The deficit had been running for awhile before Reagun.
This is what I've been trying to convey. A really remarkable thing happened during the Clinton administration. A surplus! I remember hearing about the deficit when I was in Jr. high ( they call it middle school now ). That was in the middle 60's.
Dubbya did this all by himself.
Imagine what he could do in another 4 years?
So your telling me the dot com bubble was caused solely by clinton and that Bush alone killed it?
If you read very carefully... it's apparent to even Hastert he can't trust the policy makers in the Bush administration...
Please. For ONCE Bush is being a fiscal hawk. (I'm speaking in relative terms here. It's hard not to be a fiscal hawk compared to what both the House and the Senate want to spend on the next highway bill.) That's what this is about. Bush has said he wants to spend $256 billion - a 21 percent increase. Hastert wants more. The Senate wants more. If Hastert thinks HIS numbers add up, how can the admin's numbers not add up?
There you go! Some nobody says it, so it must be true!
No, Kerry was the one who used the spoke of "the most crooked... lying group" he's ever seen. Taranto didn't make that up. I didn't make that up. It's true all by itself - no help from me or anybody else.
So your telling me the dot com bubble was caused solely by clinton and that Bush alone killed it?
Where did he say that? All he said is there was a surplus under Clinton and a giant dificit under Bush.
You could (i'm not saying you would be right, but you could) argue that both presidents are just riding the wave and there's nothing much they can do. But then the rationale for tax cuts goes down the drain. Here's a more or less objective standard: the one put forward by Bush himself. Those millions and millions of jobs he would create. That was the goal he aimed for, and if he would've come close to it, you coúld say the deficit was worth it. But now he clearly failed by his own standards.
I don't believe in the " dot com bubble " being responsible for as much as people would like to argue.
I believe Clinton made the better times better than they would have been. I also believe Bush made the bad times much worse than they could have been.
I just went over this with SDW.
The dot com bubble was responsible for a LOT. Just take into consideration because of tech stocks the NASDAQ was at an ALL TIME high of 5000 Points! Its at ~2000 now. Its never even come close to 5000 points before or after. Now that may not have been responsible for EVERYTHING but it sure was responsible for quite a bit.
And 9/11 certainly did not help the economy either. There is just some things you have to take into consideration that have nothing to do with who is president at the time.
The public's verdict on which campaign has been fighting fair - and which hasn't.
Quote:
... Gallup found that the public seems to believe Kerry and the Democratic party have, at least so far, conducted a dirtier campaign than Bush and the Republican party.
Gallup asked, "Would you say that George W. Bush and the Republican party have - or have not - attacked John Kerry unfairly?" Twenty-one percent said yes, Bush and the GOP have attacked Kerry unfairly, while 67 percent said no, they have not. Twelve percent had no opinion.
Then Gallup asked, "Would you say that John Kerry and the Democratic party have - or have not - attacked George W. Bush unfairly?" Thirty-five percent said yes, Kerry and the Democrats have attacked Bush unfairly, while 57 percent said no, they have not. Eight percent had no opinion.
Breaking down the numbers by party, 33 percent of Democrats said Bush and the Republicans have attacked Kerry unfairly. But 53 percent of Democrats said Bush and the Republican party have not attacked Kerry unfairly.
Twenty-one percent of independents said Bush has been unfair, but 65 percent of independents said Bush and the GOP have not attacked Kerry unfairly.
Nine percent of Republicans believe Bush has been unfair, while 84 percent believe he hasn't.
Looked at from the other party's perspective, 59 percent of Republicans said Kerry and the Democrats have attacked Bush unfairly, while just 35 percent said Kerry and the Democrats have not attacked Bush unfairly.
Thirty-five percent of independents said Kerry has been unfair, while 55 percent said Kerry has not attacked Bush unfairly...
And who is running negative ads today? Bush. Short on info big on scare tactics.
Wait how are they negative? Because they mention his name? Well shit we better not mention the person we are running against. Or Maybe its because they mention his shoddy voting record. Hmm.
The dot com bubble was responsible for a LOT. Just take into consideration because of tech stocks the NASDAQ was at an ALL TIME high of 5000 Points! Its at ~2000 now. Its never even come close to 5000 points before or after. Now that may not have been responsible for EVERYTHING but it sure was responsible for quite a bit.
And 9/11 certainly did not help the economy either. There is just some things you have to take into consideration that have nothing to do with who is president at the time.
Yup! The party line........
