Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This makes no sense at all to me. If you've been following this story at all, you know that there were no real WMD, and that Ahmed Chalabi told us what we wanted to hear. What could we possibly find even now that would justify having gone to war to protect ourselves from Iraqi WMD? Give it up.
|
I love how what you read is fact, but what I read is a pipe dream.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop No, they really don't dispute it. From that same NYT article:
- The White House said on Wednesday that it did not see the commission's staff reports as a contradiction of past statements by Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney and that the administration had always been careful not to suggest that it had proof of a tie between Mr. Hussein and Sept. 11.
In other words, they're talking about it in a way that is designed to convey the impression to the general public that there's still something there, while covering their ass from media who know better. They want it both ways.
|
If I meant to suggest there was a Iraq connection to 9/11, it was unintentional. I have not seen any evidence of this. But I have seen evidence of harboring, at a minimum, which is enough for me in itself, and perhaps more. This is consistent with what the Admin is saying. See Slave's post above.
Quote:
|
The problem with the post hoc rationalizations for going to war with Iraq that you see from a lot of people is that they're not willing to apply the same standards to where we go from here -- it's only political CTA.
|
What post hoc rationalizations? And if we had a military that was, say 2X what it is, I would go to Sudan.
edited to add: but I would not pull out of Iraq to go there.
Threaded Mode