Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
Did you support the war when you thought there were weapons of mass destruction?
|
No. But I never thought there were WMD presenting a meaningful threat to us. The very term was cooked up to blur significant distinctions between, e.g., tactical chemical weapons and nuclear bombs.
Quote:
|
It seems to me that the people that didn't support the war even when we thought there were weapons of mass destruction are the ones complaining about the evidence. What does the evidence matter if you were against the war either way.
|
I'm not complaining about the evidence. I'm complaining about the misrepresentation.
Quote:
|
And the people that were for the war don't seem to mind that there were not weapons of mass destruction (I certainly don't care). The only ones that have a gripe are the ones that only supported the war because they thought there were weapons of mass destruction.
|
Some do and some don't. I believe that Bush and others wanted to take Hussein out for other reasons (reasons which were not without plausible merit), but played up the WMD angle to gain public support. This suggests that the WMD were crucial for many people. It took the purported WMD to persuade people that Iraq was a threat to us, and most Americans would not have supported invading another country for other reasons.
