So I take it you choose number three then.
So do you believe that Bush lied, was mistaken, somewhere inbetween…what?
Well, I think that whether or not he really was concerned, (I’ll take his word), the likelihood of the Iraqi airforce getting a UAV MiG to the States is very remote.
When you think Iraqi military, you don’t think airforce.
So, he didn’t lie. But the implication that it’s a reasonable to be concerned about strikes me as odd.
OK, I think I understand what you’re saying. Thanks.
1.25
I’ve got to vote for number three. Sorry folks. I have no doubts that our president can lie.
In fact, he’s already lied. He presented evidence that he knew was unsubstantiated as truth. Now if I told my mom that I was going to a school dance, based on some vague rumors that my friend warned me were probably not true, and then spent all night making out behind the woodshop- I’d call that a lie. What Bush did was no different. I don’t understand why it is so hard for you all to picture the president telling lies. In my day I’ve seen plenty of presidents do it.
This isn’t the only evidence that Bush isn’t telling the truth. His whole darn parade of shoddy, quickly discredited “smoking guns” makes it pretty apparent that there is not much to what he is saying. If he knows there are weapons of mass destruction, why is he bothering with all these false starts? Why would he pin all of our hopes to something that he surely knows will turn out for naught if he is so sure of himself? Why all the backpedaling and revisionism regarding the initial allegations against Saddam Hussain (what started out as “weapons ready to launch” within 45 minutes has become a “weapons program” and now a “desire for a weapons program”). These are not the actions of a government with sure but secret intellegence.
These are the actions of a government that is really really hoping to find some WMD to justify an action that they embarked on for other ends. If we find them it will be blind luck and Bush’s hunches- not the intellegence we’ve been lead to believe in. Bush probably thought that WMD might exist. He might even be paranoid enough to weave elaborate fantasies about how they will lead to Americas destruction. Bush also saw an oppertunity to gain a lot of power in the region, improve America’s strategic position, improve his reputation and perhaps hasten the second coming. He put these thoughts together and we got a war. And now we are all hopefully realizing that it’s not worthwhile to sacrifice innocent human lives to one man’s hunches.
Three, easily. Someone who’s willing to steal a Presidential election has demonstrated to me that he has the moral deficiency needed to start a war on false pretenses.
Three parts #3 and one part #2.
3
In the beginning I refused to believe that Bush was sending U.S. troops for economic or political reasons. I believed what he said. Now, I am starting to realize that his motives were not explained truthfully or completely.
Now almost the entire world is pissed, our young men and women are getting picked off as they attempt to execute the poorly planned mission, and the U.S. has lots of power but little credibility. It stinks. All of it makes me sad and sick.
I can’t say that I am weighing in at a solid 3. I believe there are some shreds of truth. The world is better off without Saddam in power. Now the question becomes, is the world a better place without Bush in power?
My answer is yes.
3
Verging on 3 - particularly what AHunter3 said.
And if there’s anyone reading this thread who hasn’t yet read the plans publicly laid down in 1997 by Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz et al, I yet again urge you to do so (the Project for the New American Century site is down, so here’s a google cache version). The US was likely going to war with Iraq, whether 9-11 had happened or not.
Clinton 3
Blair 3
Gassed and dead kurds 3
Gassed and dead Iranians 3
Hans Blix 3
U.N. 3
CIA 3
Operation dessert fox 1998 3
Disposed of them according to UN mandate 3
Like the death camps in Germany it never happened. It’s all made up by Bush.
3
Would you mind explaining that one please?
Well, so far, if I’ve been keeping correct count, it’s
- We will find weapons eventually - 2 votes
- Bush & Blair were mistaken - 2 votes
- Bush & Blair lied -12 votes
(And, not in the origional OP, but what the heck) - Other - 1 vote
I had a feeling that #3 would be receiving the most votes.
While I personally don’t believe that he lied, I can understand how lack of finding weapons and the recent admission that Iraq’s plans to buy uranium from Africa was false could lead most of you to believe that he was lying.
two votes for 1
and one vote for 1.25
I’ve not seen any reason to doubt that Hussein having banned WoMD was very likely possibility.
I have NOT seen any reason to believe that Hussein was a credible threat to the US. LOTS of reasons to believe that he was a hypothetical threat though.
:dubious:
I’m waiting to find out what 1.25 means first.