Replies

Yes, roses, he was all of those things, but the President has an obligation to sell the war on those things. Not on what he did use. If he believed all the PNAC stuff, then he should tell us, and heads should roll. And we all know who helped screen and pick all those high placed officials...
It is not a crime to be misled...even a President can have that happen to him. But then he needs to clean house.
Because even I knew a long time ago that the administration was telling 'stories', and allowingg suvh stories to be passed around. My daughter-in-law, with whom I live, believed Sadaam was behind all this stuff. Every time I hear or think of the phrase, 'Smoking gun could be a mushroom cloud', I feel a chill and then ANGER. Because a large portion of the public believed them.
My family couldn't hardly believe that I was against the war against Iraq, until I explained what was happening. Talk about being SAD! I still hoped that W would take the bull by the horns, and explain to the people. I thought he had more than enough courage...
I was (past tense) so proud of him.
I haven't read the whole thread yet, but my thanks go to John Galt for his honest posts.

Go to the WH website, read the Pres speeches, he said it all, re-shaping the middle east, tyranny, regime change passed by the US congress in 98, democracy, terrorism, ect.

The WMD argument was used before the UN, to see if Saddam would produce documents on his distruction of them, ie, South Africa. Blair insisted on UN resolutions, Cheney resisted, for fear of giving Saddam time, he was right of course.

If you choose to believe that the exile group, made up of hundreds of professionals, world-wide intell, ie, Iran, SA, Israel, UK, Dems, Repub, liberals, conservatives, and hundreds of others all lied and misled for 12 years straight, and believe Saddam and Sons, you would be depending ENTIRELY on the predictability of a madman, and the future actions of his sons.

This Administration was prudent not to do so. The immoral policy of containment, that consigned millions to tyranny for decades was un-sustainable.

Your claim of the Administrations "stories", is un-founded.

These "stories" were also told by Sen Bob Graham, Democrat, Chairman of the Intell Comm, on 9/11. In Time mag. 9/24/01

He said there is "some evidence" that SH was involved, evidence that is "credible enough that you can't take Iraq off the list".

Dem Sen Jay Rockefeller, on 10/10/02, "There is UNMISTAKABLE EVIDENCE that SH is working agressively to develope nuclear weapons....if he is able to obtain fissile materials.....we have underestimated SH capabilites in the past...it's not just a future threat, he has existing bio and chem weapon capabilities today and tomorrow...he is working on delivery with aerial vehicles to use against our US forces and facilities in the ME...he could make available WMD to terrorist groups, 3rd parties, which have contact with his gov, who could bring them to the US,...9/11 showed us we cannot wait for a SMOKING GUN...I believe SH is an IMMINENT THREAT...AND AFTER 9/11 THAT QUESTION IS INCREASINGLY OUTDATED...Saddams' WMD threat is documented & his capabilites and intent are documented...to insist on futher evidence could put Americans at risk...do we want to take that chance?"

This Senate floor speech was not given by a "cabal" member or a neo-con.

The UK's independant comm. had a press conf, (c-span), of their findings on the "yellow-cake" "story", under hostile questioning, they said they saw the intell, and it was good intell, more that just the word of some exiles.

The Administrations fear of WMD was evident by the military's use of suits during the run to Bagdad. You say those fears were false, in hindsite. In time hopefully we will know.

Dem Senator Bob Kerry, said recently, "I think Iraq is going well, it breaks my heart when anybody dies, but we liberated 25 million people, it puts us on the side of democracy in the Arab world. Twenty years from now, we'll be hard pressed to find anyone who says it wasn't worth the effort, this is not just another democracy. This is a democracy in the Arab world."

We can agree to disagree on the Iraq war, on containment, on trusting Saddam and his Sons after sanctions are lifted, is one thing.

But to claim conspriacies, lies, ulterior motives, and to imply that Bush,Blair,Rice,Powell,Rumsfeld,Cheney, and hundreds of others with no history or reputations of corruption, suddenly turned mendacious, devious and sinister, and that Saddam and Sons were innocent, is illogical and un-serious.

This is not a sitcom to be resolved in a 1/2 hour.

Nor can conclusions be reached in a serious manner in an election year. But, political courage is not lacking in Bush, or he would not have taken out Saddam.