So I suppose someone else has been spending our money?
Here's a more or less objective standard: the one put forward by Bush himself. Those millions and millions of jobs he would create. That was the goal he aimed for, and if he would've come close to it, you coúld say the deficit was worth it. But now he clearly failed by his own standards.
Yep he did. I am not denying that. One of the great things about being a free thinker is I can admit when a member of a political party screws up. I personally don't think Bush is responsible for the job loss though, I think NAFTA is. I also don't believe Kerry is going to be able to put an end to the job loss, He can't even stop out-sourcing in his own house. Just look at his wife and Heinz. But thats just an opinion, It is, on the other hand, a fact that several small business people have talked about laying people off and not working as hard if Kerry raises their taxes anymore. And that my friend is not creating jobs, thats losing them.
So I suppose someone else has been spending our money?
Did I say some one else is spending our money? No I don't believe so. George is running the country into a deficit. I am not denying that. I am just point out some factors that could way in on that. I suppose Bush is not trying to get the Budget Enforcement Act that expired in 2002 renewed? I suppose interest rates are not at an all time low. I suppose Bush is doing absolutely nothing but spending our money on worthless things that bring nothing back to the country in return. I suppose we don't need national security either. And I also suppose the NASDAQ being at ~2000 points has no effect on the economy what so ever. And I suppose neither did 9/11.
Don't just say its the party line and be done with it. Thats no good. Why don't you point out to me how those things DID'NT way strongly on the bad/good economy? Until then I am going to stand by the fact that they did.
EDIT: I should probably mention that accusing me of towing the party lines falls short on me being an independent and voting simply on facts and track records.
Did I say some one else is spending our money? No I don't believe so. George is running the country into a deficit. I am not denying that. I am just point out some factors that could way in on that. I suppose Bush is not trying to get the Budget Enforcement Act that expired in 2002 renewed? I suppose interest rates are not at an all time low. I suppose Bush is doing absolutely nothing but spending our money on worthless things that bring nothing back to the country in return. I suppose we don't need national security either. And I also suppose the NASDAQ being at ~2000 points has no effect on the economy what so ever. And I suppose neither did 9/11.
Don't just say its the party line and be done with it. Thats no good. Why don't you point out to me how those things DID'NT way strongly on the bad/good economy? Until then I am going to stand by the fact that they did.
EDIT: I should probably mention that accusing me of towing the party lines falls short on me being an independent and voting simply on facts and track records.
Hey I'm independent also.
I guess I've been over htis so many times with the consevative factions here that I'm weary of going over it with people who play dumb.
Yes other things have an effect but I think dot com and 911 lost any effect they had on the economy as a whole a long time ago.
As far as worthless things go ( and I don't know where you stand on this so you may disagree ) but we just went through a worthless war that cost in the hundreds of billions.
Cool maybe we can have some good debates then. Looking forward to it.
Quote:
Yes other things have an effect but I think dot com and 911 lost any effect they had on the economy as a whole a long time ago.
Thats true, But I believe that its much harder to bring the economy up than it is down. This is really an beaten path as this argument is essentially a battle of opinions and it does no good to debate it really. Its just nice to see some one actually admit that they did in some way shape or form effect the economy.
Quote:
As far as worthless things go ( and I don't know where you stand on this so you may disagree ) but we just went through a worthless war that cost in the hundreds of billions.
And I might add we're still there spending money.
Well this is a tough one for me. Its hard for me to say because I am not an iraqi but as a culturally open American I think Saddam needed to be removed. I don't necessarily believe he had WOMD but I think that if he was not removed he would have got them eventually, And I think he would have used them, I also think that it would be much easier to remove him with out them. Frankly those are all opinions to and subject to further debate.
As for it being worthless, Yeah I guess you could say that. I mean yeah it cost us LOTS of money, but my opinion is that Saddam would have gotten WOMD sooner or later and it would have cost us far more lives and far more cash to stop him then. Its all a very unfortunate and delicate situation and should be looked at both ways, I believe it was right by guessing what Saddam would have done in the future but again thats just me.
You seem pretty level headed so I wanna know what you think about my side of the war in iraq, Just remember there is hardly any facts on the whole issue so it is an opinion based argument.
Cool maybe we can have some good debates then. Looking forward to it.
Thats true, But I believe that its much harder to bring the economy up than it is down. This is really an beaten path as this argument is essentially a battle of opinions and it does no good to debate it really. Its just nice to see some one actually admit that they did in some way shape or form effect the economy.
Well this is a tough one for me. Its hard for me to say because I am not an iraqi but as a culturally open American I think Saddam needed to be removed. I don't necessarily believe he had WOMD but I think that if he was not removed he would have got them eventually, And I think he would have used them, I also think that it would be much easier to remove him with out them. Frankly those are all opinions to and subject to further debate.
As for it being worthless, Yeah I guess you could say that. I mean yeah it cost us LOTS of money, but my opinion is that Saddam would have gotten WOMD sooner or later and it would have cost us far more lives and far more cash to stop him then. Its all a very unfortunate and delicate situation and should be looked at both ways, I believe it was right by guessing what Saddam would have done in the future but again thats just me.
You seem pretty level headed so I wanna know what you think about my side of the war in iraq, Just remember there is hardly any facts on the whole issue so it is an opinion based argument.
Yes. As far as Saddam eventually aquiring WOMD it's just speculation on your part. I thought you wanted to just deal with facts?
And the facts are he had no WOMD and this war was sold on a falsehood.
Yes. As far as Saddam eventually aquiring WOMD it's just speculation on your part. I thought you wanted to just deal with facts?
And the facts are he had no WOMD and this war was sold on a falsehood.
Your right, about me wanting to argue the facts. Here is one, the war was not sold on a falsehood this war was sold on intel. Regardless of why the war was sold in the first place, its over and done with and now the FACT is that Saddam is not in power and the FACT is that far less people are going to be tortured and killed by him. I just don't see that as worthless. Yes the war was sold on WOMD and none where found I guess you could say that renders the entire war worthless because we worthlessly searched for WOMD but you would have to ignore some of the other things that came out of it, Like Saddam not being in power.
EDIT: In the end this topic is hard to argue with just facts because there are so few of them and calling the war worthless is in it self an opinion. No one knows if Bush did it only for the oil, No one knows if he did it for the WOMD. One thing that is a fact as it stands right now the intel said that where was WOMD in iraq and Bush used that intel to convince the American people and congress of the same thing.
Your right, about me wanting to argue the facts. Here is one, the war was not sold on a falsehood this war was sold in intel. Regardless of why the war was sold in the first place, its over and done with and now the FACT is that Saddam is not in power and the FACT is that far less people are going to be tortured and killed by him. I just don't see that as worthless. Yes the war was sold on WOMD and none where found I guess you could say that renders the entire war worthless because we worthlessly searched for WOMD but you would have to ignore some of the other things that came out of it, Like Saddam not being in power.
The FACT is we don't exactly know who to blame for the intel ( if that's all it was but we just don't have all the facts ).
Also the FACT is there was no WOMD ( or a way to deliver thenm so you'd have to be pretty dumb to believe the claim of threats to us in the first place ).
The FACT is we don't exactly know who to blame for the intel ( if that's all it was but we just don't have all the facts ).
Also the FACT is there was no WOMD ( or a way to deliver thenm so you'd have to be pretty dumb to believe the claim of threats to us in the first place ).
That's it pretty much in a nutshell.
Thats pretty much the point I am making. There are several facts that could lead you to believe either thing ( the war being worthless or not ) As for the intel this is not guilty until proven innocent, right now the fact is the intel said that there was WOMD, until they prove that it did not, its a fact it just happens to be a fact under fire but what ever.
As for the fact about there being no WOMD, I never disputed that one, there was none, And your right, there was no threat to the US... Providing they where missiles, I think you would also have to be pretty stupid to think that Saddam could not have found one person and one way to get a suitcase bomb into the US. But none of that is what we are debating. We are debating if the war was worthless or not. I am simply giving you the facts I am using to draw my conclusion that it was not.
Comments
http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/presballot/
50% Kerry
43% Bush
In Feb it was:
48% Kerry
46% Bush
Also it looks like as people become more undecided about Bush.,,
they then swing to Kerry. The undecideds remain about the same 6-7% as Bush drops and Kerry rises.
Originally posted by jimmac
The deficit had been running for awhile before Reagun.
This is what I've been trying to convey. A really remarkable thing happened during the Clinton administration. A surplus! I remember hearing about the deficit when I was in Jr. high ( they call it middle school now ). That was in the middle 60's.
Dubbya did this all by himself.
Imagine what he could do in another 4 years?
So your telling me the dot com bubble was caused solely by clinton and that Bush alone killed it?
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Hmmm.. crooked? Liars?
