On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 15:43:48 -0400, NOYB wrote:


No. The administration gave you a sound reason based on some not-so-sound
intelligence provided to them by our and other country's intelligence
agencies. However, they didn't give you a "false" reason. Besides the
WMD issue, there are 4 or 5 other solid reasons why we should have gone
into Iraq.

Please, so now it's all the intelligence agencies fault. Flawed or not,
Bush was the one that took us to war. It wasn't that long ago, that our
intelligence agencies learned that the Soviet Union was falling apart ...
from television. Intelligence is often faulty. This CIC should have
understood that, *before* taking us to war.


Credibility and competence are the questions.
800 young men and women have died for their mistakes.

Whose mistakes?

Where did Truman say the buck stopped?

By the end of Bush's second term, there will be no governments left in the
Middle East which would dare fund, sponsor, harbor, or otherwise support
terrorist groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, al-Qaeda, etc. At
the very least, there will be no "new" nuclear powers there. It will take
at least a generation to get rid of the hatred that is being taught in the
madrassas, but it'll be a lot easier with US-friendly governments in
place.

"US-friendly governments?" At least you are smart enough not to buy the
BS about democracy breaking out all over. It would be refreshing if this
administration was honest enough to state their real reasons for the Iraq
fiasco. I don't seem to have the same tea leaves you have.


The fact that he has the vision (and the balls) to pursue such a plan is
exactly why I'm voting for Bush.

Yup, it's all about Iraq and that's why I'm voting for anybody but Bush.