Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
I will conclude that Bush lied when he told us there was "no doubt" that Iraq had WMDs.




I will not cover what Jato has said and I have said but my question is..

Why did he lie?

So Cheney could make money from Halliturton stocks he divested himself from?
So he could get re-elected, given that after Afganistan his popularity was 80%?
To avenge the assasination attempt on his dad?
To get oil for his oil company buddies?

You seem willing to believe the worst in the President...that in a post 9/11 environment that he should have "assumed" the 4 best intel agencies in the world were providing weak intel. He should have assumed that the UN sanctions were "legit" and doing the job (they failed to find plenty BTW..prohibited Al Saamood II missiles, Mirage fighters). We know now even Sadam's generals thought WMD existed because...SADDAM them so. Putin even called Bush and said Saddam was a THREAT to U.S. interests. The bipartisan Senate intell and 9/11 committees both concluded that white House applied no pressure to the CIA in reaching their conclusions.

This is partisan bias, plain and simple...though partisans will not see this (like a blind spot). Non partisans however, will and I think it unlikely that they will be sold on "Bush is a lier". Non partisans will decide this election, either that or voter fraud. I have said why I think Iraq was worthwhile beyond WMD and why I think Bush is likely to be a better man to deal with terrorist in general. I think terrorsim is the key issue. At this point, I am ready to let the people vote.


1999 Amazon Green SVT Contour (#554/2760) "People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." -Soren Kierkegaard (as posted by Jato)