Reply With QuoteNo doubt.
IMO, it appears that Iran is/was a much greater threat than Iraq was regarding developoing WMD.
Now we and China are considering military strikes to stop Iran's nuclear program?
I'm no foregin policy expert but it seems to me we went after the wrong country.
No doubt.
Really! Who’d a thunk it?
Read the article, it’s fairly comprehensive.
The fact is that Iran was more of a threat than Iraq was but Dubya was so focused on Iraq that once again he didn't pay attention to the factual evidence.
Will Israel be the one to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities?
I suspect Iran's in the crosshairs.
Why would we take it on ourselves to invade Iran, when the majority of people in that country are massing for a political overthrow of the ruling party sometime in the next few years?
Kill two birds with one stone... get rid of Saddam, and when the dominos fall in Iran we'll be just across the border to help deal with any government brute force military attacks.
Who says we're going to invade them?
Different solutions for different problems.
EXACTLY!! Which is why even Dubya has flip-flopped on some issues.Different solutions for different problems.
We're talking about Iran...go to the Flip-Flop thread.
Oh like you always stay on the topic!!
How old are you, anyway?
This administration doesn't understand nuance, especially not on foreign policy. Expect turned up rhetoric between the U.S., North Korea and Iran till W. is officially out of office Jan 1.
Iran has threatened to attack Israel's nuclear facilities if Israel or the U.S. attack the Iranian nuclear facilities.
Expect turned up rhetoric between the U.S., North Korea and Iran till W. is officially out of office Jan 1.
The inauguration date is always January 20, and as President Bush will not be leaving office until January 20, 2009, we'll have plenty of time to see what happens.
Whatever. I'm tired of the administration lying to the people about this lousy war.
I'm tired of people lying about this administration lying. You've yet to prove one lie. One!
Lying = a misrepresentation of the truth
Bush intentionally misrepresented the situation in Iraq under Saddam Hussein based on faulty intelligence members in his administration manipulated to fit their 4 year old plan to attack Iraq. That is an absolute truth.
That is nonsense. There is not one shred of credible evidence to support that viewpoint. As Yonivore said, you haven't yet proved one lie.Bush intentionally misrepresented the situation in Iraq under Saddam Hussein based on faulty intelligence members in his administration manipulated to fit their 4 year old plan to attack Iraq. That is an absolute truth.
Yeah, who has their head buried in the sand now?
Okay, you use intentional in your lie but not in your definition. And, no, you have no evidence the President lied. In fact, there's been two studies by two separate governments that vindicate the President and state there was every reason to believe, based on the intelligence at the time, that was the President stated was true.
I believe the 911 Commission intentionally understated the level of intelligence manipulation by the administration. About the only mention you find in the report is that the administration 'exagerated' intelligence that didn't support the administration claims about Saddams WMD program or his association with Al-Queda. The main source for Iraqi intelligence before the war was Ahmed Chalabi, a man the administration now believes was spying for Iran the whole time.
Not objective."I believe..."
"President Bush proclaimed that a report by leading economists concluded that the economy would grow by 3.3 percent in 2003 if his tax cut proposals were adopted. No such report exists." Gordan Livingston, 06.03.03
Reaching.......
That was strictly a opinion. Funny though that you can distinguish my opinions from fact, but you can't do the same thing when you watch Fox News.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions