Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
Did you support the war when you thought there were weapons of mass destruction? It seems to me that the people that didn't support the war even when we thought there were weapons of mass destruction are the ones complaining about the evidence. What does the evidence matter if you were against the war either way. And the people that were for the war don't seem to mind that there were not weapons of mass destruction (I certainly don't care). The only ones that have a gripe are the ones that only supported the war because they thought there were weapons of mass destruction. Are there many congressman that have come out and said that they would not have supported the war if there were not weapons of Mass Destruction? Otherwise this is just political hot air.
|
Spanky, I am one of those people who supported the war initially because I believed what the administration was saying at the time. Where the evidence seemed thin, I assumed it was because they knew something, but could not divulge the source. I gave them the benefit of the doubt. I fucked up - I trusted them.
Now I feel horribly duped. I think those that still support the administration in the decision go to war see it as a no harm, no foul sort of thing: Saddam Hussein was a very bad man, and we have a need for vengeance after 9/11 that Afghanistan didn't seem to fulfill, so what are a few lies if they were necessary to take him out?
I don't see it that way. I feel that an administration that would lie about something as horribly grave as reasons for going to war will lie about anything. And what of the honest mistakes in intelligence? Taking a nation to war deserves at least as much due diligence as a commercial real estate transaction. That wasn't done here, or, to the extent that it was done, it was done with an eye toward inflating the value of the property with an intent to convince the client to proceed.
