Quote:
Originally posted by Hank_MrSkin
Donovan,
I like you but I have to disagree with you here...I think most of us would not have had such a hardon for Iraq that it clouded our judgement on the rest of the threat from other areas.
Look at Clark's testamony to the affect that the bush people only wanted to here about Iraq after 9/11 and Bush wanted him to find stuff to blame it on Iraq.
Also, the Bush people denied for more that a week the Clark meetings on this to turnaround after other people confirmed that they were at those meeting.
They the Bush story went from no meetings to yes we had the meetings but didn't remember what was said at them...
In all objectivity, the Bush administration are a bunch of fuckin liars and you can't beleive a fuckin word they say...That is fuckin objective 
|
I'm voting against Bush and Ash<b></b>hahahahaha, no doubt about that. My point is that no one would have acted any differently. If there was no hard-on for Iraq and no other items on the agenda at the time, I still don't believe anything would have been done differently. We had a false sense of security. Now we're looking for someone to blame for it. But we really can't blame this administration. The last one had all the same info as well.