Come on, conservatives. Where are you?
Back when we "liberals" (and other thinking people) were saying we had no reason to go to war and that it was, frankly, ILLEGAL, weren't the conservatives in this crowd crowing about Iraq's connection to Al Queda? Weren't they screaming about WMDs?
Because, folks, how much more proof do we need that it was all lies? To you conservatives, I'm curious to know what you think now that you realize that Bush & Company LIED to you. Do you still support him? Do you still support the invasion of Iraq? Is the death of over 1,700 Americans and countless Iraqis still worth it to you?
More from the Downing Street Memos:
"U.S. scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and al-Qaida is so far frankly unconvincing," Ricketts says in the memo. "For Iraq, `regime change' does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam."
The documents confirm Blair was genuinely concerned about Saddam's alleged weapons of mass destruction, but also indicate he was determined to go to war as America's top ally, even though his government thought a pre-emptive attack may be illegal under international law.
"The truth is that what has changed is not the pace of Saddam Hussein's WMD programs, but our tolerance of them post-11 September," said a typed copy of a March 22, 2002 memo obtained Thursday by The Associated Press and written to Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.
"But even the best survey of Iraq's WMD programs will not show much advance in recent years on the nuclear, missile or CW/BW (chemical or biological weapons) fronts: the programs are extremely worrying but have not, as far as we know, been stepped up."
Come on, conservatives. Where are you?
> Weren't they screaming about WMDs?
As were the intelignece services of France, Germany, Russia, Israel, yada yada.
Oh, and I'm a liberal, in case you think that has something to do with this.
Actually, no they weren't. Which is why the majority of nations refused to join us in the invasion. Read the Downing Street Memos. Even the British weren't convinced.Originally Posted by Bill
Hans Blix and Scott Ritter were screaming that there *weren't* any serious WMDs at the time.
Actually, they were. Even Chirac made references to Iraqi WMD. The reasons some European nations didn’t join was ECONOMIC. Period.
Scott Ritter’s first book told a very different story. Did you bother reading it? Did you bother reading Richard Butler’s book?
Hans Blix was brought in because the Iraqis liked him. Obviously he’s going to say that. Scott by then was in the employ of an Iraqi PR firm. Have you noticed that he’s a regular contributor to Al Jazeera these days?
But all this is beside the point. OF COURSE WMD was the cover story, and not the real motivation. Would you want your government to tell its enemies just what it’s doing? Get a grip.
The Bush administration and all of its parrots and lackeys will never be able to own up to their misdeeds. With all of the circular reasoning and fundamentally flawed logic, this whole 4+ year, $200 billion (US) fiasco had taken on the mantle of a religious crusade. They stole one election and bought another - so they must be ordained by their version of God. Who needs to present a justification with that kind of backing?
Houston Haynes - Titan Line Music
The simple fact of the matter is that there are a lot of conservatives and liberterians who are just as opposed to this war as you are.
( see www.antiwar.com )
There are a lot of others who still haven't caught on that the imperialist cabal running this country is the very antithesis of what the founders had in mind.
There's nothing "conservative" about this group, in fact their roots are deep in the Trotskyite left. They give lip services to "limited government" to keep the faithful in camp and serve up bogey-men abroad to keep the rest of us scared.
Let's cut the left/right crap. I could butt heads with you guys all day over Social Security or national health care, but the fact of the matter is those arguments are a luxury while people are dying in droves every day all for a pack of lies!
I agree. The sad fact is that many of us Texans tried our best to tell the truth about Bush, but we were just rejected as silly liberal tree-huggers.
Bush is about one thing: Redistribution of wealth into the pockets of his family's connections. His advisors are all tied to this. Everything in his government is tied to this.
Texas is still reeling from his years of non-leadership. The man talks a big game. But when it comes time to perform, he has never had the stones. Look in his eyes. Nothing.
What sticks in my craw is that he's not even a Texan!