Well?!! Does the anti-Bush camp drop the criticism of the war and the way Bush handled things? Do they finally come to terms that this was a just war? Or do they move on to other things, ie: Museum artifacts, of course the economy, the slacking off on the war on terror (Leiberman is harping on this). Also consider this; If WMD's are found, the dem's look really foolish in the eyes of someone who does not associate themselves with either party. The swing vote. What if WMD's have been found and the Bush admin is holding back the info until they can present it without any dispute? Why play the hand until you have to? Think about it. If this is the case, it's huge slap in the face to the Dem's, who've been harping on this issue since about the 2nd week of the war. The Dem's can argue that now is the time to tell them, but the longer they cry, the worse they look. It could turn out to be political nightmare for anyone running in 2k4. This is just a counter scenario to all of the 'Looks like there are no WMD's' arguement. Already talk of impeachment, etc? How about we let this thing play out. If I had as much Anthrax has Powell showed at the UN presentation, I could hide that - no prob for decades. Hell, I hid my best friend's watch in my ass so that I could give it to you
What if WMD's have been found and the Bush admin is holding back the info until they can present it without any dispute? Then our government is lying to us now and that opens up a whole different can of worms.
I second that. They will almost certainly posit that theory - that they were planted. Or they will argue for weeks that any such weapons are not really weapons, but are in fact merely industrial cleaning chemicals that were incorrectly analyzed by the CIA... But in reality their last desperate hope for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory will have vanished. They just won't admit it. If, of course... Or when, as I see it.
Ive stuck by my guns all along. If we can have WMD, other nations should be able to have them. We shouldnt be the ones who decide who can have them and who cant.
Yes, you are correct. I will then just resort to burning flags in the street and find some other way to bring America down, as has been my quest for the last few years. I'm just so damned MAD about being proven wrong. I thought for SURE that the US would get its ass kicked in Iraq, I mean, remember all those protests I went to where me and my america hating buddies said "THis war is BAD because Saddam is GOOD and we are going to LOSE!" Yeah, those were the days before I had to start eating all this CROW after the long term negative effects of the war were proven wrong when a statue fell over in April.
rezdawg, I've teetered back and forth on that fence. But ultimately it came down to this. If a country (Iran) makes it their foreign policy to preach hate and fund terrorism aimed at me because I am American, then I believe it's in my best interest that they do not have WMD's. If their irrational hatred is so strong that they are blatantly preaching it to their youth and preaching it in their religion, then I believe I'm right to questions their intentions. In Iran's case, they are so fanatical that trust is out of the question. You don't hear the U.S. preaching hate on any one country due to their differing lifestyles and religious beliefs. While I tend to agree that we shouldn't have to police who get's WMD's and who doesn't, the harsh reality is that we do have to for our own sake.
Sam, I'm not saying WMD's have been found. I'm asking what if. Seriously, where do you go from there? Logical choice would be the economy. But if that turns out to be the case then would you agree that the Dem's look kinda childish given the amount of attention they've given the WMD issue? Just like the Repub's will look like a bunch of 'follow your leader robots' for trusting the President, right?
No, not really. In my opinion, the damage has been done. Many of the administrations claims have already been definitively proven to be false. (ex. the Niger-uranium thing, totally fictional, but cited in the State of the Union based on a third rate forgery). If the administration knowingly exaggerated and distorted evidence, isn't that still bad even if a can of sarin is found in a basement somewhere?
I don't know of any serious person who opposed this war and also said that Iraq definitely didn't have WMD's. I opposed it and figured it was as likely as not that they did. I'd like to point out here that my position has never changed, nor has the position of any other person I know who was against this war. Not a whit. Meanwhile, the reasons for going to war changed constantly before we went and have changed again many times since the war ended. It's a pretty good indication of who's full of crap here. I opposed the war on the grounds that we shouldn't launch a pre-emptive strike against a country that wasn't a threat to us, as did all the other thoughtful opposition that I know of. Finding WMD's wouldn't change that. Finding WMD's that could reach us coupled with an actual plan to attack would. Back when I and others opposed on the above grounds (as did the majority of Americans at that point, by the way), Bush assured us that we just didn't understand the nature of the threat. That we didn't understand how urgent it was. That we didn't have all the intel he did, but that he'd show it to us soon (and later that he'd show it to us after the war). And his people argued that we could have this debate in a mushroom cloud if we wanted, et stupid cetera. Now that it's clear he never had that great intel he said he had, the new line is that it doesn't matter. Nice. Show me that they had proof all along that Iraq was a serious, urgent threat to us and I will say they did the right thing by going to war and the WRONG (not to mention STUPID) thing by keeping the evidence to themselves all this time. But we all know that's not going to happen, because we all know by now they never had that intel. In fact, the strongest supporters of the war on this board now say it was a great thing that Bush misled the country and the world and that no one cares. But back to the topic at hand. This whole idea that if WMD's are found negates the opposition is as daft as the idea that winning the war would negate the opposition. None of ever said the US wouldn't win and none of us ever said they definitely didn't have the weapons. We said we thought they were lying about the urgency of the threat. And every day we look a little bit smarter for saying it. And every day the rest of you -- the ones who called us stupid, un-American, said we wanted to debate in a mushroom cloud -- look a little bit dumber. Scratch that. A LOT dumber. YOU WERE PLAYED. And now you're acting like you're glad you were. Must really suck to be you.
I was under the impression that the extreme fundamentalists were teaching exactly that. That children are being taught that killing Americans is part of their Jihad. That all American's are infidels, so on and so on. If the administration knowingly exaggerated and distorted evidence, isn't that still bad even if a can of sarin is found in a basement somewhere? I guess that's a matter of perspective. If you believe that no one would dare distort facts for use in their own propaganda then Yes, that would be bad. If you understand that propaganda is a tool used by both sides and you are always getting someone's spin on the facts through our maintstream media then I'd say a can of sarin ought to do the trick. Yes it's still bad that the truth had been stretched to fit the agenda, but at the end of the day the end result is greater than micro-criticism wasted on the subject.
And if it turns out that there is no proof of WMD's (as that seems to be what everyone is hinging on), I'll be the first one in line to critisize Bush for misleading me. I may like the end result but I don't like being lied to by my president. And I certainly don't believe you are un-American by opposing what you believe is an unjust war. Quite the opposite. You're practicing your free right. That's about as American as it gets. But you keep hammering that it's pretty much a fact that no WMD's will be found and Bush flat out lied to the whole world. The jury is still out.
Okay. You obviously didn't read my post at all if you think I said it was a fact that no WMD's would be found. Read it once more and try again. I'm going out of town for a week, so you've got that long to process it. I'll reply when I return. Have a great week.
I don't know of any serious person who opposed this war and also said that Iraq definitely didn't have WMD's. I opposed it and figured it was as likely as not that they did. I'd like to point out here that my position has never changed, nor has the position of any other person I know who was against this war. Not a whit. ... I opposed the war on the grounds that we shouldn't launch a pre-emptive strike against a country that wasn't a threat to us, as did all the other thoughtful opposition that I know of. Repeat this all you want... tomorrow, people will still accuse you of being an anti-American Saddam-lover who enjoys watching Iraqi civilians die at the hands of that regime.
They may even call you an 'assclown' when your gone For the record, I do not think that liberalism equals anti U.S. I believe you have to have both conservatism and liberalism to balance things. It's the extreme cases that gave each a bad name. And I don't believe anyone on this board has proven themselves to be 'extreme', at least not by my standards. Although, a few are close - on both sides
Batman, Well said. However, the threat from Iraq was not one that was imminent, rather, it was that Saddam had programs for WMD, and had terrorist connections and had repeatedly threatened the United States, and thumbed his nose at the cease fire that he signed to remain in power in '91. It was not a threat by him, but that he would be likely to arm terrorists with WMD as a way of getting back at the US. That is only one of the reasons for a pre-emptive war, the other being that we needed to show other rogue nations that the USA will no longer stand idly by and simply be a target for terrorists. State sponsored terrorism had to die, and it took a big decision by the President to strike this major blow. Believe me other countries are a lot less likely today to actively support terrorism because of what we did to Iraq. The world is better off without Saddam, and I for one, am glad that we took him out. WMD or no WMD. However, I can understand your argument, I just don't agree with it. DD
