Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm pounding the espresso just to stay with you.
|
I just looked at the clock, and realized that I forgot how much fun this can be, and how it can make you lose track of time. I have a meeting with the Gommint in six hours. Damn. (And, you're two hours behind me!)
Quote:
|
Damning that Bush gave the speech, but cared so little for the fine points of the intel that he had it boiled down to a single page. Damning in that when you give your subordinates that much leash, sometimes they hang you with it.
|
I thought the speech was quite effective, I still believe what he said in it, and - do you really want Bush to do a SOTU as long as Clinton used to do them? Bush can't speechify nearly as well as Clinton.
Quote:
|
Whatever Wilson was (perhaps) lying about, you haven't found it. And this crap about British intel looks worse the longer you look at it. But I don't feel like going there tonight, because we beat it to death a couple of weeks ago (7/20 or so?). Check out the old posts if you like. Slave and club did their best on your side.
|
I have disabused myself of the idea of ever trying to read all the posts I missed, so I don't know where you all went. I do know that Wilson was pretty much - well, completely - discredited, and shown to have affirmatively lied about several things for partisan motives. You disagree. You're right in that we should probably just accept that state of disagreement.
Quote:
|
And yet, that's not the case he made. He evidently did not feel that leveling with the American public was a prudent course, no doubt because a "conservative" (in the literal sense) might take a very different view. It's not like what Franks was saying was proven verifiably wrong. On your account, there was no proof of WMD, but the possibility that they were nonetheless there was enough. Had he said something like that, he would not have been lying.
|
Here's where I get such a huge disconnect that I really have to struggle NOT to impute dishonorable motives to the accusations: what I just described was my exact set of beliefs as to why we should go to Iraq,
before we went there. I saw and heard all of the same evidence that you did - and so it baffles me how you can say, now, that "we never considered all of that, and it's just after-the-fact justification." I know I'm one of those best-read Minnesotans and all, but I formed those beliefs hearing the same speeches you heard. So, I remain puzzled.
