View Single Post
  #11   Report Post  
NOYB
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"DSK" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
Unnamed sources, eh Doug?


???

The Army and the CIA are 'unnamed sources'?


You're being intentionally obtuse. Specifically, which members of the Army
and CIA?


... These are the words of the Prime Minister of Iraq. Since he's
there, he's in a lot better position to evaluate the situation than you
and a bunch of unnamed sources


He's also a politician, and likely to say a lot of things that aren't
quite strictly true... possibly he's been misinformed himself, possibly
trying to put a spin things, possibly trying to curry favor with the
Bush/Cheney Administration.

So, are you going to address the question here? What sources did Vice
President Cheney use to gather his info that the insurgency is on it's
last legs?


Perhaps he asked the Prime Minister.


Do you agree with his statement?


Yes. The "insurgency" was composed of the Saddam faithful who tried to get
the American forces out of there. The terrorists are a completely different
group.

What about President Bush's statement... only last night... that the U.S.
military *will* withdraw from Iraq? Wanna revise your statement that we'll
be there forever?


Nope. We'll always have bases there. We just won't have a US troop
presence in the major cities.


And how about President Bush linking Iraq with Sept 11th... again & again?
I was surprised to hear him mention Osama Bin Laden,


A lot of things surprise you. All along, Bush has spoken of Iraq's ties to
terrorists. I doubt there's a single American that doesn't believe we're
fighting al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq right now.

since he remains uncaptured and since it's now public knowledge that Bush
pulled troops off the hunt so as to invade Iraq. I was also surprised to
hear him say that the Army didn't want more troops. If that's true, then
why did Rumsfeld fire all those generals for saying we would need more
troops?


Which generals?

Why is the Army upset about missing recruiting goals if they don't need
more?


They don't need more in Iraq.

These little inconsistencies tend to make one believe that either Bush &
Cheney are seriously deluded, or else they are politically constrained
from admitting the truth. Maybe you can explain?


I already did.