For the fifth?? time, I dispute your post. Three sentences. Would you like me to repost each of the three sentences again? Perhaps individually?
For the third, fourth, fifth or whatever time it is explain what you dispute. You can not honestly dispute Bush used aluminum tubes, yellow cake, or the others can you? Explain what your dispute it about, so far you have not laid anything out simply 'prove it' show what you dispute, make an argument otherwise I have no idea what you think is incorrect.
What happens when iraq breaks out in civil war? Or we attack Iran/Syria? The middle east is more unstable now than ever and no end is in sight any time soon.... 30 years from now we'll probably still be fighting "terrorist"
its funny how looking at things accurately is somehow supporting the terrorists, you would fit right in that book 1984
I think part of the problem with all this is that virtually everyone thought Saddam had WMD's before we went in. You can find all kinds of quotes from prominent Democrats saying virtually the same things that Bush did, and it's hardest for me to reconcile the 1998 attack on Iraq by President Clinton with the idea that Bush was trying to dupe us about WMD's. Clinton attacked solely on the basis that he thought Saddam was reconstituting his weapons programs, and he specifically identified about 80 or so sites as being where they were. It's kind of hard to say that Bush was lying to us or fabricating the evidence when the president before him thought the exact same thing - and I think that there were pretty good reasons to believe Saddam had them. He certainly acted like he did (playing games with the inspectors, kicking them out, etc.), the CIA thought and said that he did, and the prior president had thought the same thing. Focusing on Bush is a disservice in my opinion mainly because it avoids any inquiry into why our intelligence was so bad on this subject - how come the CIA didn't know? Why were they going around saying it was a "slam dunk" case? If you indict Bush for lying, many of the prominent Democratic politicians have to have been liars too. It just makes more sense to me to think that both Bush and Clinton and the others (like Senators Kerry and other Democrats who made hawkish statements after having access to CIA reports from the Intelligence committee) had access to bad intelligence - possibly in combination with some internal problems with Saddam's regime, such as whether he himself was being duped by his generals about whether he actually had WMD's.
Ah, about 275 million Americans. That 'idiot' as you called him is a member of the US Senate of Foreign Relations for 19 years. He's had free access to information you and I don't, and promotes or prevents bills from even reaching the floor. He's had time to read and think about foreign events and what America should do than probably most of the enlisted people in the military have been alive. This idiot has always stood on his record, and his positions driven by the work he has performed both as a senator and as committee member. He told you "I know because I know" and some of us actually listen because unlike us that hang out on this board, he has inside information that isn't shared with US. That's why we have three branches, and in the time of war it takes both congress to fund it, and the president to head it. Checks and balances, and he's part of it. So, he supported it, and because his views don't match everyone he's an Idiot? Oh my, tom
LOL, nice try 'idiot' as in just because Kerry may or may have not of said somethinig that does not back the situation up. There is much more to it that the possibles of WMDs or dangers, it is the entire case is it not? One person could say yes there was a danger, yes there are WMDs but not bring up other items where another one does making your point quite mute IMO.
Did you guys see this article about the Iraqi intelligence http://nytimes.com/2005/11/06/polit...&en=0d091794b0c89f27&ei=5094&partner=homepage
Darn Republicans! I defended Kerry wasn't an idiot and I'm red rep'd. Well I will also I highly admire him too! 30 years as a civil servent, he has managed his money well enough to own millions of dollars in properties. Yes his money, his current wifey made it clear, what is her's is her's. I hope as a get older I too become sucessful like John Kerry. So there! tom
Tommy check your cp I should have said something different as in idiot or genious, my point was a 'danger' is a bit different than the entire picture. I was wrong in how I stated it