Quote:
Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
[edited typos]
|
Strongly disagree with most everything. You keep talking as if you were lied to. What was presented to us was a case for going into Iraq, which I (inexplicably, given your confusion, I guess) understood to mean pretty much what it's said to mean today. For some reason, I was able to figure out what they were claiming, while you (as a selling tool, I suspect) seem to have been horribly misled. Iraq was invaded, for reasons with which I agree, and things are progressing nicely. The intel on the WMD's was weak, and ultimately turned out to be wrong, but we took the safe route, to avoid the fatal mistake the other way.
The only gap in credibility that has been raised concerning Iraq is the parroting of ultimately meaningless distinctions between words in an attempt to trashtalk an admin that many of you just soul-wrenchingly despise, for reasons entirely disconnected with Iraq. My prediction is, that becomes apparent to the mass of voters before November, and your strategy of demonization of every breath Bush takes ultimately wipes you out. I think this is unfortunate, as I am beginning to wish for stalemate.
(A "redheaded stepchild riding a rented mule"?)
