"jps" wrote in message
...


It was perfectly obvious to me that they were rushing into war. The
inspectors were pulled out, there was no effort at diplomacy. Saddam
was bluffing and still thought the Americans were his allies.


Over six months of UN debates, and insistance on compliance with prior UN
resolutions were not an attempt at a diplomatic solution?


This was about Bush's ego, finishing the job his father walked away
from, gaining control of a large pool of oil for his and his father's
business buddies and thrusting his military pelvis at the region.

Another "fact" that has absolutely no basis or evidence of truth.
Please point out how Bush gained control of a large pool of oil for his
father's business buddies.


They didn't want to know the truth, they wanted to invade. You really
should do a little research. The plans were in place before 911,


Indeed. The contingency plans were formulated during the latter part of
Clinton's term.
Clinton didn't execute them for a number of reasons, including the fact that
he was on
his way out and didn't need or want the legacy. So, the issue was handed
over to Bush.

Remember .... Many in Congress who were "in the know" advocated military
action against Iraq *during* Clinton's last years in office. The list
includes a host of well known Democrats who now have changed their tune and
claim Bush lied to them. This is the thing that gets me the most. If
intelligence warranted these people to publically call for Clinton to take
action, how the hell can they later claim that it was Bush who lied to
them?

The answer is that it is politics at it's worst. Somehow these characters
can convincingly explain to many that, "They were for the war before they
were against it" and come out sounding like honest Abes.

Bull****. All you have to do is apply a little common sense to see through
this crap.

Eisboch