Montana wrote:I just threw the war mongers in there because some could actually care less if there were WMD's or not. Those are the ones who have that "do as I say or I'll kick your ass" attitudes! I call them bullies!
I think gullible describes the majority.
When you use the word "gullible," you seem to be making the implicit and incorrect assumption that we believe what we believe because someone told us to. This most likely represents the liberal misconception that all of us believed in the invasion of Iraq because Bush told us to. In my own case, I supported Bush because he agreed with my own prior ideas about Iraq. My opinion about the subject didn't change at all because of anything Bush said or did.
In fact, based merely on the general history of the situation, there was enough chance that Hussein had not destroyed his WMD to pose an unacceptable risk. Hussein had had such weapons and development programs to continue to perfect them, had concealed the weapons, and had misled and frequently blocked the efforts of inspectors for years. Now we were to believe that Hussein, who badly wanted sanctions lifted, had destroyed the weapons, yet had failed to obtain any proof of it. It did not require gullibility to look at what was known and unknown at that time and conclude that the likelihood that WMD remained had to be resolved. On the contrary, it required stupidity to look at the history and think that the possibility Hussein retained WMD did not have to be considered a serious problem.
