|
Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice? (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
it wasn't worth the risk to assume he didn't. it didn't take much to convince the Security Council either, but you have the luxury of shifting the blame in hindsight knowing full well you didn't know in the first place. |
Bull. Pure bull. Don't pull revisionist history on us - we know damn well why we went to war - the threat of WMD pointing at us - this scare was embedded in us by all members of this Administration, and was further propelled by Judith Miller from the NYTimes who did a magnificent job of listening all too carefully to that lying , Chalabi, which unfortunately was the same boy Feith, Rummy, Wolfowitz, and Cheney ALL listened too as well. It wasn't merely a "risk to assume he didn't" - it was a supposed reality that he did, in fact, possess WMD that were pointing directly at us, period.
Hindsight my ass � there�s plenty of evidence to indicate that the data we had was fully manipulated to the likes of Feith�s OSP, as well as discard any counterevidence to the claims:
| quote: | 2002: Intel Agencies Repeatedly Warn White House of Its Weak WMD Case
Throughout 2002, the CIA, DIA, Department of Energy and United Nations all warned the Bush Administration that its selective use of intelligence was painting a weak WMD case. Those warnings were repeatedly ignored.
JANUARY, 2002 � TENET DOES NOT MENTION IRAQ IN NUCLEAR THREAT REPORT: "In CIA Director George Tenet's January 2002 review of global weapons-technology proliferation, he did not even mention a nuclear threat from Iraq, though he did warn of one from North Korea." [Source: The New Republic, 6/30/03]
FEBRUARY 6, 2002 � CIA SAYS IRAQ HAS NOT PROVIDED WMD TO TERRORISTS: "The Central Intelligence Agency has no evidence that Iraq has engaged in terrorist operations against the United States in nearly a decade, and the agency is also convinced that President Saddam Hussein has not provided chemical or biological weapons to Al Qaeda or related terrorist groups, according to several American intelligence officials." [Source: NY Times, 2/6/02]
APRIL 15, 2002 � WOLFOWITZ ANGERED AT CIA FOR NOT UNDERMINING U.N. REPORT: After receiving a CIA report that concluded that Hans Blix had conducted inspections of Iraq's declared nuclear power plants "fully within the parameters he could operate" when Blix was head of the international agency responsible for these inspections prior to the Gulf War, a report indicated that "Wolfowitz �hit the ceiling� because the CIA failed to provide sufficient ammunition to undermine Blix and, by association, the new U.N. weapons inspection program." [Source: W. Post, 4/15/02]
SUMMER, 2002 � CIA WARNINGS TO WHITE HOUSE EXPOSED: "In the late summer of 2002, Sen. Graham had requested from Tenet an analysis of the Iraqi threat. According to knowledgeable sources, he received a 25-page classified response reflecting the balanced view that had prevailed earlier among the intelligence agencies--noting, for example, that evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program or a link to Al Qaeda was inconclusive. Early that September, the committee also received the DIA's classified analysis, which reflected the same cautious assessments. But committee members became worried when, midway through the month, they received a new CIA analysis of the threat that highlighted the Bush administration's claims and consigned skepticism to footnotes." [Source: The New Republic, 6/30/03]
SEPTEMBER, 2002 � DIA TELLS WHITE HOUSE NO EVIDENCE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS: "An unclassified excerpt of a 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency study on Iraq's chemical warfare program in which it stated that there is �no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or where Iraq has - or will - establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities.�" The report also said, "A substantial amount of Iraq's chemical warfare agents, precursors, munitions, and production equipment were destroyed between 1991 and 1998 as a result of Operation Desert Storm and UNSCOM (United Nations Special Commission) actions." [Source: Carnegie Endowment for Peace, 6/13/03; DIA report, 2002]
SEPTEMBER 20, 2002 � DEPT. OF ENERGY TELLS WHITE HOUSE OF NUKE DOUBTS: "Doubts about the quality of some of the evidence that the United States is using to make its case that Iraq is trying to build a nuclear bomb emerged Thursday. While National Security Adviser Condi Rice stated on 9/8 that imported aluminum tubes �are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs� a growing number of experts say that the administration has not presented convincing evidence that the tubes were intended for use in uranium enrichment rather than for artillery rocket tubes or other uses. Former U.N. weapons inspector David Albright said he found significant disagreement among scientists within the Department of Energy and other agencies about the certainty of the evidence." [Source: UPI, 9/20/02]
