Quote:
Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
The funny thing with this debate is if you say "He lied," the defense is "No, he exagerrated." OK. An exagerration is a lie. Its not as bold as a full on fabrication, but its a lie nonetheless. You've misrepresented the gravity of something. In this case, a standard had to be met. To go to war, we had to prove an imminent threat existed. Well, Hussein was a potential threat. Remote, unlikely, but neverthless technically potential. So somebody exaggerated his danger to the level of "imminent." And based on that exagerration, we went to war. Now, how is that exagerration not a lie? If Bush had just bald faced made up a pile of facts and we went to war on those, how would the result have been any different than what he achieved with his "exaggeration"? A lie is a lie is a lie. The degree of the deception is immaterial in this case.
|
Everyone then believed he had weapons. He had used them before. He had tried covert things against the US before. No exaggerations so far.
After 9/11 to alow the above to be a continuing threat would have been negligence on the part of our government. Despite after the fact rationalizations, we were only allowed to "contain" him such as it was becasue we had 200K troops on his border. In 96 Clinton etal made noises about attacking him based upon what was known. Nothing had changed by 2003 except we could afford to wait and see any longer.
Threaded Mode