Why are liberals so quick to defend Saddam?

Question

I posted the announcement of finding 500 WMD in Iraq last night.

Liberals were quick to jump on the bandwagon saying, "these aren't the weapons we went to war for", and "these were old weapons".

They were quick to quote parts of news stories, but left part out. Guess which part of the following was left out:

"The weapons are thought to be manufactured before 1991 so they would not be proof of an ongoing WMD program in the 1990s. But they do show that Saddam Hussein was lying when he said all weapons had been destroyed, and it shows that years of on-again, off-again weapons inspections did not uncover these munitions."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

If you guessed the latter half, you are correct.


I'm wondering, why you libs are so quick to defend someone like saddam. Is it you are so bitter that kerry isn't president, that you would defend a man that murdered thousands upon thousands of his countrymen before you can defend your own President?

Answer 1

Another provocative question from Nicholas "meathead" Rage. Liberals as you call us are not quick to defend that piece of sh't, we just want our leaders to thoroughly think out any military operation regardless of reason. The cowboy Bush mentality (shoot first ask questions later) has cost us thousands of our "kids" lives and for what? Meanwhile North Korea is testing long range missles that could hit Alaska or Hawaii, Good job Georgie Boy, we feel much safer now.

Answer 2

I don't understand it either they have been harping on the fact we haven't found WMD's then we do and they trivialize them. The fact is whether old or not they are still extremely dangerous and are still WMD's, ask the Lib's if we can dispose of them in their backyard and see if they agree. Most people with common sense knew there were WMD's, remember two weeks before the war started the Russian's warned Saddam and there were survelliance photos of semi's with trailers crossing the border into Syria? Strange but the Dem/Lib won't discuss that either. And this lame arguement that only the most idiotic of lefties will believe 'that those are not the WMD's we went to war for', is the worst that Dem/Lib's are touting, even their own supporters are saying its lame....really, no matter if we find WMD's with a note saying "these are the ones the American's are going to start a war over, signed Saddam Hussein" the Dem/Lib's will come up with some excuse....sounds kind of like the 'I did not inhale and I did not have sexual relations with that woman and what do you mean by 'is'" the leaders of the Democratic Party are doing a grave disservice to the good and honest Democrats and it will show in the next election.

Answer 3

We aren't defending him at all. We're just stating facts. Why did we go into Iraq? I've heard time and again it was for WMD's and then sometimes I hear it's because of an Al Qaida connection. Which is it? We wouldn't have an issue if we were told the truth and they were honest with us. There is nothing but backhandedness going on in that White House and look who you're quoting...fox news. Yeah they're balanced...sure they are. There are plenty of republicans out there that are also fed up with the lies that this administration has told us. It's not a matter of whether or not Kerry won...that's done and over with. I haven't heard too many people complaining about Kerry not winning until I listen to people like you. I'm aware of the article Rolling stone did about the "voting problems" in Ohio. Maybe you should read that and then make an informed decision. And another thing...why is it ok for us to make WMD's (even though we're not supposed to) and no one else is allowed? I'm not saying I want them to be made but if we signed an agreement which we did, shouldn't we be following it too? Would it be ok if someone else invaded our country because there is a possibility for manufacturing WMD's

Answer 4

I consider myself a liberal, and i wouldn't dream of defending Sadaam.
However, i think blanket statements very rarely, if ever, show a complete picture. This whole WMD thing is a complex issue, and someone who points out that some of these things were old, aren't defending Sadaam, they are merely pointing out that the WMD argument for going to war isn't as strong as Bush would have us believe.
This using of the words liberal and conservative as if they are evil epitaphs is not only offensive, but it gets in the way of actual discussions of issues that Are complex and do Not have easy answers. Debate is the way to find these answers, and to generalize someone in such a way and attack them is juvenile. Think of the junior high cafeteria, two girls in an argument, one makes a valid point, the other says, "well you're ugly, so there!" and suddenly the whole argument is overshadowed by the personal insult. The argument isn't solved and both people get hurt. One is embarrassed and the other is seen as a *****.
that is exactly what is happening in this liberal/conservative war.
if you want people to see things the way you do, present a coherent argument, and just maybe you'll change someone's mind.