OCTOBER 2002 � CIA DIRECTLY WARNS WHITE HOUSE: "The CIA sent two memos to the White House in October voicing strong doubts about a claim President Bush made three months later in the State of the Union address that Iraq was trying to buy nuclear materials in Africa." [Source: Washington Post, 7/23/03]
OCTOBER 2002 � STATE DEPT. WARNS WHITE HOUSE ON NUKE CHARGES: The State Department�s Intelligence and Research Department dissented from the conclusion in the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq�s WMD capabilities that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. "The activities we have detected do not ... add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquiring nuclear weapons." INR accepted the judgment by Energy Department technical experts that aluminum tubes Iraq was seeking to acquire, which was the central basis for the conclusion that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, were ill-suited to build centrifuges for enriching uranium. [Source, Declassified Iraq NIE released 7/2003]
OCTOBER 2002 � AIR FORCE WARNS WHITE HOUSE: "The government organization most knowledgeable about the United States' UAV program -- the Air Force's National Air and Space Intelligence Center -- had sharply disputed the notion that Iraq's UAVs were being designed as attack weapons" � a WMD claim President Bush used in his October 7 speech on Iraqi WMD, just three days before the congressional vote authorizing the president to use force. [Source: Washington Post, 9/26/03]
2003: WH Pressures Intel Agencies to Conform; Ignores More Warnings
Instead of listening to the repeated warnings from the intelligence community, intelligence officials say the White House instead pressured them to conform their reports to fit a pre-determined policy. Meanwhile, more evidence from international institutions poured in that the White House�s claims were not well-grounded.
LATE 2002-EARLY 2003 � CHENEY PRESSURES CIA TO CHANGE INTELLIGENCE: "Vice President Dick Cheney's repeated trips to CIA headquarters in the run-up to the war for unusual, face-to-face sessions with intelligence analysts poring over Iraqi data. The pressure on the intelligence community to document the administration's claims that the Iraqi regime had ties to al-Qaida and was pursuing a nuclear weapons capacity was �unremitting,� said former CIA counterterrorism chief Vince Cannistraro, echoing several other intelligence veterans interviewed." Additionally, CIA officials "charged that the hard-liners in the Defense Department and vice president's office had 'pressured' agency analysts to paint a dire picture of Saddam's capabilities and intentions." [Sources: Dallas Morning News, 7/28/03; Newsweek, 7/28/03]
JANUARY, 2003 � STATE DEPT. INTEL BUREAU REITERATE WARNING TO POWELL: "The Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), the State Department's in-house analysis unit, and nuclear experts at the Department of Energy are understood to have explicitly warned Secretary of State Colin Powell during the preparation of his speech that the evidence was questionable. The Bureau reiterated to Mr. Powell during the preparation of his February speech that its analysts were not persuaded that the aluminum tubes the Administration was citing could be used in centrifuges to enrich uranium." [Source: Financial Times, 7/30/03]
FEBRUARY 14, 2003 � UN WARNS WHITE HOUSE THAT NO WMD HAVE BEEN FOUND: "In their third progress report since U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 was passed in November, inspectors told the council they had not found any weapons of mass destruction." Weapons inspector Hans Blix told the U.N. Security Council they had been unable to find any WMD in Iraq and that more time was needed for inspections. [Source: CNN, 2/14/03]
FEBRUARY 15, 2003 � IAEA WARNS WHITE HOUSE NO NUCLEAR EVIDENCE: The head of the IAEA told the U.N. in February that "We have to date found no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear-related activities in Iraq." The IAEA examined "2,000 pages of documents seized Jan. 16 from an Iraqi scientist's home -- evidence, the Americans said, that the Iraqi regime was hiding government documents in private homes. The documents, including some marked classified, appear to be the scientist's personal files." However, "the documents, which contained information about the use of laser technology to enrich uranium, refer to activities and sites known to the IAEA and do not change the agency's conclusions about Iraq's laser enrichment program." [Source: Wash. Post, 2/15/03]
FEBURARY 24, 2003 � CIA WARNS WHITE HOUSE �NO DIRECT EVIDENCE� OF WMD: "A CIA report on proliferation released this week says the intelligence community has no �direct evidence� that Iraq has succeeded in reconstituting its biological, chemical, nuclear or long-range missile programs in the two years since U.N. weapons inspectors left and U.S. planes bombed Iraqi facilities. �We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its Weapons of Mass Destruction programs,� said the agency in its semi-annual report on proliferation activities." [NBC News, 2/24/03]
MARCH 7, 2003 � IAEA REITERATES TO WHITE HOUSE NO EVIDENCE OF NUKES: IAEA Director Mohamed ElBaradei said nuclear experts have found "no indication" that Iraq has tried to import high-strength aluminum tubes or specialized ring magnets for centrifuge enrichment of uranium. For months, American officials had "cited Iraq's importation of these tubes as evidence that Mr. Hussein's scientists have been seeking to develop a nuclear capability." ElBaradei also noted said "the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that documents which formed the basis for the [President Bush�s assertion] of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger are in fact not authentic." When questioned about this on Meet the Press, Vice President Dick Cheney simply said "Mr. ElBaradei is, frankly, wrong." [Source: NY Times, 3/7/03: Meet the Press, 3/16/03] |
Or better yet, just flat out lie to the public like Rice did once any counterevidence or conflicting evidence was received:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/i...ner=rssuserland
| quote: | | thats the difference between strength and weakness. |
The facts clearly show that�s the difference between lying and distorting to bolster your case vs. being forthright to the public and Congress on your case for war.
I really don�t know what you�re referring to on the Security Council � are you referring to the UN council which did not give authorization for Bush to go to war, or are you referring to our National Security Council, which was clearly neocon run in the first place?
-
| quote: | | yes. The major goals this administration has set have been achieved, or is being achieved. to have the luxuries of a pacifist in a time of war says nothing about your strength. |
Eh? Are you serious? So since I am against our invasion of Iraq, as well as our ineptitude of post war planning there, I�m now a pacifist? Since I believe that:
1. It was more prudent to go after the man who killed almost 3,000 innocent people on our soil, rather than divert attention away from him and towards another country
2. It was wrong to attack this country when it was clear it had no collaborative operational ties to the man and his group in #1
3. Once the counterevidence was given it was clear that our case for going to war based on WMD stockpiles was weak at best
I�m somehow a pacifist?
I really don�t know what else to say � if pacifist is something equivalent to being reality-based, then I suppose you could continue giving me that label.
But seriously, turn off Hannity just for a moment, will you? This sounds a wee bit too much like Conservative mouthpiece labeling.
And you�re going to have to explain to me how this post-war planning was set and achieved exactly how Bush, the genius that he is, set it out to be. Please be specific as to how everything done here was all part of our Administration�s master plan.
| quote: | | -don't ask me about about a non-specific PDB when no one else gave it signifigance but the ones (like you) that want to shift blame in hindsight. that is just so ing weak dude. |
Umm, uhh, what the ?!?
No one else gave it significance? Why thank you for pretty much delivering my point, sir. That was the problem in the first place � Rice had done a piss poor job at even addressing the growing terrorist problem, Cheney was supposed to set up a meeting and coordinate plans to address the problems set forth by Clarke and other intelligence analysts about Al Qaeda�s threats AND IT NEVER HAPPENED, Ashcroft got so tired about hearing on terrorism to the point where he simply told those alarmists that he didn�t want to hear about Al Qaeda anymore, and here we have a memo addressing the EXACT little �dilemma� that came to fruition one month later (uhh, 9/11 to be exact),
AND IT ALL HAPPENED PRIOR TO 9/11.
You don�t need hindsight to examine this problem and say many avenues were not met by this Administration � all you need is a few simple facts of mismanagement, disillusionment, and negligence by this Administration to clearly exemplify the point of pre-9/11 ineptitude.
-
| quote: | | it�s real nice to be able to pick and choose your arguments when you�re a liberal blame shifter. |
It�s quite apparent that you conservatives will never learn how to take a wee bit of blame on yourselves.
Everything is the fault of Clinton, liberals, France, and the media � we�re all the blame shifters, huh?
It�s old and tiresome, and your continual labeling and broad sweeping generalizations of all who disagree with your Bush apologists views is way past the point of annoying.
| quote: | The truth is that the increases that occurred in �98 of closer to $28 billion over 5 years, plus the over $500 million at the beginning of the Bush administration accounted for her testimony. http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/intel-funding.cfm
not including MAXCAP implemented in 2000. |
That�s not what I am referring to � what I am referring to is the fact that the first full Bush budget for FY2003 "did not endorse F.B.I. requests for $58 million for 149 new counterterrorism field agents, 200 intelligence analysts and 54 additional translators" and "proposed a $65 million cut for the program that gives state and local counterterrorism grants." Newsweek noted the Administration "vetoed a request to divert $800 million from missile defense into counterterrorism."
It�s irrelevant what was used for her testimony � these facts alone, which are from internal government documents, dispels any idea that this Administration was seriously addressing the counterterrorist needs of our intelligence agencies.
| quote: | | What your argument or complaint amounts to is nothing but �banging on pots and pans� |
Considering this Administration and it�s minion of followers will believe anything they say, whom unfortunately carry the majority, that�s about all us reality-based folks have.
So cover your ears if you have to � the noise is going to get a lot louder this 2nd term.
| quote: | | Over some misstatement that has no real bearing on reality. It�s seems like you just pulled those retorts off of some reactionary website and now it�s gospel. |
You really should be careful lecturing about reality. Judging by your comments and �yes-sir� stance you continue to take with this Administration without question, perhaps it is you who needs to understand the difference between reality and idealism. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
I've edited my post above to be a little less combatitive. I also cut down on the labels a bit too - I think we can both agree that such rhetoric and words really don't get us very far in a discussion/debate.
I realize I'm plenty guilty of that which I charge, so I'll continue to try to be better in the future..... |
|
|
| Your Mother |
Rice for Powell is a stupid choice. It's very well documented that Powell wasn't going to be asked back to the position, which is unfortunate. The Secretary of State has always been a position held by people with strong diplomacy skills and respect from foreign nations.
The sad thing is that Condi gets no respect from the rest of the world because she's basically Bush's bitch... lying and feeding bull left and right to help Bush's cause.
-Your Mother |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
Must just say that i love your posts Opus, keep up the good work 
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
it didn't take much to convince the Security Council either |
oh yeah, we all remember how unified the security concil was that Iraq had stockpiles of wmd... :rolleyes: |
|
|
| drizzt81 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spacey Orange
Is this a good or bad choice? |
Very bad choice. I completely and utterly hate her. Once upon a time, I rememberred the reason for it, but I have forgotten why. I think it's just because she has no backbone... |
|
|
| BigManwithaPlan |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
Must just say that i love your posts Opus, keep up the good work
oh yeah, we all remember how unified the security concil was that Iraq had stockpiles of wmd... :rolleyes: |
Opus for President? Or maybe Opus for Campaign advisor? LOL. But yeah the posts are great. Keep it going. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Bull. Pure bull. Don't pull revisionist history on us - we know damn well why we went to war |
i know why we went to war, and whether it's revisionist or not, all criteria were met for war that is to include the UN with the understanding that removing Saddam was the ultimate goal, and all subsequent action regarding Iraq would involve nuetralizing the country as threat known, or not known. period. all other arguments regarding Iraq and their capabilities, known or not known, have been proven with the simple fact of soveriegnty given to them by men (and women) much stronger than you or i.
| quote: | President's Remarks at the United Nations General Assembly
September 12, 2002
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/rele...20020912-1.html
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material.
