“White House aides meanwhile shied away from the question of whether Iraq was better off, 10 years after the United States launched an invasion on the grounds of eradicating weapons of mass destruction which were never found. ‘I think historians have to make the judgment,’ White House spokesman Jay Carney said. ‘I think that ridding the world of Saddam Hussein was a welcome development for the world and for Iraq, but again, the president opposed the policy, as candidate, of invading Iraq and as a candidate for president as well.’ US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel acknowledged the huge human toll the conflict had taken on the Iraqi people.”
Related posts:
Family of bystander killed during high-speed police chase sues police
Rio police tear gas thousands at protest demanding health care and education
Police Chief Arrested After Soliciting Cop Posing Online As 14-Year-Old
Will NYC Get Its First Bitcoin ATM in 2014?
Crime Lab Scandal Leaves Mass. Legal System In Turmoil
Can Government Officials Have You Arrested for Speaking to Them?
Moody’s considers downgrading top US banks
First-ever cyberattack on US election points to broad vulnerabilities
Gov't rules Amish family must connect to public sewer, use electricity
‘Utter chaos’: ICE arrests 114 in immigration raid at Ohio gardening company
How CEOs are clueless about technology
Vast Greek war claims against Germany explode like a 'time-bomb'
Silicon Valley can’t keep up with Korea’s financial revolution
Spanish Pension Raids Spell Bad News for Bond Sales
Canada launches mission to map, claim North Pole