Quote:
|
Originally Posted by spence
If you're plan is to justify the war because the French and Hillary Clinton thought Saddam was a bad guy, I'm going to fall off my chair laughing.
What other nations thought about Iraq is really moot. You might notice that while they viewed Saddam as enough of a threat to vote for Res 1441 they didn't think there was enough conclusive evidence to go to war over it. Support was so weak Bush didn't even go for a second resolution to authorize the war as he promised he would.
Sure, we all agreed Saddam was a threat to be dealt with, but justification for urgent and immediate invasion was supported by an emotional gorilla marketing pitch that the facts today are confirming was not an honest depiction of current intelligence.
If the DIA writes a report stating that they don't believe our witness to Saddam alQaida links is telling the truth, and the Administration says it is regardless...that's not being honest.
If CIA reports on Saddam's nuclear program prove inconclusive, yet it's stated as fact that it's real...that's not being honest.
The ultimate decision to portray Iraq's threat in this manner was the lone action of the Bush Administration. Dissenting opinions that didn't support the case for war were blatantly ignored. Hearsay and speculation was passed to the American people and Congress as hard FACT. They asked for the keys doing their best to not slur speech, then sped away drunk ala Cary Grant in North By Northwest.
Congress provided poor oversight in the run up to the war, but there's no reason to impede the Senate Phase 2 investigation and finish the job. If Bush and Company did the American people due diligence and presented an accurate and honest depiction...they have nothing to fear.
Unfortunately one of the War's chief architects has already been indicted 5 times for lying about it 
If you don't believe the case against the Bush Administration is real, take some time and read about it    
-spence |
Holy crap - you're wearing me out.
The case for war was much much more than him being a bad guy - but isn't that why we attacked Germany years ago?
You said it yourself - there was a perceived and actual threat and we acted on it.
Sorry but my feeling at that time and at the present time, as was & is many others, is that the whole 9/11 terrorist situation caused the development of another dimension in our Nation's thinking about self-preservation and defense. It enhanced the "kill or be killed" theory.
Perhaps had 9/11 and its ensuing global terrorist threat explosion not occurred I and others would have felt different.
Simply put, things changed after 20 terrorists attacked our country on behalf of a network of thousands & thousands of members of a multinational terrorist army without uniforms. What had to change was our weak defense philosophy against this army - a philosphy that came from Clinton and his inept attempts to deal with the terrorist threat in a timely manner.
This change caused us to have to deal with the Iraq threat more severely. We did and I am glad we did.
Now, understand that I really am not pleased with Mr. Bush from a conservative perspective. In my opinion he has failed and pandered on many conservative agenda issues that has really pissed me off. That's another topic.
Actually, one example is his persistent statements about how we have freed and helped the Iraqi people. That WAS NOT the reason for this war. Sorry but I reallly do not care about helping them - I care about defending our people. It is not worth losing even ONE of our boys over there just to free them. Bush's attempt to make that part of the war cause makes me sick. Stick to your guns dammit!
Finally, I won't even comment on France's war stances, I heard they just surrendered to themselves in order to stop their riots.
Spence, NO MORE - Truce, I'm tired now.
And I have to attend my local NRA meeting...