Quote:
Originally posted by ktsnake
Actually, genocide and WMD's were both part of the original reasoning.
Remember? Saddam was a ruthless dictator that didn't hesitate to use WMD's against his own countrymen for genocide.
Now, the 9/11 commission has vindicated Bush. It says that Saddam indeed planned to restart his WMD programs as soon as the international heat went away -- which if countries like France and other critics of the war had their way, it would have.
Dems are standing on one SMALL part of the 9/11 report that favors them to call Bush a liar. When taken in context, we can say with a pretty high degree of certainty that a catastrophe was prevented.
After all, part of the Bush doctrine is being proactive rather than reactive when combating terrorism. Based on that, his and the legislature's decision to go into Iraq was a sound one.
|
Partially Correct, because I remember the reports and people talk about loved ones beign murdered and trust my heart goes out to them. But WMD was the issue because we believe he was going to attack us with them. Much of the talk was about pre-emptive strikes to protect AMERICAN LIVES. Not to have another 9/11, it seems that genocide was something to fall back on to help sell it to the people who didn't believe in WMDs. But trust me, this government was no more concern with the plight of the Iraqi people as they are with the people in the Sudan.
But if there isn't WMDs doesn't it make all the pre-war talk hollow?