|
The administration took us to war for several reasons.
Saddam had WMD that he was gonna sell to terrorists (oh, wait, I guess that wasn't true after all)
Saddam helped with the 9/11 attacks (whoops, nevermind, that was a lie)
The Iraqi people want us there, and we would be greeted as liberators, with flowers and parades (or, maybe gunfire and carbombs).
The war would only cost 2 or 3 billion dollars, which could be paid back within the first few years on the oil revenues alone (I think they may have misunderestimated the tab, just a touch. And we're still waiting on those oil revenues).
The people who opposed the war, such as the Democrats in congress, did so without merit, since they didn't have the same access to the same intelligence that Administration did (oh, wait, isn't that the opposite of what Bush is saying now?).
The war will be quick and easy, a painless operation that will be over within a few months, if not a few weeks (over two years and 2,000 American deaths later, we're still in it).
Hmm...
And now, to hear the administration talk about the war, we find out:
Saddam himself was a WMD. So, when we say he had WMD, we meant it in the metaphoric sense. He was his own weapon of mass destruction, and had to be taken out.
Saddam had ties to Osama and Al Qeada that we can prove. Although, there has never been any solid evidence or proof that Saddam had any ties to Al Qeada or Osama. And we never claimed that there was. What we said was that he had ties to terrorist organizations like Al Qeada and Osama... Yeah... that's it...
The Iraqis still want us there, its just that the ones who do were overwhelmed by the very large majority that doesn't. The media just isn't reporting the four or five Iraqis that like Bush. Besides, Saddam was bad. Would you rather have Saddam in power? Do you love Saddam? You do, don't you. You want to marry him...
We said all along that the war would cost a lot of money, including up to or above 2 or 3 hundred billion dollars. And, of course, we can't ask the Iraqis to pay for it with their oil revenues. It would hurt their developing economy.
The Democrats voted for this war. They approved it. Even though the resolution would have passed if every Democrat in Congress had voted against it, it is still their fault. The Republicans have the majority of seats, but they are only part of the equation. And even though Bush is the president ans is the one who really pushed for this war, its hardly his fault. Besides, The people who voted for this war had the same access to the same intelligence that Bush and the Administration saw.
This war could go on and on. We might be in Iraq for five years, we could be there for fifty. Its normal. That's what we should expect. We never said it would be over within months. Nobody expected that.
:puke:
So, tell me, Republicans....
Who's the revisionist historian here?
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
