To: RottiBiz; usgator; Strategerist; Phsstpok; SeaBiscuit; Howlin; MeekOneGOP; Dog
The threat posed by these types of facilities was cited by the Bush administration as a reason for invading Iraq, but the installations were left largely unguarded by allied forces in the chaotic months after the invasion. I believe the NYT's underlying purpose for this article -- to once again blame the President -- can be found in this paragraph.I think you nailed it....somewhat similar to the news reports that always cite how a dangerous SUV caused an accident, without mentioning the dangerous driver.....
Bush was concerned about the driver of the WMD program....
176 posted on
03/13/2005 1:21:24 PM PST by
Ernest_at_the_Beach
(This tagline no longer operative....floated away in the flood of 2005 ,)
To: FairOpinion; Alamo-Girl; Strategerist; rwfromkansas; jriemer; NormsRevenge; Grampa Dave; ...
See comment # 176 and #81, in trying to get a clue about what NY Times is trying to do with this article.
I mean, where is any real new news,.....the news is only that the Slimes has repackaged the facts with some kind of follow on intent!
179 posted on
03/13/2005 1:28:20 PM PST by
Ernest_at_the_Beach
(This tagline no longer operative....floated away in the flood of 2005 ,)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson