Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mattyk72
I find it kinda funny how quickly we turned our attention away from Bin Laden and instead went after Saddam, despite the fact we have never found any weapons of mass destruction.
The truth is we'll never find Bin Laden, why? Because we're not trying to.
So where are these weapons that Saddam had anyway? Weren't they a huge reason we went in there in the first place? So now that we can't find them (because they didn't have any to start with) we instead hear the administration write it off with excuses, 'well, the world is a safer place now that Saddam is out'. Is it really though?? Anti-american sentiment is more heated than ever. The middle east is still a war zone, americans are still being killed, beheaded, etc. 911 was this administrations' perfect excuse to invade Iraq so baby bush could seek revenge for his daddy. He wanted to go in there before 911, so this was a convenient reason to justify it.
Bush is dragging the U.S. down the crapper. I really don't understand people that can stand by and support this buffoon.
Did anyone catch it when Bush totally butchered trying to pronounce 'Abu Ghraib'??
Just embarrassing, man. Totally embarrassing that this is the leader of the free world.
|
We are not safer with Sadam out of power? How do you no? What did we do to Bin Laden to force him to take down the WTC's? The fact is we have found chemical weapon's, although not in mass quantity, you don't think he shipped out his mobile weopon's development program's into neighboring countries? If he had nothing, why did he deny the inspector's access during the Clinton regime? If he had nothing to hide he could have maintained power over his country, so he gave it all up over nothing? He refused access because there was nothing there? The fact is we will alway's have enemies, we just eliminated one very dangerous one.
If you believe that Sadam having been left to himself, wouldn't develope some kind of WOMD to detonate on american soil, if givin the opportunity, your only fooling yourself.
The fact is, we were attacked 2 times under Clinton, once on our soil, and he didn't do a thing, and no sooner does he leave office we get hit with 9/11, it seem's doing nothing is more harmful to America, then meeting the enemy head on. At last check we haven't been attacked since 9/11, but Bush isn't getting the job done? I say no new's is good new's!
I sure hope Gibb's doesn't adhere to that kind of thinking during away games, we would't want to make the home crowd angry by beating them, would we?