Actually, according to dictionary.com, I boogered it up even worse than that. Congratulations, you spotted a typo, therefore rendering my argument null and void.. I have been vanquished!! YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEARRGHH!!!
"Scrambling like mad to justify these actions"?? Well I guess that's where "hardliners" ( ) like myself differ with the antiwar crowd. The reasons presented for taking sadaam out aren't as important to me as the fact that we DID. I would think the Iraqi people who risked their lives to vote on Sunday don't give a rat's ass whether we find WMD's or not. I never thought we were going to find piles of WMD's in downtown Baghdad. Frankly, I wish Bush would have just presented the case for war as the right thing to do instead of going the WMD route. I think more people would have been for it. But is that a deal-breaker for me? Not in my opinion. Now, feel free to bash me as being a unenlightened neocon warmonger who can't think for himself. Thanks.
Fair enough, but just fyi, when you said "Or if you pass the test, just change the question." it made me think you are assuming there are WMDs, or that we found them, or some other crazy nonsensical assumption. Otherwise I probably wouldn't have taken that step. and just out of curiousity, do you think the American people, and the world, for that matter, would have been more apt to get behind the war effort had the cause been humanitarian all along?
You should have told basso to get thee to a punnery and you did it on purpose. "Expose facto" is 7he aw3somn355 of latin/clutchbbs phraseology, it's a mashup like the Gray album.
Oh, Good Lord. Yet again, we have to rehash the WMD issue? Please. Once Again, this was an intelligence issue. Both Clinton AND Bush were told there were WMD's in Iraq. Period. I am sooooooo glad we have sooooooo many people on this board with Nostrodamousian qualities. Please join the CIA now. We need you. Ugh.
Iraq could have The Bomb by Christmas. They have RC Drones equiped to spray chemical/biological WMD which could be launched from a ship just off the coast of the US. Saddam and OBL were the best of buds. Mobile bio-labs. yadda yadda yadda. GWB oversold his case. Not a little, a lot. And to get his case, GWB had to dress up low quality intell into something it was not. GWB also had to actively ignore any intell that would hurt his cause. Truth was first cauality in the buildup to our elective war with Iraq. The US and likely France, Germany, and Russia believed that Iraq had some limited WMD capability that the UN inspectors had not removed YET. No country outside of the Middle East were realistically threaten by that "perceived" limited WMD capability. No country anywhere believed that there was a realistic chance that Saddam would give any of his WMD to a bunch of crazy fundamentalists who btw had Saddam at the top of their sh*t list (as well as the US). Curiously both Clinton AND Bush were told of OBL's threat. One chose to ignore that intel since it did not fit into his political game plan.
Einstein didn't intend to get hit on the head with an apple. But once he did, he knew what his purpose was. That is leadership. Sometimes you stumble into success and some people have a knack for doing just that.
BS: Both had the same intel. Clinton would've reacted to the same threat had we been attacked during his tenure. Iraq was considered by nearly every nation as the most powerful threat in the Middle East. Why am I even arguing this. extreme politico's would argue nonsensically that the sky wasn't blue, if it went on the other parties side. Whatever. Y'all can make very intelligent non-sensical comments. Bully for you.
Except for the copious Defense Department, CIA, NSA, and other governement analysts who felt that Saudi Arabia, Iran & Al Qaeda were bigger threats, then yeah, this assumption is correct.
Saudi: American allies Iran: American Allies Al Queda: Where is this country, again? OK, how's this... Iraq was the most powerful middle eastern threat. Better?
