Tweet
OK, the primary reason for the invasion of Iraq has been officially blown out of the water by the following report: U.S. Report Undercuts Bush War Rationale
I guess that it makes the invasion of Iraq an illegal war being that none of the rationale provided by this administration to attack was true and much evidence against their claims was suppressed. Although it may be played off (spun) as a serious err in judgement of the current administration, I submit that it was definitely no error. It was going to happen regardless of a congressional vote or public outcry. Now that the US' own inspections teams and experts have discounted Iraq's WMD capabilities and threat to US national security (the primary argument for a US invasion) what the White House is saying is that Iraq might have tried to restart a WMD program. There were no massive chemical or biological stockpiles- in fact, there were absolutely NO stockpiles found- and no unmanned ariel vehicles ready to disperse chem/bio weapons over large areas of the US eastern seaboard. None of this mattered because the Bush Administration got their war, as planned. The invasion of Iraq was in the works by these exact same members of the Bush Administration as far back as 1997 and there is indisputable proof of this.
Do you really want to trust these guys to another 4 years using the mentality of preemptive war either misinformed or without concern for the actual truth? Do you want this administration who claims to be concerned about the proliferation of nuclear weapons while at the same time, they pulled out of nuclear arms talks and have publically stated that they plan to develop AND USE small-scale nuclear (or nucular, if you prefer) weapons on the field of battle? In your hearts do you think that this is this really a responsible government policy? Do you really believe that no other administration could do better than this one on Homeland Security (which Bush initially opposed) or border security here at home? Be honest with yourself.
How about on the economy? Are the majority of people that you know in your lives doing financially better than they were before Bush took office? Do you know anyone who became unemployed in the last 3-1/2 years that had their benefit period cut short? Did they go on to take a job at a substantially lower payscale JUST to make ends meet? Think about these things before you decide on who to vote for.
Here is another one of my hypotheticals for anyone who STILL may be undecided:
Let's assume that you owned a large company and hired a CEO to run it for you. Let's further assume that you expect a certain degree of executive proficiency and accountability from this person. Now let's imagine that your company is bleeding money badly and the corporate policies that your CEO chose are failing you and your shareholders. Company earnings are far below expectations and he is running up massive debts and the company is teetering on bankruptcy. We can fairly say that this CEO isn't performing in your best interests, correct? So, you have a talk with the man and state your legitimate concerns but he refuses to change his policies. When put to the question of why he isn't performing up to your expectations, he can only offer excuses and blame the previous CEO (and anyone else besides himself) for this mess. So, you ask him to change his policies but he refuses to do so. Remember now, you're his employer and he is bankrupting your company and all that you have worked so hard for in your life stands to be lost.
What do you do now? Do you let him him keep running your company into the ground because he won't change the direction the company is taking? Do you let him keep going because you admire a man who sticks to a policy- good or bad- and "stays the course?" Of course not. You get someone new who has a proven track record, takes responsibility for his actions and can turn this thing around. Need we predict what happens if you don't fire the current CEO? If you keep him on -given the above information and trends- then you deserve to lose everything because only a fool would stand by to watch someone ruin your considerable investment. Here's the kicker; you originally hired this guy as your CEO without thoroughly checking his references and background. You find out much later (after you've lost your company to bankruptcy) that he has had a very poor track record as a CEO (leader) and that everywhere else that he's worked previously has been strapped by massive debts or has gone bankrupt.
Do your research on this man, Bush. Look at his past and you'll see his future.
I guess that it makes the invasion of Iraq an illegal war being that none of the rationale provided by this administration to attack was true and much evidence against their claims was suppressed. Although it may be played off (spun) as a serious err in judgement of the current administration, I submit that it was definitely no error. It was going to happen regardless of a congressional vote or public outcry. Now that the US' own inspections teams and experts have discounted Iraq's WMD capabilities and threat to US national security (the primary argument for a US invasion) what the White House is saying is that Iraq might have tried to restart a WMD program. There were no massive chemical or biological stockpiles- in fact, there were absolutely NO stockpiles found- and no unmanned ariel vehicles ready to disperse chem/bio weapons over large areas of the US eastern seaboard. None of this mattered because the Bush Administration got their war, as planned. The invasion of Iraq was in the works by these exact same members of the Bush Administration as far back as 1997 and there is indisputable proof of this.
Do you really want to trust these guys to another 4 years using the mentality of preemptive war either misinformed or without concern for the actual truth? Do you want this administration who claims to be concerned about the proliferation of nuclear weapons while at the same time, they pulled out of nuclear arms talks and have publically stated that they plan to develop AND USE small-scale nuclear (or nucular, if you prefer) weapons on the field of battle? In your hearts do you think that this is this really a responsible government policy? Do you really believe that no other administration could do better than this one on Homeland Security (which Bush initially opposed) or border security here at home? Be honest with yourself.
How about on the economy? Are the majority of people that you know in your lives doing financially better than they were before Bush took office? Do you know anyone who became unemployed in the last 3-1/2 years that had their benefit period cut short? Did they go on to take a job at a substantially lower payscale JUST to make ends meet? Think about these things before you decide on who to vote for.
Here is another one of my hypotheticals for anyone who STILL may be undecided:
Let's assume that you owned a large company and hired a CEO to run it for you. Let's further assume that you expect a certain degree of executive proficiency and accountability from this person. Now let's imagine that your company is bleeding money badly and the corporate policies that your CEO chose are failing you and your shareholders. Company earnings are far below expectations and he is running up massive debts and the company is teetering on bankruptcy. We can fairly say that this CEO isn't performing in your best interests, correct? So, you have a talk with the man and state your legitimate concerns but he refuses to change his policies. When put to the question of why he isn't performing up to your expectations, he can only offer excuses and blame the previous CEO (and anyone else besides himself) for this mess. So, you ask him to change his policies but he refuses to do so. Remember now, you're his employer and he is bankrupting your company and all that you have worked so hard for in your life stands to be lost.
What do you do now? Do you let him him keep running your company into the ground because he won't change the direction the company is taking? Do you let him keep going because you admire a man who sticks to a policy- good or bad- and "stays the course?" Of course not. You get someone new who has a proven track record, takes responsibility for his actions and can turn this thing around. Need we predict what happens if you don't fire the current CEO? If you keep him on -given the above information and trends- then you deserve to lose everything because only a fool would stand by to watch someone ruin your considerable investment. Here's the kicker; you originally hired this guy as your CEO without thoroughly checking his references and background. You find out much later (after you've lost your company to bankruptcy) that he has had a very poor track record as a CEO (leader) and that everywhere else that he's worked previously has been strapped by massive debts or has gone bankrupt.
Do your research on this man, Bush. Look at his past and you'll see his future.
Comment