QUOTE (dss311 @ Oct 26 2004, 09:52 PM) |
You are contending the Bush administration was going to attack Iraq because they were planning this from day one. This is nonsense. Because someone is preparing for future events does not mean they hope to carry them out. Preparation is just a sign of leadership. For example, I pay for fire insurance on my home but I hope I do not need to use it. I would assume the administration is also preparing for Iran and North Korea. Hopefully talks and other sanctions will prevent conflicts with these nations.
|
Okay, first argument you say that my proof is irrevalent. Okay, you don't have to believe Paul O'Neill, the former Treasury Secretary under this Administration.
QUOTE |
Second problem with you argument is you are citing newspaper articles as facts to make your point. As we have seen before, they are not always accurate. Take CBS for instance. They were reporting on some BOGUS Bush papers as facts. Now today CBS is trying to claim the missing explosives in Iraq is Bushs fault. NBC has already disproved this lie as they were there the fist day after the fall of Baghdad. |
Again, you say my proof is bogus.
QUOTE |
Third problem with your argument is this; I believe Bush has always intended to run for a second term. Doing something un-popular like going to war or lying would be political suicide. Besides, if Bush knowingly knew there were no WMDs why didnt he just go plant some fake evidence or forged documents. If Bush was lying in regards to Iraq he could easily continued to lie and provide forged/fake proof that he was in the right. |
Again, you say my proof is bogus.
I think the Bush Propaganda brainwashed you. You believe on what Bush said so much that you don't believe on the contrary even when proof is in front of your face. BTW, I was not talking about the missing explosives, but why Bush admin did a preemptive strike on Iraq.