[QUOTE="its_me_"]
Actually there were weapons of mass destruction. There were 3 megaton nuclear bombs, and I saw them with my own eyes when I was deployed to Iraq with an ST unit in 2005. Unfortunately, only 4 and 5 megaton nuclear bombs count technically as 'weapons of mass destruction.' So, rather than reporting what I've just told you, MSNBC, NBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, and the rest of the anti-conservative news outlets reported that we found none, and then called Bush a liar. They obviously succeeded in convincing a lot of people.
Lindsosaurus
To be fair, you can add fox news to that list, because that's where I heard it from. Regardless, my point still stands. It was a bipartisan decision and the controversy didn't come until after it was reported that they didn't "technically" have weapons of mass destruction.
Anyways, on a side note, thank you for your service to our country. :)
No, people were saying before we ever invaded that there were no WMD's, or at least no evidence to support that conclusion. They also made the case that the war was going to cost more money than we could afford, those arguments just didn't gain traction until AFTER we had already committed our troops and the war started going downhill. And there was ALWAYS a large civilian resistance against the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Log in to comment