Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tellumFS
If Bush were a Democrat he'd be roasted by now. It's time that someone in the House of Representatives grows some cajones and starts impeachment proceedings against him.
Does it sound like sour grapes? Yep. But to qoute a bumper sticker I saw "No one died when Clinton lied." Someone's gotta hold leaders accountable. It's just not right that they can bald face lie to the public. Besides, a new leader might be able to get more done in Iraq.
|
Evidence of a bald-faced lie from the president, please. It's really odd, the ratio of times I've seen this accusation to times it's been supported.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pan6467
Ironic isn't it that the very right winged, pro-capitalist Bush fans will claim we are in Iraq for liberation and spending billions to help them better themselves, while here in the US they want to cut and get rid of every social program, believing "people should help themselves" and "it is promoting laziness to give financial help, instead people should work harder and take what is given, even if it is subpar wages."
The irony of the right is surpassed only by their hypocracies.
|
Also rather interesting that many on the left that agreed with the peacekeeping efforts in other areas of the world suddenly found liberation to be an insufficient justification when used by a republican president. But I suppose that's a bit of a tangent.
Generalized language aside, you're right. Many conservatives became inconsistent in their beliefs during the Bush administration. Some resolved the dissonance by changing their views altogether, towards this 'neocon' mindset. It's hard to tell who genuinely had a change of heart and who changed merely to fit the conservative mainstream.
I believe that going to war was the right decision at the time, given the information known (and the information 'known') by the U.S. and others.
In retrospect? First off, it's a leap to claim that the ending of the search demonstrates that Iraq never had WMD. To ask a question already asked in this thread, a question I asked my TV screen last night while watching the Daily Show, exactly why is it unreasonable to suspect we can't find the WMDs in Iraq because they've been moved to Iran? Secondly, monetary ties to terrorism might be enough of a justification in my mind, depending on which terrorist groups.
If there really were no WMD and no U.S.-threatening terrorist ties?
I still wouldn't be considering it a completely wasteful venture. I'd still be expecting some good out of it. I'd still currently see some good in it. I'd still reject any relevance of alleged oil motives. I still wouldn't see the validity of Vietnam comparisons.
But I wouldn't have supported it.
And I wouldn't have supported it with the sketchy evidence we have right now. Unless there's some very damning evidence of a Saddam-terrorism link I've missed.