Quote:
Originally posted by Rodeo
It appears so. And I think he is saying that Saddam posed an "imminent threat" because of links to terrorism: "As far as their support for terrorism, yes they were a threat."
Neither of those things are correct. Saddam had about as much in common with Al Queda as the United States did. And all available evidence is that any Iraqi weapons capable of posing a risk to America were destroyed in Gulf I.
Maybe we get at the core it this way, Jeff: Knowing what you know today, was invading Iraq a strategic mistake?
|
Maybe that's one of our chief differences, Rodeo. I refuse to second-guess the decision we made back then based upon information that has since come to light. I realize "Monday morning quarterbacking" is the refuge of those who cannot generate their own ideas. I realize it is far easier to just sit on your a$$, never doing a thing, never coming up with a plan, and chastise others after they have made a decision and taken action. I refuse to do that. You and your kind are way too busy pretending you "knew" Iraq had no WMD's at the time. No one "knew" that; that much is historical fact, in spite of your attempts at revisionism.
Your statement "Saddam had about as much in common with Al Queda as the United States did. " reinforces once again that you either did not read the material on which this thread is based, or did not understand it when you did. Or refuse to believe it, because it undermines you basic "Bush lied" core belief. I'm not sure which one of those contibutes the most to your ignorance, but I do see elements of all three. Try turning off the "Bush lied" filter for awhile and seeing if you can make heads or tails of what this materail actually says. I'm starting to think you can't.