No sane government would end the search this year. If you end the search you are admitting there wasn´t anything there and they are not willing to say that before 2005.
This is not a critic of the administration. Anyone, including Carter and Kucinich would have done the same had they been in Bush shoes if their advisors had more than two braincells.
I agree of course but I don't think it really matters much politically. The people who will be bothered that no WOMD were found mostly didn't support the war anyway and won't be voting for Bush regardless. It's the sort of thing that will give people who pay attention pause and discomfort. But it is not a big issue and not a deciding factor for the people who matter, ie moderate Pennsylvanians, Ohioans, Floridians etc. It's still about the economy, health care and to the lesser extent that Iraq is an issue the more problematic political issue for Shrubbery is the daily report of soldiers being killed and the sense of a solutionless morass moreso than how we got to that point. Iraqi WOMD has a lot more traction as a political issue in the UK and perhaps even in Australia or Spain or Italy for that matter than it does in the US. Aint no thang but a chicken wang.
So when Kerry, Clark or Edward ask Bush in the first presidential debate about his 2003 SOFU speech and Powells speech in UN and where he got all that precise intelligence and how that correlates with the truth people aren´t gonna care? Theey don´t care what the president tells them to get the country engaged in a large scale war and post war administration? If that is right US deserves Bush. The problem is of course that the rest of the world doesn´t...
So when Kerry, Clark or Edward ask Bush in the first presidential debate about his 2003 SOFU speech and Powells speech in UN and where he got all that precise intelligence and how that correlates with the truth people aren´t gonna care?
The farthest Shrubbery would go on admitting a mistake would be to blame faulty intelligence and pin it on the intelligence community.
Then he'll talk about Iraq pursuing weapons programs, the small amounts of shells found, aerial drones, the evil that Saddam did, gassing of Iraqis with WOMD, the freedoms that Iraqis are now enjoying, supporting our troops, yada yada yada.
Are people going to be bothered that the stated primary pretext for war has not been backed up? A lot will. Most of them though are gonna vote for the dem or a 3rd party candidate anyway. The rah rah crowd of course won't be bothered, preferring to focus on perceived "good" brought to Iraq. There will be others who are non-commital, feeling that Shrubbery is just another "lying" politician but that the war was justified for other reasons even if he did lie. Some may feel that he did lie and it looks bad but at the same time they still like him personally, for whatever reason or that they like his policies enough to overlook this. At the end the number of people who will have their votes swayed by whether or not he lied is quite small IMO. People are still mostly selfish on the whole, they care a lot more about how lousy HMOs are, their medicare, how much their drugs cost, how much they are paying in taxes, how good the job market is, how much their 401k made etc.
Quote:
If that is right US deserves Bush. The problem is of course that the rest of the world doesn´t...
Well he did get elected, kinda. The majority of Americans are happy with Shrubbery so yeah, we do deserve him. This would be the point at which you shake your head and mutter something about not getting Americans.
As for hte rest of the world being stuck with him, that's part of sharing a planet. We don't deserve to live in a world with a lot of other scumbags who are in charge of countries eihter. I got sympathy for the Iraqis who get stuck with the consequences of Shrubbery's works. As for the europeans, they loathe him but in truth he isn't doing them too much direct harm.
I have been a soldier both on Active Duty and in the National Guard for fifteen years._ I am a lifelong Democrat, but I have voted for Republicans before, in the past when I thought he or she was the better person for the job._ I love my country and I?ll die before I?d do something against her interests._ I know this all sounds corny, but I?ve got tears running down my face as I type this.
What do you mean SO WHAT? You don't think Bush would have been able to do what he did if the previous President of the United States had spent 8 years claiming Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction?
Nick
Excellent! It's Clinton's fault! Now that we're back on Terra Firma...
I have to say it's been an unnerving experience to watch the postings from the war supporters morph from "Only a hippie loser would stand by and let Saddam kill us all with his mighty arsenal" to "Give the search time, they're there all right" to "They're there, but whether we find them or not we liberated the oppressed people of Iraq" to "All things considered, preemptive wars make sense after 9/11 just because", and never shift from a tone of self-righteous certainty.
This strikes me as psychotic, and I don't mean in a name calling way, I mean clinically. As in "the evidence of the world does not shake my faith in the construct in my head".
Not only did he launch them, but he must have seen the same evidence from the same agencies and knowingly lied while acting as he did.
