Bold Contemplations

The problem I have with a demand for answers, and a demand for action against the President, is that it's based on the same anger and the same mistrust that our administration had for Iraq in the first place.

You're convinced that our government played a part in 9/11. They were convinced that Iraq had weapons of mass distruction. To both, ideas to the contrary were just ludicrous. It's so clear!; 'why is there not more support for [...]!?'

It's because there's a lack of proof. Accusations are fine.. Opinions, belief, etc.. all fine.

It's when we act through anger and force, driven only by what we think might be true, that I think trouble develops. Quickly.

Difference is.. he's got an Army to wield.

No. They WERE NOT convinced he had weapons of mass destruction. They forced the intelligence to support their plan for war. 9/11 aside, they duped us all. There is much documentation on it.

And, whether they had a hand in 9/11 or not, the administration used it as a tool to scare the public into supporting the war. However, their motivation for going to war was NOT to protect the interests of the American people.

Oh, granted,... they didn't go to war after 9/11 because of weapons in Iraq.. I agree wholeheartedly. We didn't even attack Iraq for another year and a half.. We were in Afghanistan that whole time chasing down Bin Laden, the Taliban, etc... All the folks that we believed through evidence(?) were linked to the guys on the planes.

Then, fabricated evidence turns up that Iraq is ordering nuclear widgets, and we very quickly demanded (very publically), that Saddam come clean, show his nuclear arsenal, or leave his country.

His reply was "Um, I don't have any." And we WERE convinced that he had them, enough to then invade when he continued to protest beyond the deadline we gave.

No, we WERE NOT convinced he had them. It was an act -- much is written about how the government forced intelligence to fit the bill in order to feign that he was a threat.

Things are written about a lot of things. :) Things don't have to be facts to get published.

--

I do agree, the only way to garner support from the UN to invade was to present evidence showing the threat. And after the fact, I absolutely agree that the evidence has turned out to have been fabricated. What I'm saying, is that if they thought that evidence was legit at the time, them going to war over it means they were convinced they were going to find the weapons.

Whether they should've done more research isn't a question in my mind at all. Absolutely. I would've liked to have seen satellite photos of Saddam and a nuke, smiling and holding hands.

I believe they thought what they had was equivalent. I think it was wrong for us to demand what we did with such little evidence, but I don't believe we went in knowing it was outright false. I don't.

Well, obviously, I disagree. ;) But, we can be friends anyways. :)

I know :)

Oooopppps, looks like someone forgot their meds.

Imagine...never being duped again :)

Interesting conversation you two are having. I'm going to have to side with Angela.