manowar821
Diamond Member
- Mar 1, 2007
- 6,063
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Originally posted by: manowar821
Originally posted by: shira
I don't believe "Bush lied" about Saddam having WMDs. EVERYONE believed Saddam had WMDs.Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
I'm a former Bush supporter, before I found out Bush wasnt a conservative, so now that we have that out of the way...
How did you make the leap from "Bush was seriously mistaken" to "Bush lied" about the WMD situation in Iraq? When I look back at the time before the invasion, it seemed almost a general consensus that Saddam had WMD's, so the debate centered around whether it was worth it to go to war, even if he did have WMD's. I think this group think permeated American society from the man on the street, all the way up to the decision makers in government. I remember every day during the run to Baghdad, it seems they would stumble on a new Iraqi outpost with a bunch of barrels, and everyone was thinking that would be the slam dunk that most assumed was coming.
In hindsight, we had good reason to believe Saddam had WMD's, though we didnt have proof at the time of the invasion. After all of Saddam's charades in the 90's, and him getting caught red handed at one point, I think we just always assumed that Saddam was always lying. In the runup to the war, Bush was supporting what was generally a foregone conclusion.
With this groupthink predating the Bush presidency, and most Democrats openly saying that they believed Saddam had WMD's even before Bush came to office, how EXACTLY did you arrive at the conclusion that "Bush lied" instead of "Bush was mistaken"? Save the rhetoric about how stupid and evil Bush is, I'd like specific examples, developments, news stories, etc.
The "lie" was claiming Saddam's WMDs were an imminent threat. What's clear now is that intelligence available to the Administration pre-invasion indicated that Saddam - given the WMDs he was THOUGHT to have - was NOT an imminent threat. But the Bush Administration chose to ignore what the intelligence was saying and painted a dire scenario to justify the invasion.
If you want proof of just how dishonest Bush is, consider that EVEN NOW, Bush tells us how dangerous Saddam was. But given what we know now, that he had no WMDs, how can Bush possibly justify that statement? There's a word for statements like that: lies.
No, not everyone believed that crap. There were some of us who knew that this admin was full of sh1t from the start, before they even DID anything...
So did you beleive Saddam had WMD's when Clinton was in office, or not?
Uh, no. Why in the hell would they simply disappear when the office administration changes?
The facts don't change when the jerks in office do, however, "facts" do change.
