He's probably a hypocrit, we all are. It's called being human.
He's not an intentional liar from all I've reviewed. I'd prefer to say he was, mind you.
I was just saying it was insulting to Americans, whether or not you are or are not one. It presupposes our country would allow someone to commit atrocities, which it would not. At least not on us.
Yes, I did percieve the articles as comparing the two men.
Rationalizing to clear my conscious. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] What conscious? I'm amoral, don't you know? I prefer trees to people, relish the though of people dying because of the overpopulation problem, and think we'd all be better off with a good orgy in our lives every now and them. I'm also an atheist and, ergo, the antichrist, in case you haven't heard. Soothe my conscious. Pffffft.
Look, these articles center around this one excerpt:
______________________________________________
The evidence, compiled by Australian investigative reporter John Pilger, shows that well before the American invasion of Iraq, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell and Bush National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice had affirmed that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction and posed no imminent threat to America or Iraq’s neighbors.
In Cairo, on February 24, 2001, Secretary Powell declared, “Saddam Hussein has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.” Then, on May 15, 2001, Powell boasted that America’s containment policy had prevented Hussein from developing weapons of mass destruction or restoring his prior military power. Bush National Security Advisor Rice seconded Powell saying, “We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.”
____________________________________________
Okay, never heard that before. But, I'd like to see proof from sources I trust, not liberal overreachers. The impeachment bit -- again [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] If, IF, this were true, it's Condi and Coli on the line, not Bushie.
Anyway, I have to go -- you've made me late for a date, or I guess I've made myself late.
In closing, I reiterate that the first report selectively quoted Bush, which is unfair. Second, SADDAM ADMITTED HE HAD WEAPONS, AGREED TO DESTROY THEM AND PROVIDE PROOF OF SAME, AND FOR 12 LONG YEARS DICKED WITH THE UN OVER THE WHOLE AFFAIR. It was not a Treaty or a Peace protecting him, but a Cease Fire. Invading him was NOT illegal at all. Even absent any evidence whatsoever of WMD, the fact he admitted having them is enough. If he admitting to having what he did not have, then he only got caught in his own web of deceit and got what was good for him.
In closing, I'm about sick of this whole damned forum. I've repeated myself for too damned long here, and I'm just frankly sick of getting carpal tunnel from writing the same damned thing all the damned time. I'm also sick of coming somewhere where you get beat up if you're not a left-winger, and I'm sick of how many good members you guys have run off. This whole damned forum was possibly a bad f**king idea.