cbc812 wrote:C'mon TG. The whole thing reeked of bull**** from the start. It's not a question of omniscience, partisan politics, idealogy, or anything else. Just basic common sense. The whole venture was "sold", badly, and when the sell job didn't go so well, we got the anti-American B.S. referenced above.
The mere fact that national leaders had to resort to that level of vitriol and insanity to ram this through was evidence enough that their "case" for war didn't hold water.
National leaders use that level of vitriol almost as much as Cbid forum members.
This conversation can begin and end with how the Tea Party has been portrayed by the dems and thier followers.
As for "common sense"??
Not so fast, exlax. As has been stated many times before, even the previous administration felt Saddam had WMDs, using the same intel without a need to twist the facts nor arrive at a preconceived conclusion. And Saddam had been thumbing his nose at the US and the UN for over a decade with those flimsy resolutions that he continuously ignored.
And don't even mention those "inspections". Those were a joke plain and simple.
The reason that Dubya acted and Clinton didn't is simply a matter of timing (pre and post 9/11). America wasn't ready to pre-emptively attack anyone prior to that day.
To be clear, we're not debating the merit of the war as seen from 2011.
I just want to know how you "knew" things that two Presidents, all of Congress, and most of the UN felt were facts.
It wasn't a sell job. Or, if it were, it had been going on for several years before Bush even took office.