What would you say?
First off, I DID NOT WRITE THE BELOW ENTRY.
Second, I just want to know WHAT YOU THINK of what this person wrote...
Here it is:
This makes me want to vomit...
Current mood: aggravated
I am getting so sick of hearing people say that the war in Iraq:
1. Was based on a lie.
2. There is no connection between Iraq and Terrorism.
3. There were no WMDs
Ok, first of all, a lie is something defined by dictionary.com as "A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood." So, in other words, the person telling the "lie" would have to know the information to be false. Example, when Bill Clinton told the world that he had "no sexual relations with that woman, miss Lewinsky." That was a lie. He knew he did. When George W. Bush told the world that Iraq had WMDs and could use them, it was based on intelligence, though later proved to be incorrect, from several sources that said Iraq did in fact HAVE WMDs. Bush did not know the intelligence was incorrect. Why should he have? We have always trusted the CIA, our friends from the UK, etc. So they were wrong. This does not make George W. Bush a "liar."
The connection between Iraq and terrorism in now blatantly obvious, thanks to the bombings in Jordan, courtesy of "Al Queida in Iraq." I suppose they just came to Iraq and weren't there before? While not impossible, it is unlikely. Iraq has absolute links to terrorism, and while I cannot prove it, I believe Iraq has ties to Sept. 11.
So we didn't find WMDs on the scale we were looking for in Iraq. No nukes, etc. Chemical weapons and bio weapons were however found. To say that these were not WMDs is just ignorant. Do you believe that a biological weapon, dropped in NYC, would not cause mass destruction of lives?
I don't think Bush42 is the "greatest president of all time" or anything close to it, but he's not the devil everyone makes him out to be. He's just another politician trying to make sure his nuts get kissed at the end of the day. And what man doesn't want that???
Second, I just want to know WHAT YOU THINK of what this person wrote...
Here it is:
This makes me want to vomit...
Current mood: aggravated
I am getting so sick of hearing people say that the war in Iraq:
1. Was based on a lie.
2. There is no connection between Iraq and Terrorism.
3. There were no WMDs
Ok, first of all, a lie is something defined by dictionary.com as "A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood." So, in other words, the person telling the "lie" would have to know the information to be false. Example, when Bill Clinton told the world that he had "no sexual relations with that woman, miss Lewinsky." That was a lie. He knew he did. When George W. Bush told the world that Iraq had WMDs and could use them, it was based on intelligence, though later proved to be incorrect, from several sources that said Iraq did in fact HAVE WMDs. Bush did not know the intelligence was incorrect. Why should he have? We have always trusted the CIA, our friends from the UK, etc. So they were wrong. This does not make George W. Bush a "liar."
The connection between Iraq and terrorism in now blatantly obvious, thanks to the bombings in Jordan, courtesy of "Al Queida in Iraq." I suppose they just came to Iraq and weren't there before? While not impossible, it is unlikely. Iraq has absolute links to terrorism, and while I cannot prove it, I believe Iraq has ties to Sept. 11.
So we didn't find WMDs on the scale we were looking for in Iraq. No nukes, etc. Chemical weapons and bio weapons were however found. To say that these were not WMDs is just ignorant. Do you believe that a biological weapon, dropped in NYC, would not cause mass destruction of lives?
I don't think Bush42 is the "greatest president of all time" or anything close to it, but he's not the devil everyone makes him out to be. He's just another politician trying to make sure his nuts get kissed at the end of the day. And what man doesn't want that???