Originally posted by heelstone
The onus of proof lies on the poeple making the claims that Saddam did in fact have WMD. Which was our republican executive administration that
sanctioned this military action.
Those of us that believe otherwise are validated by the simple fact that the reasons for the invasion have not panned out in the least. Theres our
evidence right there.
I totally agree that there are no WMD, as of yet, in Iraq, and I am becoming wary that we will not find them.
The proof I ask for, is what makes it proven that "lies" occured. Is it not possible that out of all the Intellegence, which you and I are not
privy to, the most reasonable conclusion would be in favor of Iraq having them pre-war? Of course it is.
WMD is not the only reason for the war, but rather a selling point, which of course is used for any war or military action. It's the politics of
running a country with hundreds of millions of people to rally.
Again, seeker posted about the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 signed by Bill Clinton.
Read Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 here
Although it states in section 8 that this act does not prescribe military action, it was pre-9/11 which marked a drastic shift in U.S. tolerance for
nations of potential threat.
Being wrong does not mean telling a lie.