This debate has gone downhill quickly. Much like I see our country, unfortunantley. There is no need for name calling on either side.
Let me explain.
First and for most, when congress voted on this war the motion passed by a great margin. In fact, a much higher margin than when congress voted for the first gulf war. Why aren't those that voted for the action of war that now are in the media voicing their "concerns" and screaming it was wrong being chastized? Of those that voted on this action, only roughly 25 oppossed it, yet they are not the ones in front of the cameras saying I told you so. It is Kerry, Kennedy, Boxer, and those that said, "Yes, we need to do something about this.".
Ok, now let's put it in simple terms.
Saddam was under house arrest. In this country House arrest allows the authority at any given time to search your home because you committed a crime. So at any given time the inspectors can search anywhere hussein lives or controls without hinderance. He was TOLD to provide proof of disarmamnet. He never did......He could have easily showed the inspectors he was complying but he refused to. Once again, when placed on house arrest one must comply with authorities.
Not to mention.....Our country told Sadaam all he had to do was allow the inspectors the access they wanted and show proof of his compliance and it would be avoided. What did Hussein do? He sat there flipping the world off with the belief nothing would happen. Why? Because for 10 years he had been doing the very same thing with no reprecussions.
I hear it is all Bush's and his administrations fault. If you want to lay bl;ame at their feet, fine. But there is far more blame to throw around than there. Try blaming the world community for their ineptitude to contain and enforce that which they started. Blame the congress for saying, "Yeah, he is a problem we should deal with now." And not just the republican side, but the democrats now also....for they voted for it by a majority landslide.
I have to laugh when I hear the fox news biased crap. People, you discount Fox news, yet take the word of a guy that makes movies for profit. A guy that is at heart an entertainer and and artist. A guy that Complains about out sourcing jobs in this country, yet out sources his own movie to be produced to Canada.
Fox reports the SAME exact news as every other news channel. They have Opinion pieces and slots which is where O'reilly and Hannity fall in. Just like Cnn has their own Opinion pieces. The news itself is reported the same. You are complaining about the opinion side....which ALL news stations have and have a slant towrds....it is opinion, not news.
People need to remember that.
Why is it articles are discounted by some just because the source may have a political leaning one way or the other. The article Mudplayer posted a few discounted for this reason. Does the source make it any less true? No, because if it was falsified or lies, the source could be sued for slander and lose more than they gain. Is it a bad report, no, it shows you another side of the mother that "cared so much" for her son and forces you to question her motives. People want Bush's motives questioned and use the same tactic and some of you are fine with it, but when it is used this way, the source sucks.
Have any of you ever had friends or family members that had family members or friends that committed a crime? Does this make you evil or bad for being friends with the family or friends of criminals? Does this make you a criminal? Try looking at Bush and the Saudi "connection" in that light and maybe you might wake up a bit.
Oh, and let me leave you with one more fact...In the last 100 years 80% of wars have had Oil as a focal point or incedental bonus.
I am not by any means Happy with Bush and his administration. But when you give someone a choice between Bush and a guy that has as many if not more contradictions coming out of his mouth, and questions about his beliefs or convictions, I had to choose Bush. If Bill Richardson would have ran, the Dem's would have had my vote.
