administration did not hold a gun to anyone's head. Still. The
available choices were portrayed at the time as "support our troops"
or...not. Yes, lawmakers should have shown more gumption and it is
troubling that they did not. But they did not and can you blame them?
I thought twice before standing on the sidelines of an antiwar
protest. And wisely; the protest was teargassed on one of the nights I
was not there. It's very easy to second-guess a CIA analyst with a
mortgage and two children in college.
Dana
----- Original Message -----
From: Doug White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 18:55:40 -0500
Subject: Re: 9/11 Commission to Cheney - You're still wrong.
To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"I think he used it as an opportunity to try to score
political points against the administration," Bartlett
said, although Rockefeller earlier insisted, "it's not
politics, it's a matter of policy."
"The equation the president had to face in a 9/11
world is, are we going to face threats or are we going
to let them fester?" Bartlett added. "We do know that
Saddam Hussein was a threat and it was the right thing
to do to remove him from power."
That is what Rockefeller was talking about as well as many others- The
Administration had its mind already made up that there was a threat, which after
the investigation, it turns out "there were no dots" Therefore in my mind the
administration spokesman, Bartlett convicts himself by his own words.
Invade Afghanistan? = Yes
Iraq = NO________________________________
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
