Originally Posted by lamberts-lost-tooth
Your answer would be relevant except that Bush has not changed his position other than to admit that the intell given to BOTH parties was faulty (as was the intel given to most countries)
HOWEVER....the liberals I quoted have TRIED to make it seem that the Bush administration was the source of the intel...and have tried to seperate themselves from their own statements to make it look as if they were not equally culpable.
How many times have you heard people AND the Dems say that "Bush LIED about WMD's"....why doesthe acceptance of the intel make him a liar....yet liberals never mention Kerry...Gore...and the other Dems that bought into it?
The only difference I see is the hypocrisy of the Dems who are trying to pin blame on Bush after backing the war at the beginning but waffling when it has become politically expedient.
yeah, i hear ya... BOTH parties were to blame on beating the war drums... but you have to admit, this administration was the one "packaging" the intel, using information that was determined to be wrong, aluminum tubes, sadam meeting with al qaeda.. the downing street memo touched upon that... why would you use information that was considered false... it only clouds judgement.
here's a quote from jimmy carter during the build up...
"...The heartfelt sympathy and friendship offered to America after the 9/11 attacks, even from formerly antagonistic regimes, has been largely dissipated; increasingly unilateral and domineering policies have brought international trust in our country to its lowest level in memory....." President Jimmy Carter January 31, 2002
?Even if?lies and trickery by Saddam Hussein are exposed, this will not indicate any real or proximate threat by Iraq to the United States or to our allies.
"With overwhelming military strength now deployed against him and with intense monitoring from space surveillance and the U.N. inspection team on the ground, any belligerent move by Saddam against a neighbor would be suicidal?.If Iraq does possess such concealed weapons, as is quite likely
, Saddam would use them only in
the most extreme circumstances, in the face of an invasion of Iraq, when all hope of avoiding the destruction of his regime is lost?.
"The cost of an on-site inspection team would be minuscule compared to war, Saddam would have no choice except to comply, the results would be certain, military and civilian casualties would be avoided, there would be almost unanimous worldwide support, and the United States could regain its leadership in combating the real threat of international terrorism.?
President Jimmy Carter January 31, 2002 EXCERPT from a statement From THE CARTER CENTER.
MANY, Liberals, Conservatives, were buying into the intel, but many still believed that war shouldn't be rushed into. funny how so many were calling 'ol jimmy unpatriotic during this time... dude was the president for pete's sake.