Quote:
Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
This story is everywhere, not just FOX.
|
This is such a non issue it is pathetic. Even if we found tons of weapons of mass destruction it would not change anyone’s minds. The lack of WMDs is just something to complain about, and if we found arenas full of them the liberals would find something else to complain about.
The Administration really thought the WMDS were there and so did everyone else (including the Clinton administration). No one lied about anything. The liberals keep saying "if you state something that is not true, is that not a lie?" - As a matter of fact it isn't. A lie is when you state something that isn't true, and you know it is not true. If you don't know it isn't true, then it is not a lie. Everyone in the administration said there were weapons of mass destruction and they all believed that hence no lie. In any case, there were WMDs and even if there were none Saddam at some point was going to try and get his hands on some more.
But all that is irrelevant because anyone that is upset about the lack of WMDs or Bush's supposed lie would be against the war even if we found them. The point is our military took out a ruthless dictator that was engaged in genocide and destroying the entire ecosystem of Iraq (something you would think liberals would care about). Saddam drained the entire swamp system in Iraq in the Southern Tigris and Euphrates valley to kill off the Shiite insurgents. Wetlands that had existed for thousands of years, and the most important wetlands for bird migrations in the entire Middle East. And if you don't care about the birds etc., millions of peoples lives were dependent on the existence of those wetlands. The only reason why the civil war ended in Iraq was because Saddam had ruthlessly repressed it.
From any rational point of view, even a full out civil war is better than what existed under Saddam. In a civil war at least people have the chance to defend themselves where under Saddam they were under the sway of a ruthless dictator. Only a person with their head shoved way up their derriere would really try and argue that Iraq would be better under Saddam than under a civil war.
Iraq is now infinitely better off than it was under Saddam. If the insurgency ends, then it will be even better off. But any argument that says that the war was wrong is an argument that says that Iraq would be better off under Saddam. That position is untenable.
People that are against the war just hate Bush and they want to criticize everything he did. It is pure partisanship, just like the opposition to Clinton's Serbian war was pure partisanship.
Taking out psychotic, genocidal dictators is never a bad thing. Period.
