02-13-2006, 10:12 PM
Ken'sPen Wrote:Everyone may have believed he had some weapons, but there was a HUGE debate over what weapons he had, and what threat he posed. Our traditional allies are on record telling us that they believed we were wrong in our estimates, and the war was unfounded. Bush knew world opinion was going against him, as he had bugged the UN.... This is why he never called for the "up or down" vote he promised us he would take.
Seems pretty consistent that people were talking about him have chemical weapons at the time (and had used them) as well as having a current nuclear weapons program in place. If everyone else believed that (including top democrats) were you honestly saying that we should have just waited until he had nuclear weapons before we went in?
Ken'sPen Wrote:Bottom line, Saddam WAS complying, but Bush wanted to invade,
and nothing was gonna stop him from doing it....
You said Sadam was complying; he wasn't according to top officials on both sides of the aisle (at least at the time; they can surely change their tune now if they like.
You said that our inspectors were finding nothing at the time; that our allies were saying there was no imminent threat, that you, and others were saying there was no imminent threat; but that Bush was ignoring that information, feeding the populace lies and goading Iraq into war.
Be that as it may, he was going off the same intelligence as everyone else, and he was coming up with the same conclusion as the Democratic leaders.
Being wrong and lying are two completely different things. Use the proper words and it will be a lot more difficult to dismiss your arguments.