No. I think I've been pretty consistent.
I posted cuts from three speeches Bush gave ...
Excerpting is a great method for manipulating the meaning of a speech. Taking things out of their context to make them seem different. Spinning.
Saddam was always unpredictable and arrogant.
Yes he was. He built up a history.
And it was no secret he hated Israel and the US.
What was the give away? Scuds into Israel? Shooting at our planes during a cease fire?
Those aren't good enough reasons to go to war.
They are in my book.
Saddam was a terrorist who sponsered terror acts against Israel. Still not a good enough reason to go to war.
When you add it to the former and invading Kuwait and gassing the Kurds and throwing the UN inspecters out twice and frequent threats to attack the US and an attempt to assassinate a former President it is.
The President's main claim, the driving force for going to war against Iraq and sending our troops into harms way, was Saddam's WMD.
That's your opinion. Also the MSMs opinion. Also the Dem/libs opinion. I don't share it.
Bottom line. If the issue of Saddam having WMD didn't exist, Congress would never have given authority for Bush to use military force against Iraq.
Easy to say. I guess you are a mind reader or else you have all of those Senators and Congressmen in your personal confidence. Either way it must be nice.
I respectfully disagree. IMHO, you remain quite confused.
>>>>Excerpting is a great method for manipulating the meaning of a speech. Taking things out of their context to make them seem different. Spinning.
Spinning? Hardly. Changing the subject won't help you. Read the speeches. Bush`s words are quite clear, Saddam must be disarmed of his WMD. Period. If you like I can post the speeches in full format for you. Let me know.
"Those aren't good enough reasons to go to war."
>>>>They are in my book.
Thank God you're not POTUS.
"The President's main claim, the driving force for going to war against Iraq and sending our troops into harms way, was Saddam's WMD."
>>>>That's your opinion. I don't share it.
That was the President's main rationale for going to war, which I agreed with. I thought you did as well, till you changed your mind. These are the facts. If you want to overlook the truth, if you want to change your mind, if you want to rewrite history, I can't stop you. I can and will correct your false public statements, as required.
"Bottom line. If the issue of Saddam having WMD didn't exist, Congress would never have given authority for Bush to use military force against Iraq."
>>>>Easy to say. I guess you are a mind reader or else you have all of those Senators and Congressmen in your personal confidence. Either way it must be nice.
Without US and allied intelligence agencies reporting Saddam's WMD were becoming "a grave and gathering danger" to American and allied interests, Bush wouldn't have asked for Congressional authority to use military force against Iraq.
Without US and allied intelligence agencies reporting Saddam's WMD were becoming "a grave and gathering danger" to American and allied interests, Congress wouldn't have given authority for Bush to use military force against Iraq.
The issue of the intelligence gathered on Saddam's WMD and whether it was good or bad info, is now being used by the Dems to hit Bush over the head with and so far, its working. The reason its working is simple. The President hasn't used the bully pulpit enough. Bush&Company haven't defended themselves like they should have. Calling Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and other members of the administration liars, will not win out in the end, I'm confident of that. This effort by the Dems is nothing but a political red herring. Pure sophistry. Too bad there are so many ignorant and uninformed Americans who are falling for this ruse.