Desert Fox was in many ways a mistake that ultimately was a good thing in terms of the inspection process.
Regardless, last winter's inspection process taught us quite a bit about Iraq and Iraqi WMD, so much so that we finally had a pretty complete picture. In other words, in spring 2003 we had much, much more evidence that Iraq no longer had large stocks or production facilities.
But what I'm curious about is how it feels to have your main reason for supporting this war come out as apparently flawed.
Fair enough. However this would mean there is no justification for the Bush invasion.
No. Bush used several different reasons to justify the war. BUT as I posted before, what we know now is not what we know in the past. This is not Star Trek. We can't send a message the the Picard in the past.
No, what we apparently know now is exactly what all of the evidence was pointing to. The only things pointing to Iraq having weapons were speculation, disinformation and ignorance of the facts.
The administration used WMD as a main reason for going to war, citing its continued failure to follow UN sanctions because of the evidence of WMD. Now that it is apparent that the administration followed what turns out to be specious evidence which has resulted in the lives of more than 500 american lives and several thousand iraqi lives as a direct consequence of the intelligence failure. it also has resulted in a destabilization of the region contrary to Bush's predictions. The administration owes the world an investigation into its shoddy intelligence work, if they read the evidence wrong on Iraq a country that has a known physical existence, what about their intelligence on the real terrorist operations. The doubts just begin there regardless of what was known then and what is known now.
What I am FAR more interested in is how things will pan out when they try to pull similar BS as the reason for going into Iran or Syria. And they WILL do that. Iraq was just stage one and we'd better wake up to that.
Desert Fox was in many ways a mistake that ultimately was a good thing in terms of the inspection process.
Regardless, last winter's inspection process taught us quite a bit about Iraq and Iraqi WMD, so much so that we finally had a pretty complete picture. In other words, in spring 2003 we had much, much more evidence that Iraq no longer had large stocks or production facilities.
But what I'm curious about is how it feels to have your main reason for supporting this war come out as apparently flawed.
First I doubt I ever listed it as the main or exclusive reason for supporting this war. In fact if you look back on many of those war threads, I doubt I was involved in them to the degree that you seem to assume. But you do this often, you sort of lump certain people in the board all together.
I don't feel any sort of remorse regarding this though. Saddam had every ability to come clean. He never did. It is obvious from most views that there had been an escalating pattern of terrorism that any president in power would have had to have dealt with be it Bush or Gore.
What is much more interesting is to question why the hatred of the left has grown so intense they will take actions that have no real reward and assign such evil intent to them. I mean Clinton was never about oil or giving kick backs to his friends when the WTC was bombed. He wasn't called a neo-con when the U.S.S. Cole was attacked or when he launched his operation on Iraq as well.
Even more amazing is that all this history is forgotten and people talk like Bush is just acting in a vacuum. It is very odd.
What is much more interesting is to question why the hatred of the left has grown so intense they will take actions that have no real reward and assign such evil intent to them. I mean Clinton was never about oil or giving kick backs to his friends when the WTC was bombed. He wasn't called a neo-con when the U.S.S. Cole was attacked or when he launched his operation on Iraq as well.
Are you trying to say that 'the left' is calling Bush a bastard because of 9/11?
You've got to get that reading comprehension problem checked. My post was quite clear.
Nick
Actually, it's not very clear. I believe you're saying that 'the left' assigns evil intent to Bush for starting a war, but doesn't assign any evil intent to Clinton for being president when the U.S.S. Cole was attacked. I can't believe you're saying something that stupid though.
Actually, it's not very clear. I believe you're saying that 'the left' assigns evil intent to Bush for starting a war, but doesn't assign any evil intent to Clinton for being president when the U.S.S. Cole was attacked. I can't believe you're saying something that stupid though.
Silly man, the left doesn't assign evil intent to Bush for starting a war. The intent was there from the day he started campaigning and only became worse when the election was thrown into dispute.
What I have said, is clear. Let me quote it to you.
Quote:
What is much more interesting is to question why the hatred of the left has grown so intense they will take actions that have no real reward and assign such evil intent to them
Then add this...
Quote:
Even more amazing is that all this history is forgotten and people talk like Bush is just acting in a vacuum. It is very odd.
Bush and his interests might make millions, not even BILLIONS even though that is what it costs to pull this off. Likewise his actions toss his whole chance of reelection into dispute and he does this for self interest?
Death, debt, all of it so a few friends can make some bucks.
I mean wouldn't it be a whole hell of a lot easier to just let them drill here. Let them build a big ass military that we never deploy. Let them do just about anything to anyone anywhere that would a whole hell of a lot easier than what we have done in Iraq?
That is what I mean by intent. It isn't that they didn't assign evil intent to Clinton for the Cole but did to Bush for Iraq. That is the filter through which they view everything from the get go, and it leads to such fantastic insane claims, that they are laughable. That is why I say the history has been tossed away. Clinton took all sorts of actions. I have even posted to liberal links where those actions were decried, declared wrong, etc. Yet with Bush it moves into a whole different realm based off pure hate.
It is like those Clinton haters who were convinced he had killed Vince Foster and things of that nature. It doesn't even begin to make sense to someone who isn't filled with total hatred of Clinton. That is the sort of reasoning I see with Bush and Iraq. I can't think of a single action that would yield less monetarily, politically, or extract a higher cost in terms of life, rebuilding, time, etc. Bush could have pissed off just as many people by drilling in Alaska, diverting huge portions of spending to the military and energy interests without the justification of war, just for defense, and it would have cost him so much less politically. What is claimed about Bush just makes no sense.
No, what we apparently know now is exactly what all of the evidence was pointing to. The only things pointing to Iraq having weapons were speculation, disinformation and ignorance of the facts.
That was your best guess. Remember giant I told you once, everything is false until proven true.
Excellent! It's Clinton's fault! Now that we're back on Terra Firma...
I have to say it's been an unnerving experience to watch the postings from the war supporters morph from "Only a hippie loser would stand by and let Saddam kill us all with his mighty arsenal" to "Give the search time, they're there all right" to "They're there, but whether we find them or not we liberated the oppressed people of Iraq" to "All things considered, preemptive wars make sense after 9/11 just because", and never shift from a tone of self-righteous certainty.
This strikes me as psychotic, and I don't mean in a name calling way, I mean clinically. As in "the evidence of the world does not shake my faith in the construct in my head".
I dunno, maybe trepanning is in order?
Maybe the problem is that you suffer from amnesia?
It seems you are forgetting Saddam did not allow for UN inspections to proceed unfettered and had the process frustrated at every turn. When the inspectors were finally withdrawn, it was decided that perhaps ground forces stationed nearby would persuade a little more cooperation from Saddam. But no. Saddam was shooting at the coalition aircraft enforcing the no fly zone.
So what do you do? You have every indication this is a ticking time bomb, the cease fire agreement violated, and sanctions having little to no effect on the regime. Smuggled oil had kept Saddam quite comfortable, and he couldn't care less for ordinary Iraqis dying.
And then there was the question of how long one can keep such a force in the dessert. And the expense of positioning and repositioning that force every time Saddam decided we are infringing on his sovereignty. That was situation that winter. That was the quagmire inherited from the Clinton administration. So are we in a better position today than a year ago. I certanly think so. And we going to be in better position a year from now. Again, I think so. (No thanks to pinko politics. )
I agree of course but I don't think it really matters much politically. The people who will be bothered that no WOMD were found mostly didn't support the war anyway and won't be voting for Bush regardless. It's the sort of thing that will give people who pay attention pause and discomfort. But it is not a big issue and not a deciding factor for the people who matter, ie moderate Pennsylvanians, Ohioans, Floridians etc. It's still about the economy, health care and to the lesser extent that Iraq is an issue the more problematic political issue for Shrubbery is the daily report of soldiers being killed and the sense of a solutionless morass moreso than how we got to that point. Iraqi WOMD has a lot more traction as a political issue in the UK and perhaps even in Australia or Spain or Italy for that matter than it does in the US. Aint no thang but a chicken wang.
This is why I hope there's a debate between Bush and whoever the democratic candidate will be ( probably Kerry is my guess ). Whoever it is if they get on to this subject ( and you know they will ) Bush will be cut into little pieces over this.
No. Bush used several different reasons to justify the war. BUT as I posted before, what we know now is not what we know in the past. This is not Star Trek. We can't send a message the the Picard in the past.
Once again Scott, this was the only one that got this war off the ground.
Comments
No sane government would end the search this year. If you end the search you are admitting there wasn´t anything there and they are not willing to say that before 2005.
This is not a critic of the administration. Anyone, including Carter and Kucinich would have done the same had they been in Bush shoes if their advisors had more than two braincells.
I agree of course but I don't think it really matters much politically. The people who will be bothered that no WOMD were found mostly didn't support the war anyway and won't be voting for Bush regardless. It's the sort of thing that will give people who pay attention pause and discomfort. But it is not a big issue and not a deciding factor for the people who matter, ie moderate Pennsylvanians, Ohioans, Floridians etc. It's still about the economy, health care and to the lesser extent that Iraq is an issue the more problematic political issue for Shrubbery is the daily report of soldiers being killed and the sense of a solutionless morass moreso than how we got to that point. Iraqi WOMD has a lot more traction as a political issue in the UK and perhaps even in Australia or Spain or Italy for that matter than it does in the US. Aint no thang but a chicken wang.
So when Kerry, Clark or Edward ask Bush in the first presidential debate about his 2003 SOFU speech and Powells speech in UN and where he got all that precise intelligence and how that correlates with the truth people aren´t gonna care?
The farthest Shrubbery would go on admitting a mistake would be to blame faulty intelligence and pin it on the intelligence community.
Then he'll talk about Iraq pursuing weapons programs, the small amounts of shells found, aerial drones, the evil that Saddam did, gassing of Iraqis with WOMD, the freedoms that Iraqis are now enjoying, supporting our troops, yada yada yada.
Are people going to be bothered that the stated primary pretext for war has not been backed up? A lot will. Most of them though are gonna vote for the dem or a 3rd party candidate anyway. The rah rah crowd of course won't be bothered, preferring to focus on perceived "good" brought to Iraq. There will be others who are non-commital, feeling that Shrubbery is just another "lying" politician but that the war was justified for other reasons even if he did lie. Some may feel that he did lie and it looks bad but at the same time they still like him personally, for whatever reason or that they like his policies enough to overlook this. At the end the number of people who will have their votes swayed by whether or not he lied is quite small IMO. People are still mostly selfish on the whole, they care a lot more about how lousy HMOs are, their medicare, how much their drugs cost, how much they are paying in taxes, how good the job market is, how much their 401k made etc.
If that is right US deserves Bush. The problem is of course that the rest of the world doesn´t...
Well he did get elected, kinda. The majority of Americans are happy with Shrubbery so yeah, we do deserve him. This would be the point at which you shake your head and mutter something about not getting Americans.
As for hte rest of the world being stuck with him, that's part of sharing a planet. We don't deserve to live in a world with a lot of other scumbags who are in charge of countries eihter. I got sympathy for the Iraqis who get stuck with the consequences of Shrubbery's works. As for the europeans, they loathe him but in truth he isn't doing them too much direct harm.
I think it's the first letter 1/2 way down the page...
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3449870/
Dear Dr. E.,
I have been a soldier both on Active Duty and in the National Guard for fifteen years._ I am a lifelong Democrat, but I have voted for Republicans before, in the past when I thought he or she was the better person for the job._ I love my country and I?ll die before I?d do something against her interests._ I know this all sounds corny, but I?ve got tears running down my face as I type this.
cont.
Originally posted by Anders
...2003 SOFU speech...
You know, when I hear Bush give his SOTU I usually want him to STFU. So I guess we could just call it the SOFU.
Originally posted by trumptman
What do you mean SO WHAT? You don't think Bush would have been able to do what he did if the previous President of the United States had spent 8 years claiming Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction?
Nick
Excellent! It's Clinton's fault! Now that we're back on Terra Firma...
I have to say it's been an unnerving experience to watch the postings from the war supporters morph from "Only a hippie loser would stand by and let Saddam kill us all with his mighty arsenal" to "Give the search time, they're there all right" to "They're there, but whether we find them or not we liberated the oppressed people of Iraq" to "All things considered, preemptive wars make sense after 9/11 just because", and never shift from a tone of self-righteous certainty.
This strikes me as psychotic, and I don't mean in a name calling way, I mean clinically. As in "the evidence of the world does not shake my faith in the construct in my head".
I dunno, maybe trepanning is in order?
Originally posted by trumptman
Not only did he launch them, but he must have seen the same evidence from the same agencies and knowingly lied while acting as he did.
