D
dutchie
Guest
Order of precedence aside, I feel that Kerry's merit as a soldier falls somewhere between 'ordinary' and just shy of 'hero'. He certainly served with honour, but whether he was extraordinarily brave or not is up for debate, and to me, not that important to his political aspirations. Would I choose a certified War Hero over an ordinary soldier? Not for that reason alone, I wouldn't.
The really interesting thing in the interview for me was President Bush's comments on WMD. If you recall, that was the main stated reason for the invasion. Once it became clear that they were not to be found, the President tried to make us believe that they went to war because Saddam COULD have obtained WMD. His story changed.
Unlike previous posts by others, I will not quote Michael Moore or F/911 as I feel his sources are suspect and his agenda quite obvious. However, to me, Bush either had the intelligence fabricated to conform to his desire to invade Iraq, or the intelligence was flawed and he acted upon that flawed intel. Either way, the reason he invaded, or at least what he stated the reason was at the time, was that Saddam had WMD. He now admits that they are not there.
Second point: What did Iraq do to deserve invasion? He reportedly offered money to the families of suicide bombers, but others have done far worse (Iran actually committed state terrorism against the US, Israel, and the US and they weren't invaded). So you can't use that excuse. Saddam had the desire to obtain WMD, but North Korea might actually have Nukes, and Syria has Chem/Bio weapons, Pakistan (Nukes), etc...so you can't use that one either. The truth is that Saddam, although a monster to his own people, was not much of a threat to the US after the first Gulf War. Bush was not justified in his invasion, and his own comments prove that. We don't need Michael Moore and left-ist slanted propaganda to point it out, a comparison of his comments before and after do that for us.
ps - no man who attains the position of President could possibly be stupid. He may not be that gifted when it comes to public speaking, but he is no dummy.
The really interesting thing in the interview for me was President Bush's comments on WMD. If you recall, that was the main stated reason for the invasion. Once it became clear that they were not to be found, the President tried to make us believe that they went to war because Saddam COULD have obtained WMD. His story changed.
Unlike previous posts by others, I will not quote Michael Moore or F/911 as I feel his sources are suspect and his agenda quite obvious. However, to me, Bush either had the intelligence fabricated to conform to his desire to invade Iraq, or the intelligence was flawed and he acted upon that flawed intel. Either way, the reason he invaded, or at least what he stated the reason was at the time, was that Saddam had WMD. He now admits that they are not there.
Second point: What did Iraq do to deserve invasion? He reportedly offered money to the families of suicide bombers, but others have done far worse (Iran actually committed state terrorism against the US, Israel, and the US and they weren't invaded). So you can't use that excuse. Saddam had the desire to obtain WMD, but North Korea might actually have Nukes, and Syria has Chem/Bio weapons, Pakistan (Nukes), etc...so you can't use that one either. The truth is that Saddam, although a monster to his own people, was not much of a threat to the US after the first Gulf War. Bush was not justified in his invasion, and his own comments prove that. We don't need Michael Moore and left-ist slanted propaganda to point it out, a comparison of his comments before and after do that for us.
ps - no man who attains the position of President could possibly be stupid. He may not be that gifted when it comes to public speaking, but he is no dummy.