ComputerBB

I've just taken a look back at old debates around the presidential election last year. It's amazing how long ago that all seems now. Anyway, looking back at the arguments from a different perspective, I've made a little observation worthy of some discussion. In 2002 and early 2003 when the Bush administration was pushing the Iraq war and convincing the country that Saddam Hussein had nukes, the wmd's were the center of the argument, even though Bush's real reasons for the war were to transform a brutal dictatorship in the center of the Middle East into a new democracy that could serve as a model for the whole world. There's no reasonable evidence to say that Bush had any doubt about the nukes himself at the time, but it seems that Bush had gotten the country to expect we'd find nukes, and when we didn't find them, a great number of people decided that the war could not be just because Bush rushed to war with false information against a nation that was, in hindsight, not an imminent threat. Bush would probably be doing a lot better with public opinion right now if he'd have stuck to the ideolistic reasons for the war, but then again, it might not have passed through Congress. In short, the way in which the Bush administration advertised the Iraq war has closed many Americans' minds to the positive effects that the war will have on Iraq and the whole world for years to come.

Don't look at these debates, it will only split the country even more, and cause even more stress, look back when Iraq is finally a decent country... 50-100 years from now. Or we can just wait till Ted Kennedy dies... "Iraq is a Vietnam quagmire."

Bush never said Iraq had "nukes," but weapons of mass destruction, aka gas chambers, etc. And they did. Saddam killed off his people just as Germany killed off the Jews. Bush saved the world by preventing Saddam from advancing in his evilness as Germany did and starting a World War III. Everything Bush did was justified. Democrats are just too blind to the truth to recognize it.