Trajan Octavian Titus said:
What are you freaking babbling about since when do the people vote to go to war, the congress votes and the congress gave twenty-three individual reasons of why they authorized military force against Saddam, what your reasons were or were not for supporting the war makes absolutely no difference what so ever. It was only after one of the reasons given for the war in Iraq was found to be based on faulty intelligence (this is also a falsification because WMD's were found) that the media focused on WMD in an effort to pin down the Bush administration on that one issue when in fact there were 23 individual reasons given for the war there were always 23 not just the one that the anti-war crowd trys to focus on.
Strike two.
I'm not sure if it's either I'm not making myself clear enough or that you're refusing to see my point for whatever reason.
Let me try this again, and hopfully I can make some headway. By the way, thanks for inserting a period smack in the middle of your paragraph. You're making progress.
First and formost, I'm completely aware that congress does the voting. So I'm with you on that one. However, they did not decide to come to that conclusion alone, right? I'm not American, so bear with me on this. It was the President and/or someone in his Administration that made the case to congress, right? And it would not be a stretch to say that it was the President and his Administration who actually scripted the case to war, with exception to perhaps a few amendments brought on by some of the congressmen? Am I correct so far?
If I am, I'm being presumtious and moving ahead here. If the President and his Administration had come forth -- in the wake of 9/11 -- solely with the point of humanitarian relief:
a) Would the American people of supported the proposal?
b) Would congress of supported the proposal?
Now I would think that both points are intertwined because, really, the members of Congress are representatives of the people, right? And wouldn't you say that the President and his Administration are representatives of the people, too? After all, they were elected by the people to represent them, no? So if these elected representatives make unpopular decisions -- decisions in which a majority of the people disagree -- would that not be political suicide? Perhaps you'd prefer idiotic?
Hopefully now we're on the same wavelength with the above and this is where we come to my original point. The humanitarian point was thrown it there just for the sake of throwing it in. This war was not sold on that aspect
one iota... it was WMDs and "Saddam is a bad bad man." Bush is not a bright man, but he's smart enough to know that he needed the backing of his country. And when no weapons were found, well then, that's when they played the humanitarian card. You gotta do what you gotta do when your back is against the wall.