the only reason its brought up is that for this author's statement to be true there had to be a conspiracy. i don't understand your response to the quotes by the Clinton administration.
The Clinton administration time and time again warned of the danger of Sadaam Hussein. So why did he say those things? I guess i just don't see the angle he was taking.
Look I have to understand why. I'm more than willing to accept that we went to war based on the desire for Iraq's oil. That makes sense to me. What doesn't make sense to me is the fact that you're saying that the search for WMD's was simply a bold faced lie given to us by 4 consecutive administrations over the span of 20 years.
So my question becomes, "were they all in on it?" "who started lying about it and when?" Thats a question that you have not answered. I'm trying to be open minded in this. So i'm asking quesitons. And you're gettign mad that i'm asking those questions. And you'd have to be either a complete idiot or a person with a political angle NOT to ask those questions.
I am not a CT'er. If you won't take my word for it read the guidelines on the CT board and read many of my posts there. I don'y know that this was a conspircay to begin with and don't think a conspiracy could ever be legitimately proven. to say:
the only reason its brought up is that for this author's statement to be true there had to be a conspiracy.
Incorrect! There doesn't have to be a conspiracy for the author's opinon to be true. For example: Bush could have had serious war fever and wanted revenge for Saddam's attempted assasination attempt and in roder to get support he needed to make promises to certian entities to get that support as to who benefits in the aftermath. Or it could have any other number of scenarios that don't invovled a group of power brokers in a room with bush and cheney saying let's get their oil and here's how we will do it and lie to the American poeple about it.
But RESULTS speak far louder than the talk here. We are benefiting off that nations oil and we traded 4400 US lives for it, 8 years of war, no WMD's, 100,000 Iraqi lives for it, Trillions of debt, and IRAN becoming the regional power there. If you knew the results before the invasion would have supported it? Can we at least agree that it wasn't about spreading democracy and the threat of WMD's?
The Clinton administration time and time again warned of the danger of Sadaam Hussein. So why did he say those things? I guess i just don't see the angle he was taking.
You cannot take what polticians say for face value. NEVER! A good example: Michelle Bachman's various blabber about over spending yet she voted for the addtional 190 billion in Bailout monies. A power Acknowledging a threat makes people feel safer. What if Clinton stated Saddam is not a threat? How does he justify to the world the "no fly zone" there? How does he justify the costs? But not to be able to have our thumb on Saddam might encourage him to push the limits as we would be able to remove as quickly. Hence the presnece there is needed and we needed to say publically he was a threat.
Common sense dictates that Saddam knows he loses his position of power and likely gets executed if he does anything act of aggression outside his borders. Even if he had WMD's its still not neccesarily a immitent danger.
What makes me also luagh is if the "intel" was so good how is it that they found ZERO WMD's? What was their intel based on RUMOR? They were cherry picking it. Plain and simple and any poltician at that time risks poltical suicide challanging it.
So hopefully you see that i have answered your quesitons.
