Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Anti War Protests
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="swordsman" data-source="post: 164204" data-attributes="member: 8778"><p>"He lied to the country....", my favorite argument.</p><p> </p><p>First, i saw the press conf with Wolfowicz and when asked, he said we have 9 or 10 valid reasons to go into Iraq. When asked for the best reason, he replied "WMD". WMD was far from the only reason we went into Iraq. This entire mushroom cloud erupted from this press conference, and all he did was answer the question that was asked. Yet the press only ran with WMD.</p><p> </p><p>Second, if the intellegence agencies reported to Bush that there was WMD (and since we sold some to Hussein it was a reasonable assumption) all Bush did was respond by doing what he deemed appropriate. As a taxpayer, i'm paying him to make decisions based on the best available information...and he did the job for which he was elected. His oath is to protect and defend the US, and as Commander-in-Chief he went where he believed the threat to be.</p><p> </p><p>Third, it was the UN Security Council that promised "dire consequences" if Hussein didn't submit to inspections and show proof he destroyed all WMD...17 TIMES!!!! Bush was the first to actually back up the words. To my mind, he is at least more honest than those who made threats to disarm Iraq with no intention to back them up.</p><p> </p><p>Fourth, where's the lie? I didn't get a 1600 on my SAT exam, but i certainly didn't lie on the test paper. Sometimes things are simply wrong. It's only a lie if Bush and the intel community knew there were no WMD and told the country there were. I think it's safe to say that Bush, for one, certainly believed they were there...he bet his presidency on it.</p><p> </p><p>Finally, you can keep your "I have nothing but respect for the armed services but "....there is simply no room for "but" in that sentence. You are only free to disagree with the reasons they are there because of the job they've done in the past, securing your right to dissent. Dissent all you want, but the members of our armed services deserve your thanks and unwavering support, nothing less.</p><p> </p><p>Enjoy your night and thanks for the vent.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="swordsman, post: 164204, member: 8778"] "He lied to the country....", my favorite argument. First, i saw the press conf with Wolfowicz and when asked, he said we have 9 or 10 valid reasons to go into Iraq. When asked for the best reason, he replied "WMD". WMD was far from the only reason we went into Iraq. This entire mushroom cloud erupted from this press conference, and all he did was answer the question that was asked. Yet the press only ran with WMD. Second, if the intellegence agencies reported to Bush that there was WMD (and since we sold some to Hussein it was a reasonable assumption) all Bush did was respond by doing what he deemed appropriate. As a taxpayer, i'm paying him to make decisions based on the best available information...and he did the job for which he was elected. His oath is to protect and defend the US, and as Commander-in-Chief he went where he believed the threat to be. Third, it was the UN Security Council that promised "dire consequences" if Hussein didn't submit to inspections and show proof he destroyed all WMD...17 TIMES!!!! Bush was the first to actually back up the words. To my mind, he is at least more honest than those who made threats to disarm Iraq with no intention to back them up. Fourth, where's the lie? I didn't get a 1600 on my SAT exam, but i certainly didn't lie on the test paper. Sometimes things are simply wrong. It's only a lie if Bush and the intel community knew there were no WMD and told the country there were. I think it's safe to say that Bush, for one, certainly believed they were there...he bet his presidency on it. Finally, you can keep your "I have nothing but respect for the armed services but "....there is simply no room for "but" in that sentence. You are only free to disagree with the reasons they are there because of the job they've done in the past, securing your right to dissent. Dissent all you want, but the members of our armed services deserve your thanks and unwavering support, nothing less. Enjoy your night and thanks for the vent. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Anti War Protests
Top