So, all this effort in trying to cast doubt & nefarious reasons for going to war is all........an effort to.......well, you said you don't care about Bush, so clue us in. Perhaps to make sure Bush's legacy is properly tarnished?
There is no casting doubt necessary. It was an unjustified war. Legacy seems much more important to you. My point has nothing to do with Bush or partisanship, but to illustrate why entry into this war was unjustified and hopefully so that Americans can see that this lack of critical and moral thinking will be avoided in the future.
Bush was, as might I add pretty much all the Senators Of the Intel Committee, along with those congress critters privvy to all the intel that comes thru.
Then they did a piss poor job of handling it and making a fair case for Americans.
What "we" were given was largely unidirectional along the lines of the decision already made, from ALL the evidence Bush and Co were provided.
Of course, a decision made long before the evidence was given a fair judgement.
EVERY President will shape what they present in the direction for which their decisions are headed. Might I add EVERY President does that, or at least every modern day President.
Not about
pre-emptive war Sirs. Name me another president who made that decision and then gave us a one-sided case for it. This is a war,
a war that we started. We weren't attacked. We weren't provoked. We weren't defending another nation's existence. It was an invasion by the United States of another sovereign territory. You speak as if we are talking about farm subsidy policy.
Again, THEY make the decisions, not "us". And our representatives which "we" elected overwhelmingly agreed
So? You act as though that should mean something to me. As a matter of fact, my Republican Congressman voted against the Iraq War. Does that give me some special dispensation in this warped view of yours?
I'll take my voice from a more meaningful source than the President or the Congress, thank you.
A little intellectual dishonesty perhaps?
No, just a little humour at a ridiculous theory.
I didn't realize you worked for the Intelligence agency Js. Do tell. Perhaps you can get a conference call set up with the likes of Wolfowitz, privvy to such intimate intel, explaining the 10+yrs Saddam's ties with terrorists extended
Don't pull that on me Sirs. In the last several debates we've had you've failed to provide any evidence for the majority of your claims. The 9/11 commission along with other Government reports made it clear that Saddam had few ties with terrorist groups. Moreover, anyone with any rudimentary knowledge of the region knows that the secular government of the Baathists does not get along well with the religious terrorists. Saddam's ties were with anti-Israel terrorists. So what? He joins the club of the Saudi and Kuwaiti governments and we have no problem dealing with them.
No, but when you have an enemy as hated as that great Satan America, it's very easy for folks who don't exactly like each other to actually work toegther, even if it's not direct help.
Have you ever thought that our actions in the Middle East are possibly part of the problem?
Correct. You make it on the evidence presented at the time, and then using your best judgement, make such decisions
You don't do it. It is not justifiable. It was unethical and morally detestable.
Which also means every life given in that pursuit was tragic yet not a death in vain, but in the pursuit of both American security and Iraqi freedom
The beginning of this paragraph is a strawman argument and a sympathy ploy. Grow up.
This last sentence is the only part worth any merit. The problem is that there are tends of thousands of lives that weren't asked to be "given in that pursuit" and though I'm sure their families appreciate your empathy, it is all really worth what they paid you for it isn't it?
I'm sure many of the dead Iraqis will be glad to know that they've helped you feel better about American security. And really that's all it is...a feeling. Iraqi freedom has meant little considering freedom when you're under fire from many sides is really no freedom at all, is it?
Moreover, you continue to show your arrogance/ignorance. It appears rather often. When you set the Iraqi people free. When you brutally attacked another country to feel safer in California. Every time you criticize Islam, a religion I'm confident that you aren't very knowledgable about.
I shouldn't get personal though, in a more universal sense I see that expressed by many who support the initial invasion. No, Bush isn't a moron - he's the typical American that has no understanding of the world and sees American power as an invincible, might-makes-right tool for our own pathetic worldview.
And you couldn't be more wrong
I'm not the one who constantly brings up the President and his legacy in such defensive terms.
