04-26-2004, 09:45 PM
Bush was wrong about WMD's and I know that.
I do hold him to that but there are a few things that don't allow me to despise him for it.
-French, Russian and German intelligence also thought he had them.
They never disputed that fact, thier position was that he wasn't a threat even though he had them.
It's not like the US was the only country who thought we knew he had them.
-As it is turning out, France, Russia and the UN had alterior motives for opposing the invasion.
None of which had to do with the reasons they cited.
It was about their corruption of the Oil For Food Program.
That my friends, is where the real aspirations for oil and money live.
-On the heels on 9/11, could we afford to let Saddam make the UN look ineffective and useless?
The man is already dodging questions about why he didn't do more.
It seems many are suggesting a memo citing historical threats from Bin Laden were enough to validate going after Bin Laden.
Yet, 17 UN resolutions and 12 years of defiance from Saddam isn't enough proof for invasion?
-And lastly, I don't think France, Russia and Germany are getting their fair share of blame for causing this war.
Yes, I said causing it. I think they rate only behind Saddam for deserving blame.
With the UN corruption and dirty dealings for oil and money, I think Saddam felt a false sense of security and assumed the UN wouldn't allow a US attack on him, because they held an interest in Saddams existance....at the expense of his starving population.
Who knows? If the UN wasn't in bed with Saddam, maybe he would've co operated.
Maybe he would've seen the futility in defying international law.
Maybe this war would've never happened.
I do hold him to that but there are a few things that don't allow me to despise him for it.
-French, Russian and German intelligence also thought he had them.
They never disputed that fact, thier position was that he wasn't a threat even though he had them.
It's not like the US was the only country who thought we knew he had them.
-As it is turning out, France, Russia and the UN had alterior motives for opposing the invasion.
None of which had to do with the reasons they cited.
It was about their corruption of the Oil For Food Program.
That my friends, is where the real aspirations for oil and money live.
-On the heels on 9/11, could we afford to let Saddam make the UN look ineffective and useless?
The man is already dodging questions about why he didn't do more.
It seems many are suggesting a memo citing historical threats from Bin Laden were enough to validate going after Bin Laden.
Yet, 17 UN resolutions and 12 years of defiance from Saddam isn't enough proof for invasion?
-And lastly, I don't think France, Russia and Germany are getting their fair share of blame for causing this war.
Yes, I said causing it. I think they rate only behind Saddam for deserving blame.
With the UN corruption and dirty dealings for oil and money, I think Saddam felt a false sense of security and assumed the UN wouldn't allow a US attack on him, because they held an interest in Saddams existance....at the expense of his starving population.
Who knows? If the UN wasn't in bed with Saddam, maybe he would've co operated.
Maybe he would've seen the futility in defying international law.
Maybe this war would've never happened.