Desert Fox was in many ways a mistake that ultimately was a good thing in terms of the inspection process.
Regardless, last winter's inspection process taught us quite a bit about Iraq and Iraqi WMD, so much so that we finally had a pretty complete picture. In other words, in spring 2003 we had much, much more evidence that Iraq no longer had large stocks or production facilities.
But what I'm curious about is how it feels to have your main reason for supporting this war come out as apparently flawed.
Originally posted by jimmac
Fair enough. However this would mean there is no justification for the Bush invasion.
No. Bush used several different reasons to justify the war. BUT as I posted before, what we know now is not what we know in the past. This is not Star Trek. We can't send a message the the Picard in the past.
Originally posted by Scott
what we know now is not what we know in the past.
No, what we apparently know now is exactly what all of the evidence was pointing to. The only things pointing to Iraq having weapons were speculation, disinformation and ignorance of the facts.
Originally posted by segovius
What I am FAR more interested in is how things will pan out when they try to pull similar BS as the reason for going into Iran or Syria. And they WILL do that. Iraq was just stage one and we'd better wake up to that.
www.stratfor.com
Look for the Click here to read a recent, full page sample analysis to get this article:
http://www.stratfor.com/corporate/in...ge=basicsample
I'm not sure if the third link will work, or for how long it will work. But the article is titled BEYOND IRAQ, and dated January 21st.
Originally posted by giant
Desert Fox was in many ways a mistake that ultimately was a good thing in terms of the inspection process.
Regardless, last winter's inspection process taught us quite a bit about Iraq and Iraqi WMD, so much so that we finally had a pretty complete picture. In other words, in spring 2003 we had much, much more evidence that Iraq no longer had large stocks or production facilities.
But what I'm curious about is how it feels to have your main reason for supporting this war come out as apparently flawed.
First I doubt I ever listed it as the main or exclusive reason for supporting this war. In fact if you look back on many of those war threads, I doubt I was involved in them to the degree that you seem to assume. But you do this often, you sort of lump certain people in the board all together.
I don't feel any sort of remorse regarding this though. Saddam had every ability to come clean. He never did. It is obvious from most views that there had been an escalating pattern of terrorism that any president in power would have had to have dealt with be it Bush or Gore.
What is much more interesting is to question why the hatred of the left has grown so intense they will take actions that have no real reward and assign such evil intent to them. I mean Clinton was never about oil or giving kick backs to his friends when the WTC was bombed. He wasn't called a neo-con when the U.S.S. Cole was attacked or when he launched his operation on Iraq as well.
Even more amazing is that all this history is forgotten and people talk like Bush is just acting in a vacuum. It is very odd.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
What is much more interesting is to question why the hatred of the left has grown so intense they will take actions that have no real reward and assign such evil intent to them. I mean Clinton was never about oil or giving kick backs to his friends when the WTC was bombed. He wasn't called a neo-con when the U.S.S. Cole was attacked or when he launched his operation on Iraq as well.
Are you trying to say that 'the left' is calling Bush a bastard because of 9/11?
Originally posted by bunge
Are you trying to say that 'the left' is calling Bush a bastard because of 9/11?
You've got to get that reading comprehension problem checked. My post was quite clear.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
You've got to get that reading comprehension problem checked. My post was quite clear.
Nick
Actually, it's not very clear. I believe you're saying that 'the left' assigns evil intent to Bush for starting a war, but doesn't assign any evil intent to Clinton for being president when the U.S.S. Cole was attacked. I can't believe you're saying something that stupid though.
Originally posted by bunge
Actually, it's not very clear. I believe you're saying that 'the left' assigns evil intent to Bush for starting a war, but doesn't assign any evil intent to Clinton for being president when the U.S.S. Cole was attacked. I can't believe you're saying something that stupid though.
Silly man, the left doesn't assign evil intent to Bush for starting a war. The intent was there from the day he started campaigning and only became worse when the election was thrown into dispute.
What I have said, is clear. Let me quote it to you.
What is much more interesting is to question why the hatred of the left has grown so intense they will take actions that have no real reward and assign such evil intent to them
Then add this...
Even more amazing is that all this history is forgotten and people talk like Bush is just acting in a vacuum. It is very odd.
Bush and his interests might make millions, not even BILLIONS even though that is what it costs to pull this off. Likewise his actions toss his whole chance of reelection into dispute and he does this for self interest?
Death, debt, all of it so a few friends can make some bucks.
I mean wouldn't it be a whole hell of a lot easier to just let them drill here. Let them build a big ass military that we never deploy. Let them do just about anything to anyone anywhere that would a whole hell of a lot easier than what we have done in Iraq?
That is what I mean by intent. It isn't that they didn't assign evil intent to Clinton for the Cole but did to Bush for Iraq. That is the filter through which they view everything from the get go, and it leads to such fantastic insane claims, that they are laughable. That is why I say the history has been tossed away. Clinton took all sorts of actions. I have even posted to liberal links where those actions were decried, declared wrong, etc. Yet with Bush it moves into a whole different realm based off pure hate.
It is like those Clinton haters who were convinced he had killed Vince Foster and things of that nature. It doesn't even begin to make sense to someone who isn't filled with total hatred of Clinton. That is the sort of reasoning I see with Bush and Iraq. I can't think of a single action that would yield less monetarily, politically, or extract a higher cost in terms of life, rebuilding, time, etc. Bush could have pissed off just as many people by drilling in Alaska, diverting huge portions of spending to the military and energy interests without the justification of war, just for defense, and it would have cost him so much less politically. What is claimed about Bush just makes no sense.
Nick
Originally posted by giant
No, what we apparently know now is exactly what all of the evidence was pointing to. The only things pointing to Iraq having weapons were speculation, disinformation and ignorance of the facts.
That was your best guess. Remember giant I told you once, everything is false until proven true.
Originally posted by addabox
Excellent! It's Clinton's fault! Now that we're back on Terra Firma...
I have to say it's been an unnerving experience to watch the postings from the war supporters morph from "Only a hippie loser would stand by and let Saddam kill us all with his mighty arsenal" to "Give the search time, they're there all right" to "They're there, but whether we find them or not we liberated the oppressed people of Iraq" to "All things considered, preemptive wars make sense after 9/11 just because", and never shift from a tone of self-righteous certainty.
This strikes me as psychotic, and I don't mean in a name calling way, I mean clinically. As in "the evidence of the world does not shake my faith in the construct in my head".
I dunno, maybe trepanning is in order?
Maybe the problem is that you suffer from amnesia?
It seems you are forgetting Saddam did not allow for UN inspections to proceed unfettered and had the process frustrated at every turn. When the inspectors were finally withdrawn, it was decided that perhaps ground forces stationed nearby would persuade a little more cooperation from Saddam. But no. Saddam was shooting at the coalition aircraft enforcing the no fly zone.
So what do you do? You have every indication this is a ticking time bomb, the cease fire agreement violated, and sanctions having little to no effect on the regime. Smuggled oil had kept Saddam quite comfortable, and he couldn't care less for ordinary Iraqis dying.
And then there was the question of how long one can keep such a force in the dessert. And the expense of positioning and repositioning that force every time Saddam decided we are infringing on his sovereignty. That was situation that winter. That was the quagmire inherited from the Clinton administration. So are we in a better position today than a year ago. I certanly think so. And we going to be in better position a year from now. Again, I think so. (No thanks to pinko politics.
Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath
I agree of course but I don't think it really matters much politically. The people who will be bothered that no WOMD were found mostly didn't support the war anyway and won't be voting for Bush regardless. It's the sort of thing that will give people who pay attention pause and discomfort. But it is not a big issue and not a deciding factor for the people who matter, ie moderate Pennsylvanians, Ohioans, Floridians etc. It's still about the economy, health care and to the lesser extent that Iraq is an issue the more problematic political issue for Shrubbery is the daily report of soldiers being killed and the sense of a solutionless morass moreso than how we got to that point. Iraqi WOMD has a lot more traction as a political issue in the UK and perhaps even in Australia or Spain or Italy for that matter than it does in the US. Aint no thang but a chicken wang.
This is why I hope there's a debate between Bush and whoever the democratic candidate will be ( probably Kerry is my guess ). Whoever it is if they get on to this subject ( and you know they will ) Bush will be cut into little pieces over this.
Originally posted by Scott
No. Bush used several different reasons to justify the war. BUT as I posted before, what we know now is not what we know in the past. This is not Star Trek. We can't send a message the the Picard in the past.
Once again Scott, this was the only one that got this war off the ground.