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions.
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions.
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people. |
you can talk yourself out of being a liberal blame shifter till your blue in the face. the truth is that not this administration, nor the previous one (Clinton:D), nor the UN Security Council pulled the wool over any ones eyes as a collective understanding to preface a war over WMD's. they all assumed in good judgement, independently and collectively. but only one party out of those three was willing to use strength as a mean to Saddam's end. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
oh yeah, we all remember how unified the security concil was that Iraq had stockpiles of wmd... :rolleyes: |
what do you not understand about the word unanimous?
what about "serious consequences"?
if you understand them and take them seriously, then the UN is a feckless and meaningless organization, right? |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
i know why we went to war, and whether it's revisionist or not, all criteria were met for war that is to include the UN with the understanding that removing Saddam was the ultimate goal, |
If that was the "ultimate goal", then surely Bush would have said as such in your citation.
Lo and behold that was not stated at all - rather, the disarming of Saddam from his WMD was stated.
Well, tell me something - how does one disarm someone from something which they do not possess?
And considering there was plenty of counterevidence that clearly stated doubts that actual WMD stockpiles existed or that Saddam was at that time capable of producing such WMD, especially nukes which were the primary scare factor (how many Administration folks said "mushroom cloud"?), why was that not considered at all in his statement, or even Powell's statement to the UN prior to invasion?
And actually your statement speaks volumes and reiterates my point exactly -
*what was the first criterion mentioned?
-disarming Saddam from WMD
What have we found in Iraq so far?
*what was the 2nd criterion mentioned?
-stop supporting terrorism
What part of "no collaborative operational relationship" with Al Qaeda members is not coherent?
*what was the 3rd-5th criteria mentioned?
-stop being an inhumane sum bitch
Which IMO was pretty much the only true and proven legitimate reason for invasion. Funny how this factor was subsequent to the top 2 fallacious factors.
| quote: | | and all subsequent action regarding Iraq would involve nuetralizing the country as threat known, or not known. period. all other arguments regarding Iraq and their capabilities, known or not known, have been proven with the simple fact of soveriegnty given to them by men (and women) much stronger than you or i. |
Translation: any arguments, no matter how sound or substantial they may be against the President's rationale, or lack thereof for invasion, are therefore discarded because forcing our brand of Democracy on a sovereign country is always and will forever be justified.
Nice.
| quote: | | you can talk yourself out of being a liberal blame shifter till your blue in the face. |
Do I hear an echo?
Must be my old ears.....
| quote: | | the truth is that not this administration, nor the previous one (Clinton:D), nor the UN Security Council pulled the wool over any ones eyes as a collective understanding to preface a war over WMD's. they all assumed in good judgement, independently and collectively. |
I call Bull once again here.
I don't deny that Clinton saw Saddam as a threat and felt that he needed to be dealt with. I don't deny that Clinton also thought Saddam's WMD production and capability were worth dealing with. I also don't deny that the UN had similar sentiments as Clinton.
But they didn't push the little red button, did they? They were not in charge, were they? They didn't have the unfortunate burden of examining the counterevidence I posted above, and had to weigh that with the supposed claims coming from that lying head Chalabi, did they?
No, that was all Bush, bub. Say, who's "blame shifting" here? You really trying to reach out to former Administrations and the UN for the onus of proof which lies solely on Bush here?
For shame. :rolleyes:
| quote: | | but only one party out of those three was willing to use strength as a mean to Saddam's end. |
You seemingly continue to confuse "strength" with obfuscation and blind idealism. At first it was kinda cute, but now I'm really beginning to wonder.....:D |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
what do you not understand about the word unanimous?
what about "serious consequences"?
if you understand them and take them seriously, then the UN is a feckless and meaningless organization, right? |
Didn't the UN authorize our right to mobilize troops and send their weapons inspectors to disarm Iraq, and to use force only as a last resort?
