It didn't end well, but if any dictator or warlord is ever worth a war to overthrow, Saddam Hussein was.

Is that something the US should be doing? I think not, and it frequently ends badly, but Presidents keep trying. Like Obama in Libya or the elder Bush and Clinton in Somalia and Bosnia.

I agree that Saddam deserved to die. He was a monster who used chemical weapons against his own people. But the premise of the war wasn't "Saddam is bad so we should stop him," it was "Iraq is developing WMDs and is an imminent threat." That, of course, was a lie.

Bosnia was different. Clinton was 100% correct (and too slow) to act, because it was genocide. He already Rwandan blood on his hands by his inaction.

Americans started a war that killed nearly 5 thousand American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of civilians for absolutely nothing. We're all pretty much complicit. If there's any smaller group to be mad at, I'd say it's anybody who didn't oppose that course, but more likely, the U.S. military complex.

Ironically, she didn't catch flack for George being president of the Iraqi war, she caught flack for George's stance on LGBT issues when he was president.

Copy pasting the same comment over and over does not help make your point.

> Americans started a war that killed nearly 5 thousand American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of civilians for absolutely nothing. We're all pretty much complicit.

Not all of us lied to get Congressional authority to use force with explicit conditions, and not all of us declared those conditions to be met and applied the force so authorized in knowing bad faith.

In fact, exactly one of us did that, and his name is George W. Bush.

Whatever guilt anyone else has in that matter is far less.

Presumably because that's something she clearly has an opinion about.