Was Bush right after all

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by Guest, Nov 21, 2005.

  1. Guest

    Guest Guest

  2. Rich Hartel

    Rich Hartel New Member

    Jimmy, greetings,

    If this is really true, then the Pentagon needs to come out with this evidence.

    Boy, would this be a nice Christimas present for the Democrats!
  3. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator

    Re: Re: Was Bush right after all

    I'm actually glad they're taking their time and checking it thoroughly, rather than rush it out there for political purposes.

    Who wants to bet that if it is true, the story will be buried on page 47 of most newspapers, if reported at all?

    And.....does anyone really think Saddam wasn't trying to develop WMD's????? :confused:
  4. lspahn

    lspahn New Member

    Re: Re: Re: Was Bush right after all

    Most people on the left want to believe that bush lied about wmd. I think he over emphized the WMD and should have focus on the big asshole saddam was. I mean they had swimming pools full of acid to dip people in and raped peoples children in front of them to get them to talk. He was a genuine bad guy.I think there was a combination of flawed intellegence and saddam had ALOT of time hide stuff everywhere including syria.

    I want it ot be true because i want us to have credibility in the world and it is currently in a sad state....
  5. Re: Re: Re: Was Bush right after all

    Hopefully the full text, when revealed, will state conclusively whether Saddam was trying to develop WMDs (which I do believe), or whether he was a "grave and gathering danger" which are the words Bush used in his speech to the UN on 9/12/02. Hopefully we'll also find some WMDs still - it seems unlikely that on the eve of invasion Saddam just pushed the magic blue button and they all vanished while the paperwork was left behind.

    I agree that Saddam horribly repressed the majority of the Iraq population and was one sick guy; hopefully Iraqis will obtain some level of justice after Saddam is tried and sentenced (no doubt to death).

    If, however, the Bush administration leverages this text as "see, we were right all along" without some clear indication of intelligence that links to these documents it's like finding a diamond at the bottom of a dark coal mine - lucky but blind steps in the dark were required to yield a result.

    I still have problems linking active al Qaeda terrorism and 9/11 with the invasion of Iraq. I'd be surprised if the documents don't reveal that Saddam or his leaders knew about some of this...but I'm sure that leaders in Iran and other fundamentalist countries had some inkling as well and probably provided financial or moral support or other comforts. Maybe we should invade them all as well, plus North Korea?
  6. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Re: Re: Re: Was Bush right after all

    Well, we certainly know Kerry, Kennedy, Clinton, Rockefeller, and a whole host of other Democrats believed so.
  7. Re: Re: Re: Re: Was Bush right after all

    I believe it too, and my problems with the Bush Administration do not stem from the invasion of Iraq per se, but the botched job they did of the entire occupation and aftermath. No leadership, ideology rather than policy, and a gross underestimation of what it will take to win in that arena.

    One thing is certain - when a nation goes to war, even the victors cannot control the changes that will inevitably result from the war itself. Sometimes these changes are positive, but often they are unpredictable and lead to further instability, which leads to further wars. As one wise man once said - those who do not remember history are condemned to repeat it.
  8. Laser200

    Laser200 Guest

    Questionable documents are not evidence. If they can produce hard evidence of actual nuclear material, chemical missiles, etc. then that will be the smoking gun.
  9. lspahn

    lspahn New Member

    You have actually summerized the real problem. We are very polarized about the war and there is a signifigant level of distrust in what the administration has found. I think that if some of the documents that refer to materials can be verified, then we can be alittle more confident . The fact that there was half a million does cause me to believe that it is signifigant. Also, they can date some of the documents, so if they can prove it was written in say 1997 or 2001 not 2005 then that would be helpful. I think Dan Blather proved pretty well that fake documents can be debunked...
  10. Tom57

    Tom57 Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Was Bush right after all

    This is true. However this had been going on for decades, and never a peep out of US politicians (that is, until Saddam stepped over the line into Kuwait and threatened our oil pipeline). Now conservatives want the American people to buy the argument that goes something like this: yes the intelligence was bad; yes we botched the "war" and its "aftermath"; yes we completely miscalculated on the insurgent effect; but Saddam was a bad guy, so isn't that enough?


    Bush/Cheney want to prolong the charade by continuing to make the argument that if we pull out of Iraq we will somehow "embolden" the terrorists' efforts. Like WMD, there is not a shred of evidence for this, and the natural question is, "you mean embolden them more than they already are?"

    Thankfully, the Iraqi people seem to be fed up with the US occupation. I guess if they tell us to get out, we'll have to go. Or maybe that somehow emboldens the terrorists too.
  11. DaveHayden

    DaveHayden New Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Was Bush right after all

    Ummm Tom?

    I hate to tell you this but what you just stated is the exact position Hillary Clinton holds. When Congress voted on withdrawing from Iraq not even the writer of the bill voted for it.
  12. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Was Bush right after all

    There's some real, disingenuous politics going on with the Clintons.

    Bill is taking a Howard Dean, anti-war stanch saying it was a mistake to go to war. Hillary is following a middle path saying we cannot cut and run.

    They, in essence, have both positions wrapped up. If the majority of the nation ends up being against the war, Bill wins and steps aside giving Hillary the position as she changes her mind.

    If the majority of the country supports staying in Iraq, Hillary looks good, Bill moves out of the way, and Hillary is the major spokesperson.
  13. DaveHayden

    DaveHayden New Member

    Hi Jimmy

    I agree with your take on the Clintons. They are known for holding whatever belief will get them the most mileage. At the same time, Tom is blasting Bush/Cheney for the exact same position the top Democratic politicians hold. If Bush is wrong then so are the vast majority of the Left's leadership.
  14. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Tom's a decent guy, though.

    Wouldn't it be nice if all elections were non-partisan? A number of city manager, mayoral, and council positions are non-partisan.
  15. DaveHayden

    DaveHayden New Member

    I don't know. I think you would end up with consoriums or unpublicized unions that would be much worse than the current party system. I just think it is important for citizens to not become idealogues and realize the two side are more alike than different. Both have noble goals and practical short-comings. We need to hold politicians and parties on both sides accountable which we seldom do.

Share This Page