Was that met? Was it truly a last resort? Perhaps they too had a problem with us kicking their inspectors out before they could complete their job. Perhaps this was why they would NOT approve the use of force - because it was clear that it was NOT a means of last resort, at least not yet (at that time). |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
oh yeah, we all remember how unified the security concil was that Iraq had stockpiles of wmd... :rolleyes: |
The UN did vote FOR the war before they voted AGAINST it (as Kerry would put it :p )
Rrecall... The UN did vote for a SC resolution saying they will basically use force if they don't comply with the weapon inspectors by December.
Come December Mr. Hans Blix says Iraq hasn't complied.
All you would need is a slick trial lawyer (no not Edwards!) and this should have been a pretty open-and-shut case.
The legalistic precedents were there, there were prior agreements, Iraq was found in volation, the UN agreed to no more second chances... Yet no second resolution was passed.
Fortunately due to the intelligent wording of the first UN resolution and prior US/UK drafted resolutions, legalistically, they carry enoguh weight for an argument that the war vs. Iraq was LEGAL by international law.
Of course this isn't the complaint. There was (just like post-Sept 11th) a lof of good will from the world nations to finally do something against Iraq. I don't believe Colin did anything to harm or increase those perceptions and let them take whatever course they did...
Look the legal argument for war was argued before war and we all disagreed then. Even in hindsight you can't say that legalistically the war was wrong, because even if the UN made a bad law - it was still a law. You can argue the war was wrong, or immoral, but it was not illegal. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
If that was the "ultimate goal", then surely Bush would have said as such in your citation.
Lo and behold that was not stated at all - rather, the disarming of Saddam from his WMD was stated.
Well, tell me something - how does one disarm someone from something which they do not possess?
And considering there was plenty of counterevidence that clearly stated doubts that actual WMD stockpiles existed or that Saddam was at that time capable of producing such WMD, especially nukes which were the primary scare factor (how many Administration folks said "mushroom cloud"?), why was that not considered at all in his statement, or even Powell's statement to the UN prior to invasion?
And actually your statement speaks volumes and reiterates my point exactly -
*what was the first criterion mentioned?
-disarming Saddam from WMD
What have we found in Iraq so far?
*what was the 2nd criterion mentioned?
-stop supporting terrorism
What part of "no collaborative operational relationship" with Al Qaeda members is not coherent?
*what was the 3rd-5th criteria mentioned?
-stop being an inhumane sum bitch
Which IMO was pretty much the only true and proven legitimate reason for invasion. Funny how this factor was subsequent to the top 2 fallacious factors.
Translation: any arguments, no matter how sound or substantial they may be against the President's rationale, or lack thereof for invasion, are therefore discarded because forcing our brand of Democracy on a sovereign country is always and will forever be justified.
Nice.
Do I hear an echo?
Must be my old ears.....
I call Bull once again here.
I don't deny that Clinton saw Saddam as a threat and felt that he needed to be dealt with. I don't deny that Clinton also thought Saddam's WMD production and capability were worth dealing with. I also don't deny that the UN had similar sentiments as Clinton.
But they didn't push the little red button, did they? They were not in charge, were they? They didn't have the unfortunate burden of examining the counterevidence I posted above, and had to weigh that with the supposed claims coming from that lying head Chalabi, did they?
No, that was all Bush, bub. Say, who's "blame shifting" here? You really trying to reach out to former Administrations and the UN for the onus of proof which lies solely on Bush here?
For shame. :rolleyes:
You seemingly continue to confuse "strength" with obfuscation and blind idealism. At first it was kinda cute, but now I'm really beginning to wonder.....:D |
sounds like someones backing down on the whole "deception for war" tip. now you just think it was wrong.
i'm not gonna try to convince you it wasn't. never have...much.
blind idealism? tell that to men and women that have made the tough decisions. i sure as hell didn't make them. |
|
|
|
|