If you read very carefully... it's apparent to even Hastert he can't trust the policy makers in the Bush administration...
Please. For ONCE Bush is being a fiscal hawk. (I'm speaking in relative terms here. It's hard not to be a fiscal hawk compared to what both the House and the Senate want to spend on the next highway bill.) That's what this is about. Bush has said he wants to spend $256 billion - a 21 percent increase. Hastert wants more. The Senate wants more. If Hastert thinks HIS numbers add up, how can the admin's numbers not add up?
Originally posted by SilentEchoes
So your telling me the dot com bubble was caused solely by clinton and that Bush alone killed it?
I don't believe in the " dot com bubble " being responsible for as much as people would like to argue.
I believe Clinton made the better times better than they would have been. I also believe Bush made the bad times much worse than they could have been.
I just went over this with SDW.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
There you go! Some nobody says it, so it must be true!
No, Kerry was the one who used the spoke of "the most crooked... lying group" he's ever seen. Taranto didn't make that up. I didn't make that up. It's true all by itself - no help from me or anybody else.
Originally posted by SilentEchoes
So your telling me the dot com bubble was caused solely by clinton and that Bush alone killed it?
Where did he say that? All he said is there was a surplus under Clinton and a giant dificit under Bush.
You could (i'm not saying you would be right, but you could) argue that both presidents are just riding the wave and there's nothing much they can do. But then the rationale for tax cuts goes down the drain. Here's a more or less objective standard: the one put forward by Bush himself. Those millions and millions of jobs he would create. That was the goal he aimed for, and if he would've come close to it, you coúld say the deficit was worth it. But now he clearly failed by his own standards.
Originally posted by jimmac
I don't believe in the " dot com bubble " being responsible for as much as people would like to argue.
I believe Clinton made the better times better than they would have been. I also believe Bush made the bad times much worse than they could have been.
I just went over this with SDW.
The dot com bubble was responsible for a LOT. Just take into consideration because of tech stocks the NASDAQ was at an ALL TIME high of 5000 Points! Its at ~2000 now. Its never even come close to 5000 points before or after. Now that may not have been responsible for EVERYTHING but it sure was responsible for quite a bit.
And 9/11 certainly did not help the economy either. There is just some things you have to take into consideration that have nothing to do with who is president at the time.
Originally posted by SpcMs
Where did he say that?
Dubbya did this all by himself.
I am not saying that taxes don't effect it, I am just saying taxes arent the ONLY thing that effect it.
It's that nobody's opinion that Kerry is running a grubby little campaign.
And who is running negative ads today? Bush. Short on info big on scare tactics.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
And Kerry is right to say what he did. He's right.
It's that nobody's opinion that Kerry is running a grubby little campaign...
Sure it is. Just not yours.
The Poll Results You Haven't Seen
The public's verdict on which campaign has been fighting fair - and which hasn't.
... Gallup found that the public seems to believe Kerry and the Democratic party have, at least so far, conducted a dirtier campaign than Bush and the Republican party.
Gallup asked, "Would you say that George W. Bush and the Republican party have - or have not - attacked John Kerry unfairly?" Twenty-one percent said yes, Bush and the GOP have attacked Kerry unfairly, while 67 percent said no, they have not. Twelve percent had no opinion.
Then Gallup asked, "Would you say that John Kerry and the Democratic party have - or have not - attacked George W. Bush unfairly?" Thirty-five percent said yes, Kerry and the Democrats have attacked Bush unfairly, while 57 percent said no, they have not. Eight percent had no opinion.
Breaking down the numbers by party, 33 percent of Democrats said Bush and the Republicans have attacked Kerry unfairly. But 53 percent of Democrats said Bush and the Republican party have not attacked Kerry unfairly.
Twenty-one percent of independents said Bush has been unfair, but 65 percent of independents said Bush and the GOP have not attacked Kerry unfairly.
Nine percent of Republicans believe Bush has been unfair, while 84 percent believe he hasn't.
Looked at from the other party's perspective, 59 percent of Republicans said Kerry and the Democrats have attacked Bush unfairly, while just 35 percent said Kerry and the Democrats have not attacked Bush unfairly.
Thirty-five percent of independents said Kerry has been unfair, while 55 percent said Kerry has not attacked Bush unfairly...
And who is running negative ads today? Bush. Short on info big on scare tactics.
Wait how are they negative? Because they mention his name? Well shit we better not mention the person we are running against. Or Maybe its because they mention his shoddy voting record. Hmm.
Originally posted by SilentEchoes
The dot com bubble was responsible for a LOT. Just take into consideration because of tech stocks the NASDAQ was at an ALL TIME high of 5000 Points! Its at ~2000 now. Its never even come close to 5000 points before or after. Now that may not have been responsible for EVERYTHING but it sure was responsible for quite a bit.
And 9/11 certainly did not help the economy either. There is just some things you have to take into consideration that have nothing to do with who is president at the time.
Yup! The party line........
So I suppose someone else has been spending our money?
Here's a more or less objective standard: the one put forward by Bush himself. Those millions and millions of jobs he would create. That was the goal he aimed for, and if he would've come close to it, you coúld say the deficit was worth it. But now he clearly failed by his own standards.
Yep he did. I am not denying that. One of the great things about being a free thinker is I can admit when a member of a political party screws up. I personally don't think Bush is responsible for the job loss though, I think NAFTA is. I also don't believe Kerry is going to be able to put an end to the job loss, He can't even stop out-sourcing in his own house. Just look at his wife and Heinz. But thats just an opinion, It is, on the other hand, a fact that several small business people have talked about laying people off and not working as hard if Kerry raises their taxes anymore. And that my friend is not creating jobs, thats losing them.
Originally posted by jimmac
Yup! The party line........
So I suppose someone else has been spending our money?
Did I say some one else is spending our money? No I don't believe so. George is running the country into a deficit. I am not denying that. I am just point out some factors that could way in on that. I suppose Bush is not trying to get the Budget Enforcement Act that expired in 2002 renewed? I suppose interest rates are not at an all time low. I suppose Bush is doing absolutely nothing but spending our money on worthless things that bring nothing back to the country in return. I suppose we don't need national security either. And I also suppose the NASDAQ being at ~2000 points has no effect on the economy what so ever. And I suppose neither did 9/11.
Don't just say its the party line and be done with it. Thats no good. Why don't you point out to me how those things DID'NT way strongly on the bad/good economy? Until then I am going to stand by the fact that they did.
EDIT: I should probably mention that accusing me of towing the party lines falls short on me being an independent and voting simply on facts and track records.
Originally posted by SilentEchoes
Did I say some one else is spending our money? No I don't believe so. George is running the country into a deficit. I am not denying that. I am just point out some factors that could way in on that. I suppose Bush is not trying to get the Budget Enforcement Act that expired in 2002 renewed? I suppose interest rates are not at an all time low. I suppose Bush is doing absolutely nothing but spending our money on worthless things that bring nothing back to the country in return. I suppose we don't need national security either. And I also suppose the NASDAQ being at ~2000 points has no effect on the economy what so ever. And I suppose neither did 9/11.
Don't just say its the party line and be done with it. Thats no good. Why don't you point out to me how those things DID'NT way strongly on the bad/good economy? Until then I am going to stand by the fact that they did.
EDIT: I should probably mention that accusing me of towing the party lines falls short on me being an independent and voting simply on facts and track records.
Hey I'm independent also.
I guess I've been over htis so many times with the consevative factions here that I'm weary of going over it with people who play dumb.
Yes other things have an effect but I think dot com and 911 lost any effect they had on the economy as a whole a long time ago.
As far as worthless things go ( and I don't know where you stand on this so you may disagree ) but we just went through a worthless war that cost in the hundreds of billions.
And I might add we're still there spending money.
Hey I'm independent also.
Cool maybe we can have some good debates then. Looking forward to it.
Yes other things have an effect but I think dot com and 911 lost any effect they had on the economy as a whole a long time ago.
Thats true, But I believe that its much harder to bring the economy up than it is down. This is really an beaten path as this argument is essentially a battle of opinions and it does no good to debate it really. Its just nice to see some one actually admit that they did in some way shape or form effect the economy.
As far as worthless things go ( and I don't know where you stand on this so you may disagree ) but we just went through a worthless war that cost in the hundreds of billions.
And I might add we're still there spending money.
Well this is a tough one for me. Its hard for me to say because I am not an iraqi but as a culturally open American I think Saddam needed to be removed. I don't necessarily believe he had WOMD but I think that if he was not removed he would have got them eventually, And I think he would have used them, I also think that it would be much easier to remove him with out them. Frankly those are all opinions to and subject to further debate.
As for it being worthless, Yeah I guess you could say that. I mean yeah it cost us LOTS of money, but my opinion is that Saddam would have gotten WOMD sooner or later and it would have cost us far more lives and far more cash to stop him then. Its all a very unfortunate and delicate situation and should be looked at both ways, I believe it was right by guessing what Saddam would have done in the future but again thats just me.
You seem pretty level headed so I wanna know what you think about my side of the war in iraq, Just remember there is hardly any facts on the whole issue so it is an opinion based argument.
Originally posted by SilentEchoes
Cool maybe we can have some good debates then. Looking forward to it.
Thats true, But I believe that its much harder to bring the economy up than it is down. This is really an beaten path as this argument is essentially a battle of opinions and it does no good to debate it really. Its just nice to see some one actually admit that they did in some way shape or form effect the economy.
Well this is a tough one for me. Its hard for me to say because I am not an iraqi but as a culturally open American I think Saddam needed to be removed. I don't necessarily believe he had WOMD but I think that if he was not removed he would have got them eventually, And I think he would have used them, I also think that it would be much easier to remove him with out them. Frankly those are all opinions to and subject to further debate.
As for it being worthless, Yeah I guess you could say that. I mean yeah it cost us LOTS of money, but my opinion is that Saddam would have gotten WOMD sooner or later and it would have cost us far more lives and far more cash to stop him then. Its all a very unfortunate and delicate situation and should be looked at both ways, I believe it was right by guessing what Saddam would have done in the future but again thats just me.
You seem pretty level headed so I wanna know what you think about my side of the war in iraq, Just remember there is hardly any facts on the whole issue so it is an opinion based argument.
Yes. As far as Saddam eventually aquiring WOMD it's just speculation on your part. I thought you wanted to just deal with facts?
And the facts are he had no WOMD and this war was sold on a falsehood.
Originally posted by jimmac
Yes. As far as Saddam eventually aquiring WOMD it's just speculation on your part. I thought you wanted to just deal with facts?
And the facts are he had no WOMD and this war was sold on a falsehood.
Your right, about me wanting to argue the facts. Here is one, the war was not sold on a falsehood this war was sold on intel. Regardless of why the war was sold in the first place, its over and done with and now the FACT is that Saddam is not in power and the FACT is that far less people are going to be tortured and killed by him. I just don't see that as worthless. Yes the war was sold on WOMD and none where found I guess you could say that renders the entire war worthless because we worthlessly searched for WOMD but you would have to ignore some of the other things that came out of it, Like Saddam not being in power.
EDIT: In the end this topic is hard to argue with just facts because there are so few of them and calling the war worthless is in it self an opinion. No one knows if Bush did it only for the oil, No one knows if he did it for the WOMD. One thing that is a fact as it stands right now the intel said that where was WOMD in iraq and Bush used that intel to convince the American people and congress of the same thing.
Originally posted by SilentEchoes
Your right, about me wanting to argue the facts. Here is one, the war was not sold on a falsehood this war was sold in intel. Regardless of why the war was sold in the first place, its over and done with and now the FACT is that Saddam is not in power and the FACT is that far less people are going to be tortured and killed by him. I just don't see that as worthless. Yes the war was sold on WOMD and none where found I guess you could say that renders the entire war worthless because we worthlessly searched for WOMD but you would have to ignore some of the other things that came out of it, Like Saddam not being in power.
The FACT is we don't exactly know who to blame for the intel ( if that's all it was but we just don't have all the facts ).
Also the FACT is there was no WOMD ( or a way to deliver thenm so you'd have to be pretty dumb to believe the claim of threats to us in the first place ).
That's it pretty much in a nutshell.
Originally posted by jimmac
The FACT is we don't exactly know who to blame for the intel ( if that's all it was but we just don't have all the facts ).
Also the FACT is there was no WOMD ( or a way to deliver thenm so you'd have to be pretty dumb to believe the claim of threats to us in the first place ).
That's it pretty much in a nutshell.
Thats pretty much the point I am making. There are several facts that could lead you to believe either thing ( the war being worthless or not ) As for the intel this is not guilty until proven innocent, right now the fact is the intel said that there was WOMD, until they prove that it did not, its a fact it just happens to be a fact under fire but what ever.
As for the fact about there being no WOMD, I never disputed that one, there was none, And your right, there was no threat to the US... Providing they where missiles, I think you would also have to be pretty stupid to think that Saddam could not have found one person and one way to get a suitcase bomb into the US. But none of that is what we are debating. We are debating if the war was worthless or not. I am simply giving you the facts I am using to draw my conclusion that it was not.