|
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
yes. in the larger picture (the one that matters) it does. including your Donkey party heroes. because at the end of the day, "mobile weapons labs" are not your best argument for or against invading Iraq. smart people don't focus on that. |
I see - so regardless of being misled by a lying shithead along with a few other tall tales including meetings with al Qaeda leaders in Prague:
| quote: | Postwar findings support CIA's January 2003 assessment, which judged that "the most reliable reporting casts doubt" on...an alleged meeting between Muhammad Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague, and confirm that no such meeting occurred...Prewar assessments described reporting on the Atta lead as contradictory and unverified. In September 2002, CIA assessed that some evidence asserted that the two met, and some cast doubt on the possibility. By January 2003, CIA assessed that...they were "increasingly skeptical that Atta traveled to Prague in 2001 or met with IIS officer al-Ani." Postwar debriefings of al-Ani indicate that he had never seen or heard of Atta until after September 11, 2001, when Atta's face appeared on the news
http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf |
unmanned drones that could reach the U.S. in 45 min., buying uranium in Africa (and those lovely mushroom cloud images Condi and Cheney sold us all in rather nicely):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3056626.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/internati...,909946,00.html
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/071803B.shtml
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/printer_071903A.shtml
aluminum tubes made for nuke processing:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/i...ner=rssuserland
True - they focus on other things such as being deliberately misled by more than just a mobile weapons lab theory. Perhaps you can explain to me some more of these in detail?
| quote: | | whether the NYT is in the pocket of the Democratic party or that Judith Miller reported Chalabi as a source or that Al Queera was in Iraq is all, to this day, debatable. i don't care to but it's something that bored people will engage in when given nothing constructive to do. |
Or perhaps it's what others care to run from when confronted with a point against their "librul" media conspiracy?
| quote: | | what your party heroes have said on the record minutes and years before the war and your vacuous claim that Bush lied, cannot be reconciled. |
Ahh yes, the old - "Clinton started it" neocon line, once again. If there are Dems. who wanted invasion, believed wholeheartedly that Bush was right to invade and damn all the counterevidence that he and you neocons willfully dismissed, believed their vote authorizing Bush to invade ONLY AS A MEANS OF LAST RESORT once all other options were exhausted (kicking out weapons inspectors tends to state otherwise) and continue supporting such actions by Bush, then they rightfully have you and others to answer to for their actions. I do not nor will I ever speak for every Democrat's vote - they can only speak for themselves.
I do, however, speak for myself who at one point believed this war was worth fighting for because I was sold on the thought of having nukes and WMDs pointed at my head, and that it was a cause to disarm that man more greater than seeking out the actual man who attacked us on 9/11.
Of course once I gathered that there were no WMDs, saw how men in this Administration have been salivating over attacking Iraq for years prior to invasion, understood that we deliberately took our troops off of bin Laden and gave that fight up to the crooked warlords (whom did nothing whatsoever) and diverted our attention to this hapless dictator in Iraq instead, and deployed far too few troops to properly stabilize the country after invasion let alone give no proper marked goals to attain and reach,
well,
I guess I got a little smart-like and decided that perhaps this wasn't a brilliant idea after all? I can only hope that folks in the Democratic party felt the same. If they don't, then they will continue to have to answer for their beliefs.
| quote: | nope. Clinton couldn't even take Somalia seriously, what makes you think he could have taken the Greater Middle East seriously?
now you help me out...based on such intel do you think Clinton would have lied about it? |
Always glad to help you out, Q - seems to me that Clinton didn't do the invading, now did he? If he did decide to invade, he would have the exact same problems to answer for based on the intelligence (or lack thereof).
But as it seems now, who was it that willfully dismissed the counterevidence and invaded anyway?
Who's in the middle of this clusterfuck civil war fighting for in Islamic fundamentalist regime in leagues with Iran?
Who sent too few troops to secure the borders and explosive sites like al Qa qa?
Who believed the body and vehicle armour situation was not dire enough to act on it sooner?
___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...
|
)
