Posted on 05/30/2003 1:11:24 PM PDT by fritter
In that regard, it's also worth noting we've removed the one of the two viable threats to the monarchy, the other being their wahabbis. The Saudi's don't need our troops anymore.
The Blair virus infects more than the New York Times.
And isn't it interesting that some freepers will believe the magazine rather than the Department of Defense transcript?
Like that's ever stopped a politician in that city from having something twisted. And as I said perhaps I could have been mistaken on his exact comments. However even in the DOD report, Wolfowitz still states it was a settle on one issue, not the issue. If it was the issue and WMDs are not found, then is the war on Iraq a success?
2. The Washington Post has covered this story and has indicated that Vanity Fair twisted Wolfowitz's words and added their own interpretation.
3. I realize that those who are looking for anything to bash Bush are desperate, but in this case, since there is solid evidence of Wolfowitz being misquoted, you are just going to have to admit you were wrong.
Personally, I think reb9 is correct, and we will produce everything at one time, wrapped up in a nice, neat package for all the leftists.
Really? I suggest you read the SOTU from this year. He makes it quite clear it is the issue. He doesn't say a coalition will attack Iraq unless they turn to a democracy, he doesn't say the coalition will attack Iraq over human rights violations, however he does say unless Iraq disarms the coalition would attack Iraq.
2. The Washington Post has covered this story and has indicated that Vanity Fair twisted Wolfowitz's words and added their own interpretation.
Like the boys over at New American Century (of which our current foreign policy is based considering half the administration was part of it back in the 90s) have never done any twisting of words. Remember, they're politicians, just like the Democrats.
3. I realize that those who are looking for anything to bash Bush are desperate, but in this case, since there is solid evidence of Wolfowitz being misquoted, you are just going to have to admit you were wrong.
No what I see is someone who is trying to change their story because the main line that has been yelled from the top of every mountain for the last 8 months is turning out to be no more than wishful thinking
Next I'd lurk around and learn from other people . Get a feel for personnalities , go look at what these folks do in society & know that it will be something new for you ; so give yourself plenty of time .
Having said that .. When you show up here again with that attitude & that juvenile silliness you damn sure know folks are going to rip you a new ass .
As it should be . So butch up and get an education . Perhaps someday you will be in an earned position to teach others . This site will change you're entire outlook and most importantly you will be armed with knowledge & facts if you allow it to happen for you .
They stand as proof positive of Wolfowitz’s third criteria, second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people as well as the second, terrorism, for which there is ample additional evicence. I was addressing the other poster as well, who seemed to imply the sole reason for the war was WMDs, which was false.
Personally, I have little doubt he had WMDs, and that we’ll find evidence of their disposal and transfer. In fact you’ll find reports of transfer to Syria, under control of uncontrollable rogue elements according to the Syrian government, posted on FR last fall.
As to whether atrocities on their own are cause for intervention, IMO in most cases no. I wasn’t supportive of Kosovo (or Bosnia), though I think it would have been proper for the EU, it’s their backyard. If it was a matter of a 5,000 troop deployment, I probably would have supported a deployment in Rwanda. In the case of Iraq, I think Sadaam’s atrocities, coupled with his support for terror and the threat he posed to middle eastern oil fields (those troops weren’t in Saudi Arabia to enjoy the scenery) might have been enough even without the WMDs, which I’ve no doubt existed.
I view the intelligence issue separately, and think a thorough review is called for. The smoking guns weren’t there, there may be reasons, possibly destruction, possibly lousy intelligence, which should be addressed.
Is the Blair virus a WMD?
We found em!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.