MuadDib

Superbelt, I see where you are coming from and am inclined to agree with your general assessment (though maybe not to the degree you do). But, I am honestly curious and I don't want my question to turned into another "Bush lied, soldiers died" flame war. There are plenty of threads that have that going on already. I just want to know if the people that support Bush's actions that post on this truly feel he has been forth coming with his reasons. Moore asserts that the real reasons for this war are politically and economically motivated and his rhetorical questions along with Bush history make a case for his claims. I think this is a reasonable assertion, but I know of a lot of folks on this board who would argue that. But, honestly, I am getting kind of tired of arguing about that and I want to know if the supporters out there think that our president had no motives outside of concern for national security and wishes of well-being for the people of Iraq. I think that we could get their true opinions on the matter more readily if those of us whom are known to think otherwise weren't lurking, waiting for them to post just to basically call their opinions' naive and/or stupid. They are neither, just different. I have met very few people on this board who's opinions are truly ignorant and most of them come and go in a week. I hope to get the supporters' unpolarized thoughts and I would hope others would consent to my non-argument disclaimer as well so we could all hear what they think.

If we must we can discuss these thoughts later in a seperate thread, but for now lets just keep it on the general topic of whether or not the assertions made by Moore, without regard to Moore himself, have any merit.

__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751