Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
A. Too many of these stories end up later being either completely discredited, or put into context that makes things more clear, to get worked up about anything based on a blurb like what you've shown.
|
I apologize for lumping you with Hank, who was assuming the story was true. You're hoping it turns out to be false.
Quote:
|
B. Don't know about Hank, but I considered, and still consider, that our move to depose SH was a very worthwhile thing, both for our own purposes and for the purposes of Iraqis, and indeed that whole part of the world. I view the taking out of Thug #2 as a very secondary consideration, and would not have wanted us to give the L.O. more reason to crow about warlike behavior during the UN courting period - it wouldn't have been worth it.
|
Translation: If the President wanted to put the war on terrorism on the back burner so he could invade Iraq, that's A-OK with me.
Fair enough. The American people are not with you on this one, but that shouldn't change your mind.
Quote:
|
C. I think you have hit upon the most strained, and least likely, interpretation of what "undercut its case" means.
|
Suggest an alternative, however unlikely. We've already considered and destroyed the notion that anyone would have objected to our bombing a terrorist camp in the no-fly zone.
Quote:
|
D. "Abundently clear"? You take far too much upon yourself.
|
How long ago was the war? And where are the WMD? And the links to terrorism? Thanks for playing. Your own defenses of the war say a lot of things, but defending America from Hussein is no longer one of them. Res ipsa loquitur.
