Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
""he mentioned "liberation" more often than "WMD."
He "mentioned' 9/11 more than anything. .
As I said, he mentioned liberation of Iraq more than WMD. That kind of shoots down the claim that Bush had Iraq invaded only because of WMD, as some claim.
Quote:
IF the first C&P of your post(no author or source)
It was text from the Dueffler report which was recited on a radio talk show.
Quote:
was true then why did he NEED 9/11???
I'm glad you mentioned that. It give me a chance to point out another fact... that Congress passed and Pres. Clinton signed a document making regime change in Iraq official U.S. policy. The discussion of removing Saddam from power happened long before Bush was President.
WMD is that the news been talking about for months, even on CNN. WMD and Iraq was top news for months before the war. Making WMD the most important reason to invade according to the news.
It's senseless even to debate it. WMD was the administration's justification for invasion, and they went to great lengths to trump up the case. They didn't have any actual evidence, so they tried to fabricate some (yellow cake, aluminum tubes, bogus satellite imagery, INC disinformation, etc, etc., etc.) while relying heavily on the fact that since UNSCOM had been pulled from Iraq before completing its original mission, no full accounting for the WMD that Iraq was known to have had at the end of the Gulf War was on the record. This established the worrisome possibility that Iraq still had such weapons or might have manufactured more. Bush et al didn't really care either way. As long as they could play on the fears and doubts, they were on course. All that was suddenly threatened by UNMOVIC. With inspectors on the ground, it was only a matter of time before the entire Bush case would be exploded in the administration's face. They had to go or lose the opportunity ever to go, and they knew it. So they went. And history will blame them for it forever...
And WHEN there is peace in Iraq? When the vision for a peaceful and democratic Iraq comes to fruition? When, because of what happened there affects the whole middle east, in a positive way, not in your negative, pessimistic way? Then what? Will "W" get credit for that?
What will the historians say then?
I realize you HOPE none of this will come true for political reasons, and because you hate "W" so intensely. But the seeds have been sown.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,340 posts, read 54,462,599 times
Reputation: 40741
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet
As I said, he mentioned liberation of Iraq more than WMD. That kind of shoots down the claim that Bush had Iraq invaded only because of WMD, as some claim.
.
Maybe you could point out exactly where in the Constitution the US government is tasked with the liberation of other countries?
For All You Bush Bashers U Should Know In 10-15 Yr.s He Will Look Back As Our Most Beloved. He Has Oldfashion Thinking What We Need.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
