Quote:
Originally Posted by ecduzitgood
After reading over the other thread I do not want to appear condescending the way I did then (for which I apologize) but even you said in that thread they did exsist.
Post #24 in the other thread
"I haven't insisted Saddam "never possessed WMDs." The hundreds of thousands of Kurds killed by gas in the 80s proves that he possessed them at one point. However, there is little to no proof he built up stockpiles after inspectors left in 1998. The lead UN inspector had confirmed 90-95% of Saddam's weapons were destroyed - along with the other 5-10% more than likely destroyed prior to inspections"
Perhaps I should just wash my hands of this. 
|
Quite honestly, the American public may never know the exact details leading up to the invasion - regarding the motivation/information the CIA and Bush admin had, and with regards to what Saddam had in mind. For every memoir that "proves" Saddam didn't have any WMDs, there's one that has "proof" he did. In the end, we'll probably never know.
Politically, Health Care is Obama's Iraq. Both Bush and Obama have a single major political landmark that will define their presidency and become their legacy - for good or for bad. Some felt Bush's push to invade Iraq was justified, made this country safer and the world a better place, some felt it was an unjust war that cost far too much for little or no domestic gain. The same goes for Obama's health care push - some people see it as a necessity that will help the health of the country, while others see it as a huge waste of money with no real benefit.
The Left with criticize Bush for Iraq and praise Obama for Health Care, while the Right will criticize Obama's Health Care and praise Bush's Iraq. The dividends from each probably won't be realized for quite some time...
Hybrid Mode
