My Problem With Bush

This is one of the problems i find with Bush logic on why we went to war and all of the problems connected to that. Why did we go to Bush in the first place.......Because the US intelligence thought that the Iraqi government has Weapons of Mass Destruction and after a couple months we find out hey there are no weapons of mass destruction but its ok because the world is better now without Saddam as a dictator. My problem with that whole thing is that I dont want to follow a president that changes his mind that quickly and that wont stick to his original thought before he backs down. Maybe my logic is a little flawed so please help me with that if that is what you believe.

Well, I would rather follow a President that will admit that he's wrong, rahter than doggedly following a supposed 'truth' that has been debunked well past it's due.

The main question is whether he thought it was true to begin with.

I suggest checking out each candidate before making a decision. This is the best site I've come across. Validity of the site is unknown but it clearly addresses the issues as to where each candidate stands.

George Bush

John Kerry

Michael Badnarik

Ralph Nader

It wasnt only US intelligence it was also British and Russian intelligence. Those are thought to be the best sources of intelligence on this planet.

CIA, MI6, KGB(FSB Im not quite sure what they are called now) thats a impressive bunch I would have believed them too.

[edit on 20-8-2004 by ShadowXIX]

Good point Shadow.

The WMD issue is indeed frustrating BUT there are a lot of monday morning quarterback distorting things. Everyone thought they had weapons, as Shadow pointed out. Since they haven't been found it's easy to say 'Bush lied' BUT nobody prior to the war was saying that there wasn't weapons.

I still think it's funny that Saddam would kick out inspectors in the past, and not cooperate w/ them recently over weapons he didn't have at the risk of winding up in the situation he's now. What an ego!

LoL come on guys, yeah the WMD was ONE reason we went to iraq, but there where also 4 others that panned out and were true, the media sensationilized the wmd aspect, but that was not our sole reason for going in.

bob thats the part i dont understand. if i assume that those who say he had no WMD at all which is bunk because we gave them to him...why did he act so defiant with the inspectors? if a man has nothing to hide he doesnt act this way. as many times as i've thought about it it makes no sense to give them a hard time and kick them out and ultimately make it harder on your people to live their daily lives if you have nothing to hide. was it worth it for his to people starve for over 10 years??? was it worth it to the iraqi economy? (well it was for saddam when it came to germany france and russia)

but lets not take into consideration what he openly declared to the UN, in fact lets ignore it.

lets ignore the fact the US government gave him those stockpiles. lets ignore that as well.

lets just ask a simple question if you're faced with the option of letting some people look at your weapons just to make sure you arent up to anything sneaky or face sanctions and all kinds of headaches in the future up to and including your physical removal from power wouldnt it make more sense to simply comply for a few years and get them out of your hair ASAP by simply cooperating? especially if we go along with this notion he had nothing to begin with, then his actions really make no sense.

i had my car searched once, i didnt feel like going through the headache of being harassed even more so i let them go ahead and get it done and over with so i could go on my merry little way. i knew i had nothing to hide and it would be faster and easier on everyone for me to let them search the car. well they found nothing and i was left alone afterwards. same concept applies here. those who fight it generally have a reason to fight it, such as they have things to hide.