No, I am not. I am saying that Bush wanted this war so badly he could taste it and he did whatever he had to to get it.
Thank you for confirming my opinion. Your belief that "Bush wanted this war so badly he could taste it and he did whatever he had to do to get it", is a good example of those "other opinions and impressions about Bush". It remains that even if its true. My original statement was "The lack of WMD doesn't say anything about wether Bush was lying or mistaken." When you reach the conclusion that Bush was not mistaken but was rather lying you include ideas like "Bush wanted this war so badly he could taste it and he did whatever he had to to get it.".
Of course..........its my theory as well as others. I could never say 100% that its true because I'm not in Bush's head. However, the evidence suggests that it may well be true. As an asidet, there are good theories and bad ones.
Your supposition is that because there are no WMDs in Iraq does not necessarily confirm that Bush lied. However, that's not the only statement he made that has turned out to be false. There were several.........each more significant than the one preceding that have proven to be inaccurate. We also now know that there were people telling Bush and company that his claims were likely false but he chose not to listen. This is the president of the most powerful democracy in the world choosing to make his own truth.
Therefore, its not a huge leap of faith to believe that "Bush wanted this war so badly he could taste it". And even if you believe it IS a huge leap of faith, there are many who do not agree with you. That's the ultimate test in a democracy.
However even if you accept "Bush wanted this war so badly he could taste it and he did whatever he had to to get it." as true that doesn't mean that Bush was lying it would only mean that Bush would lie if that was what it took. I believe your other assumptions would probably include something like "Bush knew that their where no WMD in Iraq", or at least "Bush did not think that there was any reason to think it very like that there where still WMD in Iraq." If you start off with those assumptions then calling Bush a liar makes sense.
In past posts, I have made similar statements. I think he knew the likelihood of WMDs in Iraq was slim to none........esp. when after a couple of months, the weapon inspectors were turning up with empty hands.
That's true. I still don't think a president of this country should start a war without sufficient evidence to support his actions.
And "sufficent evidence" in your opinion, means hard verifiable proof?
Yes.
No. During the War of 1812, the US was attacked.......the Brits. sailed up the Potomac.
During the war. They didn't sail up the Potomac and attack US soil until after we declared war.
home.earthlink.net;
My mistake.......however, the empress of 10k Americans to serve on the Brit. Navy IMO was an act of war.
What about the war against the Barbary Pirates?
memory.loc.gov;
I don't consider that to be a war.......it was a problem clearly but I don't think anyone classifies it as a war. I do think our actions were justified.
The wars I would not have supported were the Korean and Vietnamese wars. I would not have agreed to the Gulf and Yugoslav wars without an adequate coalition.
We had coalitions in Korea and Vietnam as well, in fact Korea was a UN operation. (Of course they where also much bigger then any of the Yogoslav wars, and took much longer then the Gulf war)
The circumstances are different.........we had strong alliances it the latter two wars that were effected. While we were members of SEATO, our motivation in Vietnam was the Domino theory. I get nervous whenever the military comes up with cockamamie theories.
ted |
