Hey, I was for the war strongly. WMD's or not. Saddam was a murderous thug who was destabilizing to the region, made us take up a dicey alliance with Saudi Arabia to counter him, and he needed to be gone.
However, let's not kid the kidders here. The administration before we went in talked like WMD's were pouring out of rooftops they were so vast in number.
They exaggerated. It is easier to rally the people behind WMD's than to say that our relationship with Saudi Arabia is a mess, and we are sick of being in bed with those thugs only to counter Saddam, and sanctions aren't working.
We had good reasons to go in. We just didn't have the intelligence on WMD's that we claimed we did. Our administration lied. All administrations lie. It's a fact of life.
posted on 06/07/2003 8:41:48 AM PDT
(Support whirled peas!)
I'd agree that the WMD's became the football when pitching the war, but I don't think Bush ever really tried to sell the war in the sense that he had to build support at home.
The nation was, and is, supportive of the action. Bush simply did what he decided to do and acted as a leader. A refreshing change from the polling wieners of the Krinton years.
Fact is, America would've supported Bush if Saddam's only weapons were Daisy air rifles. Saddam is a terror supporter and that ain't setting too well with most Americans.
The WMD issue was simply the weakest point that the Left could criticize the adminitration on. For all of the millions of words written and broadcast on this topic, I'm confident that 99.9999999% of them originate in the brains of Bush hating Marxists. No such standards were required in calls for military action against Iraq during the Krinton years. In short, who cares?
This is only window dressing by lying whores trying to drum up customers.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson