Quote:
Originally posted by schmooky007
suppose the white house wouldn't have played the wmd card as justification for war against iraq, will all you liberal fanatics out there stand behind bush if he were to say that saddam must go because of all the atrocities he committed?
|
it's a little late for that discussion but it would've been nice to have been able to have it. this is supposed to be a democracy and an informed one at that. when matters of intelligence are by definition manufactured, controlled and distributed by the state it puts the people in a very difficult position. the truth then becomes critical. bush stands or falls on his honesty, so he said during the campaign (unlike that "last guy" he succeeded). he surely didn't "get elected" solely for his brilliance. bush is now faced with an electorate justly suspicious of his word and his motives. if the case had been so clear initially why didn't he just make it? why didn't he stand behind his new philosphy of preemptive strikes against dictators who are not at present threats to the americans who will pay in purse and blood when
he decides the time has come to remove them? surely a man of such strong moral conviction wouldn't lie to america for something so clear as that, and had the people decided that continued containment was justified surely he would've honored thier wishes. or would he?
- js.