bountyhunter
member
Now I know Why This Bothers Me
You wrote:
"We don't have to "prove" in order to "justify" this war that Saddam has WMD."
Now I know why this bothers me so much. Bush stated dozens of times publicly that Iraq had a program that was near completion of a nuclear device. He sent Colin Powell before the UN to say the same thing and he had "proof" which was aluminum tubes and satellite photos of square building structures. Every body saw that, and everybody heard it. The white house spokesperson ridiculed a reporter who asked if there was actual proof by saying: "The only proof you people are going to accept is a mushroom cloud." I heard it and I saw it. I also remember Bush repeatedly said that he had absolute proof, but that he couldn't reveal it because of security reasons. That's all public record.
Now, the war supporters have fallen back to the position that it doesn't matter if anything is found... really? doesn't matter to whom? I think it matters a WHOLE lot!
Where I was raised, I was taught a man is only a good as his word. And Bush said loud and often that Saddam was lying and had a nuclear bomb under development... and Bush used that to justify the urgency of an immediate invasion. I heard it loud and clear, that the inspectors wouldn't find it in time and then Iraq would have nuclear weapons. So, we invaded and now we own the place.
Well, now it's time to put up or shut up: if there is no evidence and it turns out Bush was just blowing smoke, his credibility (and ours) will be vaporware. So, I respectfully disagree with the original posters position that it doesn't matter whether the promised weapons are delivered. In fact, I would say US credibility hangs by it. If not, the Arab states will just say: Saddam was right... it was just an excuse to invade Iraq and set up a puppet government that will pump cheap oil.
You wrote:
"We don't have to "prove" in order to "justify" this war that Saddam has WMD."
Now I know why this bothers me so much. Bush stated dozens of times publicly that Iraq had a program that was near completion of a nuclear device. He sent Colin Powell before the UN to say the same thing and he had "proof" which was aluminum tubes and satellite photos of square building structures. Every body saw that, and everybody heard it. The white house spokesperson ridiculed a reporter who asked if there was actual proof by saying: "The only proof you people are going to accept is a mushroom cloud." I heard it and I saw it. I also remember Bush repeatedly said that he had absolute proof, but that he couldn't reveal it because of security reasons. That's all public record.
Now, the war supporters have fallen back to the position that it doesn't matter if anything is found... really? doesn't matter to whom? I think it matters a WHOLE lot!
Where I was raised, I was taught a man is only a good as his word. And Bush said loud and often that Saddam was lying and had a nuclear bomb under development... and Bush used that to justify the urgency of an immediate invasion. I heard it loud and clear, that the inspectors wouldn't find it in time and then Iraq would have nuclear weapons. So, we invaded and now we own the place.
Well, now it's time to put up or shut up: if there is no evidence and it turns out Bush was just blowing smoke, his credibility (and ours) will be vaporware. So, I respectfully disagree with the original posters position that it doesn't matter whether the promised weapons are delivered. In fact, I would say US credibility hangs by it. If not, the Arab states will just say: Saddam was right... it was just an excuse to invade Iraq and set up a puppet government that will pump cheap oil.