Powell casts doubt on Iraq WMDs

Yes. Blaming current leaders for previous leaders blunders is not a wise thing. However, I do think that current members of the current US war machine were integrally involved in the mistakes made in the 80's and we should probably think long and hard about the decisions by the current leader to put them in the positions they are in.

I am under the impression that Richard Perle, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfled, and even Colin Powell, were connected with the Reagan/Bush 41 administration and were instrumental in developing Mid East policy at that time.

I, personally, would feel a little better if these guys were replaced. I can't blame GWB because he wasn't even politically active in the 80's, but I can start to blame him if he continues letting the remnants of the Reagan/Bush 41 policy makers continue to advise on policy now. GWB is, afterall, the president and he is the one that will be responsible for any blunders that are committed while he is in the Oval office. In my opinion, he would be better served by some new blood as war advisors.

This is not to say that invading Iraq was a blunder. That will be determined in a year or two. However, even now, we are supporting a murderous regime in Ubekistan to facilitate the war on terror. Did we not learn from the mistakes made supporting Saddam and Bin Laden? Will we have to invade Ubekistan in 20 years to clean up the mess there?

If we are to be the new protectors of the world and nation builders for states that aren't free, we need to clean our act up big time. Assisting Saddam in the 80's and then coming back now so strongly against him is the equivalent of Superman selling crack on the side for extra cash.

-Bam
 
If we are to be the new protectors of the world and nation builders for states that aren't free, we need to clean our act up big time. Assisting Saddam in the 80's and then coming back now so strongly against him is the equivalent of Superman selling crack on the side for extra cash.

great analogy! glad to see that there truly is some clarity coming around. I have been pushing this case for a long time, only to be roasted time and time again for it. perhaps i am lacking in proper articulation.

i'll agree that saddam needed to go, but the manner in which, and the given history of his rule, our intervention and support of his rule, not removing him sooner (like immediately after his most heinous crimes) just add up to a political power grab for a number of (officially unproclaimed) reasons in iraq.

selling this as a morally right thing to do simply has too many inconsistencies for anyone but snowed americans to buy it- i'd much rather our current leadership be straight up with us about the motives, and not try to sell us on phony baloney intel or some cheesy humanitarian effort. i say- call it like it is, and stop trying to insult our collective intelligence. luckily, even many of those who swallowed it all are seemingly coming around.

i am still of the mind that we may still find these fabled items of main public case for pre-emptive strike.... possibly right before the (s)election. that damn smirking chimp has the devil's own luck. with all that commissioned death, how could he not?
 

Forum List

Back
Top