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.
|
I was against the war from the start, not because I am knee-jerk anti-war but because the evidence presented by the Administration for the existence of WMDs in Iraq did not rise to the level necessary to put American lives at risk, in my opinion. The more they said, Iraq has WMDs, but we can't show you how we know that, you have to take our word for it, the more suspicious I became. I mean, c'mon, Powell went before the UN after several days of going over everything we had, and that was the best he could do? A vial of talcum powder and an ambiguous telephone intercept? Had BushCo presented more compelling evidence I was ready to go along, but they did not. Now we know it's because they never had the evidence.
Once we went, the only thing I cared about was that we went in there with sufficient resources to do the job right. They screwed that up too.
