Jim Yanik wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote in news:kurtullman-
:
In article ,
Nate Nagel wrote:
Do you deny that Bush/Cheney lied us into war or that McCain has
completely reversed his position on many issues since Y2K (or even more
recently, e.g. torture) most of them for the worse, in a clear attempt
to pander to the ignorant Bush core voter bloc?
Yep. The lied into war part is a fallacy since (1). The intelligence
was put together under the supervision of the lone holdover from the
Clinton administration. So, it would have to be assumed that the
holdover was in collusion with the GOP and that he sold his soul to Bush
for the job. Hard to believe.. although we ARE talking about a Clinton
appointee so may be you have a point (g().
You omitted the info that many other allies information matched ours WRT
Iraq.
And yet it's odd that the support of said allies started to dry up after
we invaded Iraq...
Come on, be honest, when you turned on the TV and saw GWB sitting there
telling us that US forces had just invaded Iraq, weren't you thinking
exactly what I was - which was pretty much "WTF? Why the hell would he
do THAT when we're already committed in Afghanistan? What the hell
happened? ****, this is all about his dad, isn't it?" Never mind that
GHWB is on record as stating that the deliberately did not go after
Saddam after our initial objectives in GW1 were met as that would
destabilize the country and we didn't have the resources to rebuild it
from the ground up etc.
2).The raw intelligence was placed in a secured room in the
Capital prior to the vote so Congresscritter could see it and judge for
themselves, less than 1 did.
3) Even the Freakin' French were not arguing at the time that SH did
not have weapons, just that we should continue with the status quo.
Largely because Elf, their large oil company was involved with oil for
UN.. err kickbacks to SH, err. food deal. (The irony in this so
delicious)
$). The Iraqi high command was at least as surprised as anyone else
by the lack of WMDs. Apparently the Sadamster was using the fact that
"other general" were in command of WMD to keep them in line.
the WMD material was moved to Syria.
Then it's good that GWB will be out of office before he has the chance
to invade Syria on your intelligence and embarasses us even more.
5). H certainly wasn't acting like a man w/o something to hide.
One of those things that has been said over and over until accepted.
Again "ignorant Bush core voter block".
Well,the leftists hear only what they want to hear,and anything that
demonizes Bush(the "illegitimate President") HAS to be gospel.
They repeat it over and over so it then becomes (to them) the "truth".
Liberals operate on feelings and not on rational thought.
Nate clearly didn't hear ALL the reasons Bush gave for the Iraq invasion.
His Mainstream Media,all Bush haters,omitted or deemphasized much to aid in
the demonization of Bush.(the MSM ARE 70% DemocRAT...)
There were really only two. WMD's and connections to Bin Laden. Both
lies. The latter wasn't really an explicit lie, more of an attempt to
associate the two by juxtaposing them in speeches, even though there was
no connection between Saddam and Al-Qaida (then) IRL. Cheney did slip
up once and made an explicit connection between the two on TV though,
although nobody seemed to make any kind of big deal out of it for some
reason.
There might have been other reasons for the invasion, but they were
never presented to the American public.
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel