AccidentalRepublican
Earning My Ears
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2004
- Messages
- 57
Obviously my first post, but Ive lurked (sounds so sinister! The Evil Queen in Sleeping Beauty lurked!) before, just didnt have anything I was interested in discussing. Great boards, with lots of readers, so I think this is a great place to get a diverse range of answers to this:
If the Kurds of Northern Iraq were gassed with Mustard Gas (a WMD) in the eighties, and there was intelligence indicating that Saddam had developed WMD (the Brits and even the Russians also apparently came to this conclusion) that was unaccounted for, were we supposed to trust Saddam that he had destroyed all such weapons after Gulf War I? You say that Bush lied about WMD in Iraq (that was NOT the only reason to go in, BTW--pay attention!)--where did the WMD go? Did it vanish? Aren't you worried where it is?
A follow up: If we had let Saddam continue his reign, then discovered he (or his regime) had handed over WMD knowhow or a weapon to Al Qaeda (the enemy of my enemy is my friend) which was then used against us at a time of their choosing, would you , Michael Moore, then assert that President Bush should be impeached or otherwise removed (i.e. voted out) for his inaction?
My question for the general public is: Is the issue here proactive (vs. reactive) action against our enemies, or hatred of a hawkish, Republican President?
Judged on reaction (or lack thereof) to the NY Times/Washington Post (et al) sponsored unofficial recount in 2001, and seeing how Lieberman was unceremoniously dumped based on his pro-war positions, Id say the answer is the latter.
p.s. How many UN Resolutions does it take to be serious? Why were Bush I and Clinton so timid? True leadership involves making difficult (and sometimes -GASP- unpopular choices). Lead, follow, or get out of the way! Its easy to protest, but difficult to lead. Just ask Lech Walesa! (If you have to ask who he is, you should probably pay more attention; in any case, just google his name.)
If the Kurds of Northern Iraq were gassed with Mustard Gas (a WMD) in the eighties, and there was intelligence indicating that Saddam had developed WMD (the Brits and even the Russians also apparently came to this conclusion) that was unaccounted for, were we supposed to trust Saddam that he had destroyed all such weapons after Gulf War I? You say that Bush lied about WMD in Iraq (that was NOT the only reason to go in, BTW--pay attention!)--where did the WMD go? Did it vanish? Aren't you worried where it is?
A follow up: If we had let Saddam continue his reign, then discovered he (or his regime) had handed over WMD knowhow or a weapon to Al Qaeda (the enemy of my enemy is my friend) which was then used against us at a time of their choosing, would you , Michael Moore, then assert that President Bush should be impeached or otherwise removed (i.e. voted out) for his inaction?
My question for the general public is: Is the issue here proactive (vs. reactive) action against our enemies, or hatred of a hawkish, Republican President?
Judged on reaction (or lack thereof) to the NY Times/Washington Post (et al) sponsored unofficial recount in 2001, and seeing how Lieberman was unceremoniously dumped based on his pro-war positions, Id say the answer is the latter.
p.s. How many UN Resolutions does it take to be serious? Why were Bush I and Clinton so timid? True leadership involves making difficult (and sometimes -GASP- unpopular choices). Lead, follow, or get out of the way! Its easy to protest, but difficult to lead. Just ask Lech Walesa! (If you have to ask who he is, you should probably pay more attention; in any case, just google his name.)