Wednesday, September 08, 2004

From The Beginning

I know it's not fashionable to criticize the war in Iraq in the middle of a presidential election. I know there is no room for politics on the battlefield. But war somehow manifest itself in the body politic. And this is how it should be. The most important decision a country makes, is the decision to send it's sons and daughter's in harms way.
So I believe everybody should contribute to the debate. We all pay the price, so to speak, so we should all make the decision. And this idea that once we start something, all debate should cease makes no sense. If we started something by debating its merits, it stands to reason that we should conduct the policy under those same constraints. Having said that, yes, of course I support our troops 100%. This is one of the biggest lies perpetrated in this campaign- the idea that if you don't support the administration, you don't support the troops. Sickening!
But pointing out that the reasons for war as stated by the administration in the beginning were all wrong, makes you no less a patriot. On the contrary, I think the patriot wants his country to be RIGHT about it's stated reasons for war. We should want the country to be RIGHT about who we are fighting in the war on terror.

I never believed that the case was made to go into Iraq at the time we did. And now, after the fact, we see why the case wasn't made. No weapons of mass destruction and no connection to 9/11. Lies lies lies.

It makes me sick. And a lot of people, ( a majority according to the latest polls) feel safer with this administration. They don't mind the lies. Or they refuse to acknowledge them. Or they are scared. Or they just don't care.

6 Comments:

Blogger ALa said...

...or maybe they know a bit about history and the Middle East...
...or maybe they saw the mass graves...
...or maybe they saw the guys with their hands cut off...
...or maybe they think it's more likely that the WMDs have been moved -instead of the less likely scenario that the CIA, MI6, France, Russia, Germany and the UN were all wrong...
...maybe they haven't drunk the Kerry Kool Aid...
...or maybe they truly are for the 'little people' like the Dems claim to be and they didn't want a murderous asshole killing 2 year olds in front of their mothers anymore...
Just some other options for ya....

8:55 PM  
Blogger RBP said...

Ala71-The WMD have been moved! Moved? They just moved them? Where? I guess we'll never know. Bush himself has said the weapons are not there. You bring up the history of the Middle East and guys with their hands cut off, and several other maybe's. And I have to tell you, I agree with your points. But the point is, none of those points were brought up initially. We were not told that we should invade Iraq because of the mass graves or the cutting off of the hands. We were lied to. We were told that Saddam was a threat. We were led to believe that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. These are lies. Lies lies....
What exactly is the Kerry Kool-aide.

10:14 PM  
Blogger ALa said...

Maybe you haven't read this little tidbit, but weapons have turned up in Jordan and Lebanon...and how do we know that were from Iraq...because they still had the UN tags on them. In the "Rush to War" AKA the ridiculous drawn out build up (after 17 resolutions), there was plenty of time to transport things over the border to Syria. It makes more sense than TWO Administrations and EVERY intelligence agency in the world being wrong (not to mention those pesky pictures of the dead Kurd’s).
Bush has never said there was no WMD -he said that we haven't found it. Read Tommy Franks new book -he details meetings with leaders of Muslim countries who opposed the war...and told him of the WMDs...Why were Saddam's troops fully equipped with chemical gear?
You may also forget that we were given FIVE reasons to go into Iraq -WMDs being one of those FIVE.
You may also forget David Kay saying that Saddam was A BIGGER THREAT than we had originally imagined...

I didn't think Kerry Kool Aid was available in the south -maybe the black market version you got explains your memory loss on these very relevant issues...

9:47 AM  
Blogger RBP said...

There is a disconnect between what Bush said before and what he said after the invasion. And whatever the five reasons for going to war were, they are not brought up now as justification for war. What we are told now, is the world is a better place without Saddam. Well, who disputes that? The world would be a better place without Kim Jong II in North Korea, but are we going to invade that country and install a democracy? Are we going to install a democracy in Saudi Arabia? I'm sure Bandar Bush would take umbrage with that.
What about the genocide in the Sudan? Are we going to make a better world there?
We were lied to. Five times? Like that famous saying here in Tennessee, and down in Texas too- "fool me once, shame on...me...fool me twice...uh, won't get fooled again!"

1:38 PM  
Blogger ALa said...

No silly --go back to the State of the Union...there were FIVE reasons given that we were invading --only one of those was WMD --granted that was the most publicized reason, but certainly not the only one...we accomplish 3 out of 5 -or- 4 out of 5 --but all we hear about is the one...the one that's in Syria...

3:18 PM  
Blogger Jensun_Clemike said...

There may have been 5 points made in the state of the union, but the point made over and over again - the selling point - was WMD. The next major point I believe, was Saddam's close ties to the terrorists group that attacked the USA. It has been extremely difficult (impossible?) for the Bush administration to come up with any substaniated eveidence for either of these. By the way, I am pro Bush, but he is only human and very well may have made a serious "rush to judgment" mistake here.

11:07 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home