Thanks for the link.
Unfortunately, this article is clearly written in an fashion to mislead, not
just slightly slanted.
It does not ever present any evidence that the President lied. It just says
he used evidence were we did not have 100% verification, which is what
unverified means. My question is how much of this type of intel is ever
verified. It does not say he used any that had been disproven(yellow cake the
exception, but I think that his explanation was plausible, so I give him
benefit same as I give to anyone)
It does not present the facts as they relate to the issue. For example, the
article puts significant importance on the terrorism and nuclear capabilities.
But I remember that at the time of the invasion that most of the focus was on
chemical and biological weapons not the nuclear program and the terrorist
link, while a favorite of the far left to show how wrong Bush was, was just
not a major reason for going in.
It was the UN mandate, which this article doesn't even address. Let us never
forget that without the UN mandate for significant penalties for
non-compliance then their would have been no invasion. If Sadaam had
cooperated with the UN inspectors, there would have been no invasion. If
France, Germany and Russia had supported the invasion, there would have been
no invasion(why? Because Sadaam would have complied)
Anyway, that is my perspective. Gotta do some work today.
Andy
-----Original Message-----
From: Sandy Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 9:40 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: today's Kerryism
Try this article. Start looking and reading the links it references.
Interesting stuff.
<outbind://27/www.inthesetimes.com> www.inthesetimes.com.
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
