrong the wrongs of the past.
If anything, Trump is possibly the most liberal conservative the GOP has seen in decades.
While the twenty-something other candidates who make up the rest of the GOP field are all fighting over those who agree with neo-cons, Senator Paul figures he can nab the rest -- the growing number of GOP voters who reject neo-con ventures in the Middle East.
Nothing illustrates better the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the Republican war hawks who call themselves presidential candidates than their attempts to whitewash the history of how this nation went to war in Iraq.
The U.S. has the most powerful military in the history of the world, but it should not be utilized as a political tool or for retribution. The government and its leaders must do their best to make the right decisions, to be truthful with the American people, and to provide all the necessary support needed to fulfill the military's mission. Unfortunately, this has not always been the case.
Jeb Bush finally got his answer right. Bowing to the political correctness of the moment, the aspiring President Bush III fell into line and spoke the magic words. If I knew then what I know now, I would not have launched an invasion of Iraq.
There are strong arguments making the case for the persistence (and indeed the intensification) of U.S. airstrikes against ISIS targets. But equally there are strong arguments, less frequently heard perhaps, for why the United States should not continue, and should certainly not intensify, those airstrikes.
These days, it has become far more difficult to teach the history of America's war in Vietnam because one of the chief lessons of that war we thought we had learned ("No More Vietnams") has been soundly disproven in recent years.
Last week the Sarbanes-Oxley act of 2002 was again in the news. I can't compete with Sarbanes-Oxley. I can't make up stuff this good.
For anyone who served on the ground in Iraq there is something horrifying about the idea of the ideologically blind, strategically ignorant "thinkers" -- Paul Wolfowitz chief among them -- who sent us into a misguided war without a plan to win the peace coming back into office. And yet, Jeb wants to get the gang back together.
Bush delivered his first major foreign policy address on Wednesday in Chicago, where he made the case for increased military
This week we went back to the future as President Obama authorized air strikes in Iraq, along with humanitarian airdrops of food and water to thousands of Yazidis besieged by Islamic State fighters. The White House emphasized the military action's limited scope. "I will not allow the United States to be dragged into fighting another war in Iraq," said the President. But, of course, even though the U.S. formally withdrew our forces from Iraq in 2011, this is not another war; it's a continuation of the Iraq War, which should be renamed The War of Unintended Consequences. Though this week's air strikes, however warranted, should serve as a sobering rebuke to the kind of thinking that led us into Iraq in the first place, the same voices that headed that ill-conceived charge are still front and center -- like Paul Wolfowitz, who on Tuesday claimed that America had "won" the war in Iraq "in 2009." I guess someone forgot to tell Iraq.