VRGNCD5

Sounds like it to me.
Powell says Iraq may not have had WMD

MrFatbooty

Wow, now that you have posted this I like you so much more. :thumbup:

VRGNCD5

:ugh:

When I seen that my jaw hit the ground. How do you go from "They have em, we know for a fact they have em, we feel threatened by them so we're gonna turn their country into mud" to "Well, maybe they didn't have em"?????

MrFatbooty

See, this has been my objection to the war ever since it started.

The Bush administration made these supposedly rock-solid claims about how Saddam had WMD and as such posed an imminent threat to the national security of our country. The problem was they didn't really back up their claims with any facts. The information that Powell presented in his report to the UN just before we gave up on trying to deal with them was for the most part circumstantial. On top of that, it was revealed after some investigation that documents used as evidence in Powell's report were FORGED. It seems to me that the reason we went to war without UN support is because the leadership of our country was not able to make a strong enough case to the UN but wanted to invade Iraq anyway. This is just my interpretation but it's an interpretation of the facts.

I know Saddam is a bad dude and did lots of bad stuff to his people. But was a bad dude the whole time he was in power. So basically it comes down to whether or not people believe that the ends of removing Saddam justify the means of going in there to do it under false pretenses. I don't feel that the ends justify the means in this case, and that's why I didn't approve of the actions of our country then nor do I approve of them now.