Mystifying Logic

[Steely_Dan]

I remember before we entered Iraq, the debate over WMD's was hot and heavy. Did or didn't Iraq possess WMD's including chemical, biological and nuclear weapons?

I recall telling my RW friends that if Iraq indeed possessed WMD, then why is Bush about send our best and brightest into the mouth of this living hell of death? That is to say...if Iraq truly possessed these weapons, why would a Commander-in-Chief strategically send in his troops knowing that WMD would wipe out thousands of U.S. soldiers at the onset of the battle?

It just doesn't make sense on so many levels.

The truth is, that they knew that there were no such WMD's and that our troops were not going to be wiped out by the thousands.

This is logical proof that they were deceiving the American people. Yet, you rarely hear anyone bring up this point.

-Paige

[yy4me]

1. Wiped out not by WMD, but by conventional weapons.

Today will, I'm sure mark 2000 young men killed, and thousands added to the injured list for "money", plain and simple. No WMD, no right for us to be there. Your reasoning is valid in the minds of rational people. Is there a rational person in this administration?

[Spinzonner]

2. Your theory is predicated on the premise

that Bush is sane and that he and the cabal really give a damn about a few thousand U.S. casualties.

Reality has obviously disproven your assumptions.

[No Exit]

3. Excellent point--

"I recall telling my RW friends that if Iraq indeed possessed WMD, then why is Bush about send our best and brightest into the mouth of this living hell of death? That is to say...if Iraq truly possessed these weapons, why would a Commander-in-Chief strategically send in his troops knowing that WMD would wipe out thousands of U.S. soldiers at the onset of the battle?"

On a freespter spinoff forum, on which I used to argue with some very disgusting Bush apologists, I asked them, "If Saddam has these WMD's, why isn't he using them to defend himself against our invasion?"

We know the answers to all the above questions now: the brutal dictator was not Saddam... the brutal dictator turned out to be George W. Bush.

Saddam, from what we hear, was no saint (!). But he did not invade the U.S. In fact, if his country hadn't been sitting on all that oil, I doubt if Chimpy would have even been able to find it on a map.

[Smarmie Doofus]

4. Indeed. I remember telling my students ( start of the bombing; ...

principal of my school on the PA with all sorts of emergency precautions and contingency plans passed on by our education bureaucracy...in case the Iraqi's 'retaliated' against civilians in the US ) that they , the kids, shouldn't worry too much. If the Iraq's had the means to retaliate... we wouldn't be *bombing* them.

Bush knew there were no WMDs. Or at least knew that there weren't enough to turn this brilliant 'wag the dog' scheme into a domestic political debacle.

[kentuck]

5. The inspectors had been there long enough to know there were no WMDs

So, we knew that Saddam was more or less toothless when we went in. Yes, I believe that.

[many a good man]

6. Most RWers thought at the time

Saddam had WMD and perpetrated 911.

CIA analysts said if SH had 'em, he'd only use 'em in case of external attack. They figured he'd probably fling 'em all at Israel or use them in close-quarter urban combat.