• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Weary warriors favor Obama

cpwill said:
The Clinton administration thought that Saddam was still developing WMD, the Bush administration thought Saddam was still developing WMD, Kerry thought Saddam was still developing WMD, Hillary thought Saddam was still developing WMD, France thought Saddam was still developing WMD, Germany thought Saddam was still developing WMD, Russia thought Saddam was still developing WMD, we even found out after going through the Palace Records that to an extent Saddam thought he was still developing WMD - and his senior leadership was simply unwilling to tell him otherwise and admit failure. He did have WMD, and he did have missiles with the range he had agreed to give up.

The notion that somehow the decision to go to war on the part of either party wasn't driven by the belief that Saddam was continually developing WMD is a silly abuse of history.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between thinking and evidence. Nothing in the intel or anyone else suggested growing. Across the board the reports where about having left over wmds (which he had no way to maintain btw). You put a lot of stock in things like what some "THINK," (even while actually be wrong about what they "THINK.") I put stock in evidence. Color me a silly, but I think my way is better.


And no, one person and one person only was given the authority to be decide (the decider). And he present intel that was very much in doubt, while somehow missing or ignoring intel to the contrary. Only the ideological partisan finds a way to skip the this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom