Quote:
Originally posted by SykkBoy@Jun 1 2003, 01:18 AM
This is what cracks me up about politics....
if Clinton had done the same thing, the repubs would be bitching too...
|
agreed! thats politics... and i personally dont believe that either side is more right or wrong than the other because they cannot exist without each other.
BUT the side pointing fingers also has the burden of backing up their comments and remarks and supporting them with stronger arguments.
Bush may be a turd, but i think that its a losing argument to try to say he "lied" to decieve the American public into backing a war against Iraq.
Personally, i find it to be a very offensive suggestion since it implies that the majority of the American public are just stupid and were tricked into believing that a guy who supported terrorists, attacked two neighbors, used chemical and biological weapons, refused to disarm, refused to cooperate with the UN for 12 years, committed genocide on many levels, murdered 100's of thousands of his own people is actually a threat.
I am sorry, but i am not one of those who feels raped.
certainly not a big stretch of the imagination. i am still trying to understand where the deception or "lie" is.
the track record is long and clear. the chronology of events speaks for itself. Saddams behavior and history speaks for itself. genocide speaks for itself. gassing 10's of 1000's of people speaks for itself. shooting into crowds with machine guns from helicopters and fighter jets speaks for itself. firing chemical warheads at Iran speaks for itself. 39 missiles fired at Isreal speaks for itself.
the total amount of weapons and weapons programs that are not accounted for is staggering. his use of those weapons is fact. iraqs refusal to answer these questions or account for them to the UN and was demanded of them for 12 years is not in question. Iraqs refusal to cooperate with the UN is not in question. Iraqs lies, deception and games for 12 years is not in question.
so where is the "deception"
anyone that feels decieved.. is correct. they are decieved. 100% deceived. they have lied to themselves.
Did Powell go to the UN and "overstate the threat"? who knows? its purely subjective. RawAlex thought it would be a war that would be the "bloodiest war in 50 years" as he said. Others thought it would last a couple weeks. Unfortuneately you dont have clear answers until after the fact. Was Osama an immenent threat to the safety and security of the US? depends on when you ask.... 9/10 or 9/11. How do you properly assign a value to a threat based on purely hypothetical possibilities and possible scenarios? you cant. all you can do is put a bunch of people in a room that are charged with providing for our protection and security and have them make a decision. It was not "Bushs" decision ya know. It was the decision of his entire cabinet, of The Senate, Of Congress... of Democrats and Republicans.