For the first time, a majority of Americans, 51%, say the Bush administration deliberately misled the public about whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction -- the central justification given for invading. The administration's credibility on the issue has been steadily eroding since 2003 after stores of the weapons weren't found.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-0...ning-iraq_x.htm

 

wow. I've also heard that opposition to the war is now coming from super-right nut (I think it's mostly an act anyway) Mike Savage. He called supporters of the war "bush bots" and advocated immediate withdrawal and attacks on the infrastructure of Muslim countries. He then proposed that we send flowers after said attacks to mock these countries. Outrage! I demand apology by Passion within the day or I'll assume he supports such policies.

 

It's also become known the Mike Savage sent lustful letters to Allen Ginsberg (gay beat poet) concerning young boys. They are kept in the Ginsberg collection at Stanford. ahahaha. wow, that's funny.

Though finding WMDs in a country that had more than enough time to really hide them well or move them out of the country is like finding a needle in a haystack, I still believe Bush lied to the country... but not about WMDs. I think the biggest lie he ever told was anything regarding Saddam's ties with terrorism and the War in Iraq being a part of the War on Terror. I HATE that he did that because Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism until now and it also took away credibility from the true GWOT.

 

People who listen to the president have now blended the two fights together and now nothing looks like it is worth fighting for. Originally, Iraq as a nation had very few people involved in terrorism and now there are quite a bit.

 

WMDs or no WMDs, we should have left Iraq untouched. Saddam may be a little crazy, but the worst he could do is nuke someone else and the chances of that were very slim.

WMDs or no WMDs, we should have left Iraq untouched. Saddam may be a little crazy, but the worst he could do is nuke someone else and the chances of that were very slim.

876284[/snapback]

 

 

That's a ridiculous argument...that the "worst" he could have done was nuke someone else, as if it isn't a big deal. I'd be ashamed of myself for saying that if I was you.

I agree more or less, although the "he had time to hide them" excuse doesn't hold too much water with me. Amazing that we weren't able to find anything of substance.

WMDs or no WMDs, we should have left Iraq untouched. Saddam may be a little crazy, but the worst he could do is nuke someone else and the chances of that were very slim.

876284[/snapback]

 

 

That's a ridiculous argument...that the "worst" he could have done was nuke someone else, as if it isn't a big deal. I'd be ashamed of myself for saying that if I was you.

876291[/snapback]

I couldnt agree more. What a ridiculous statement.

I agree more or less, although the "he had time to hide them" excuse doesn't hold too much water with me. Amazing that we weren't able to find anything of substance.

876293[/snapback]

 

 

I'm a Bush supporter and a Republican, and I supported the Iraq conflict through and through until very recently. It's really trying my patience, and the fact that we couldn't find ANYTHING is upsetting. Though I still think it was necessary, it's carried on far too long, and I myself am now convinced that there was no "slam dunk" of there being WMDs.

I agree more or less, although the "he had time to hide them" excuse doesn't hold too much water with me.? Amazing that we weren't able to find anything of substance.

876293[/snapback]

 

 

I'm a Bush supporter and a Republican, and I supported the Iraq conflict through and through until very recently. It's really trying my patience, and the fact that we couldn't find ANYTHING is upsetting. Though I still think it was necessary, it's carried on far too long, and I myself am now convinced that there was no "slam dunk" of there being WMDs.

876307[/snapback]

Yes, but we are there, and I'm fully against a hasty withdrawal ala Somalia, although it looks like that will happen with pressure from both left and right. Hopefully a NATO/UN/something force will be brought in to maintain stability while they reorganize the country.

For the first time, a majority of Americans, 51%, say the Bush administration deliberately misled the public about whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction -- the central justification given for invading. The administration's credibility on the issue has been steadily eroding since 2003 after stores of the weapons weren't found.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-0...ning-iraq_x.htm

 

wow. I've also heard that opposition to the war is now coming from super-right nut (I think it's mostly an act anyway) Mike Savage. He called supporters of the war "bush bots" and advocated immediate withdrawal and attacks on the infrastructure of Muslim countries. He then proposed that we send flowers after said attacks to mock these countries. Outrage! I demand apology by Passion within the day or I'll assume he supports such policies.

 

It's also become known the Mike Savage sent lustful letters to Allen Ginsberg (gay beat poet) concerning young boys. They are kept in the Ginsberg collection at Stanford. ahahaha. wow, that's funny.

876231[/snapback]

Conservatie Radicalism is not the same as a Democratic political figure crashing a soldier's forum.

 

A radio host, editorialist, or other talking head is not the same as a political figure, Im not going to be held accountable for every right winged nut, but I will lash out at a Republican political figure who does wrong.

WMDs or no WMDs, we should have left Iraq untouched.? Saddam may be a little crazy, but the worst he could do is nuke someone else and the chances of that were very slim.

876284[/snapback]

 

 

That's a ridiculous argument...that the "worst" he could have done was nuke someone else, as if it isn't a big deal. I'd be ashamed of myself for saying that if I was you.

876291[/snapback]

I'm not saying that that is not a terrible thing. The reason I mentioned that part is because Bush claimed that Saddam could get WMDs and use them against us. He never would have had the range. So I said he could attack someone else, but not us. I don't want nukes detonating over anyone.

I'm not by any means saying that it is okay as long as he didn't nuke us. I am just saying that Bush's claim that he could attack us was false. Clear?

I'm not by any means saying that it is okay as long as he didn't nuke us. I am just saying that Bush's claim that he could attack us was false. Clear?

876349[/snapback]

 

 

Can you prove that though? Obviously it seems he may not have even had WMDs at all to begin with, but if you go under the assumption that he did, why not assume he could have reached us with them?

Yeah, Saddams Iraq and their uber military might and strong ties to terrorism posed a great threat to the United States.

I'm not by any means saying that it is okay as long as he didn't nuke us.? I am just saying that Bush's claim that he could attack us was false.? Clear?

876349[/snapback]

 

 

Can you prove that though? Obviously it seems he may not have even had WMDs at all to begin with, but if you go under the assumption that he did, why not assume he could have reached us with them?

876391[/snapback]

But there are a lot of examples like that. Even if he possessed the capability of luanching missile attacks at the US, which is highly unlikely, it doesn't mean that he would. There are other countries in the world with the capability to wipe us out in minutes, but they don't. Of all the missiles they found, I think the max distance was still under 2,000 miles (Don't quote me on that). And as for developing a better rocket, I don't think Iraq has or had the research ability to do it on their own. It would be like Zimbabwe putting the first man on Mars.

And besides, before March of 2003, what would be Saddam's motive for attacking the US? He can't take the typical terrorist stance because the man was running a secular government. He wasn't a "hardcore" Muslim or whatever you want to call it. The government they are putting in place now is more of an Islamic regime than Saddam's. Ironically.