Answer 5

I have to laugh everytime a Republican points to something that has to do with nothing, and act like it "proves" something.

"Hey, Abu Abbas is in Iraq. There's that terrorism link Bush was talking about."

"Hey, we found some 20 year old munitions. There's that weapons program Bush was talking about."

Let's make it simple. Saddam was a bad guy, to most of his own people. But Bush lied to America about him being an imminent threat to America.

Saddam killed thousands of his own people, but all of the mass graves right-wing idiots point to are from the periods when Saddam was fighting a virtual civil war. We don't say "Lincoln is evil, he killed hundreds of thousands of Americans", now do we? Bush Sr. promised we'd help overthrow Saddam. The people rose up, Bush did nothing, and Saddam quashed the insurgency. Does that make Saddam a good guy? No. But you at least need to have some f'n context.

There are lots of bad guys in the world. I'm glad Saddam is out of power. But if Americans had been told before the war, "We're going to spend $300 billion to remove a bad guy who's not an eminent threat, and in the process, create (not stop, but CREATE) an entire generation of Iraqi terrorists, and fuel hatred of America throughout the Middle East and the world", no one in their right mind would have supported that course of action.

Answer 6

WASHINGTON — The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003, and more weapons of mass destruction are likely to be uncovered, two Republican lawmakers said Wednesday.

My problem with this is the fact that since 2003, our president has been lying to us. We were still under the impression of no WMDs. However, this report would have me believe that our administration has been sitting on this evidence for 3 years. Why does it not bother you that our president may have been lying to us?

Answer 7

I have defended facts but Obama needs to be watched like any president. No one is immune from making mistakes or having bad judgment. I am just happy that he listens to different options from all sides so he has all of the info to make the best decision. Most times we have had to defend him from right wing crazies who keep saying he was born in Kenya, like if they say it enough it will make it true. It is a fact he was born in Hawaii it has been proved by officials and a birth certificate. So all of us do not always defend on policy. I do not agree with him staying in Afghanistan. History shows it is futile. Country's have fought there before and it has never ever worked out. I suppose the USA has to have their turn at Afghanistan. It just seems pointless to do something when you know the out come will not be good.

Answer 8

Sadaam was only doing what this country has been doing for years. Controlling his people to get them to do what he wanted them to do. Why is a country not allowed to have weapons. If you don't think that the U.S. has "weapons of mass destruction" somewhere, I've got some land I want to sell you in China. It's all about checks and balances, and Sadaam would not conform. He is a threat, therefore he must be contained. Now because he would not cooperate with the US's "agenda" he's a tyrant. I could care less about Sadaam, but you've got to be brainwashed to not see parralels between the two governments. I don't think anyone's defending Sadaam, I think its more of a "the pot calling the kettle black" issue.

Answer 9

We aren't defending Suddam. We are saying the reason for going to war was a fabrication to gain public support. Face it no matter how you spin it this war was started so that W's defense friends could fatten their wallets, George could tell his father that "No man can try kill his father and get away with it. The only value to this war is that it has drawn a large number of terrorists to Iraq. . Such a high price to pay for the citizens of Iraq
and other countries. Oh yes, It's about the oil. Quit blaming the Liberals for everything. Conservatives have spent to much, blamed everyone but themselves, and pray to God to help them out of this mess.

Answer 10

... defending Saddam? All we are trying to do is figure out what is going on?

Why can't republicans use logic or reason when asking a question? If you question something it doesn't mean that you "love the other side."

Many conservatives were against World War II at the time.... does that mean that they loved Hitler? Only today's conservatives would think that way...