Rumsfeld admits US had no new data on WMDs

[Theophylact]

This story is clear and convincing evidence that the Administration lied about its reasons for war:

"The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. We acted because we saw the evidence in a dramatic new light - through the prism of our experience on 9/11," he said.

In other words: we went to war based on the same evidence that we didn't go to war on.

The Administration did not lie.

George Bush did.

I have mainained this for many months and eventually the truth will come out. The President is not big enough to admit it. He will squirm out of it using vague, ambiguous language and blame everyone else.

Can't expect much more from this man.

You two should form your own party and run for the presidency. I'm sure you'd do a much better job...

[Mike]

Well you have to remember Whir. Some of the stuff that is being thrown at us is true.
How can you say Rumsfeld would be honest? Just last week he said that rebel Iraqis weren't going to guerrila tactics. May not be full blown guerrilla tactics, but it's getting just as ugly.

I wasn't criticizing anything there, Mikey. I just find it amusing the Theo's first comment is always left by Shahani, and it's always a full agreement. That and they mostly always dismiss any argument with the same arguments.

[Mike]

Yeah well I have seen some of your other posts.

[cyphen]

Originally posted by Theophylact
This story is clear and convincing evidence that the Administration lied about its reasons for war: In other words: we went to war based on the same evidence that we didn't go to war on.

Do you honestly believe what you just wrote, Theo, or is this just more propoganda? Because i've made convincing arguments about a zillion times that have gone unanswered, or inadequately answered. Doing so here would simply be redundant. Maybe i should create a "war justification" template post...

[Mr. Goodbytes]

Yeah, Theo believes what he writes. He's a fairly good fellow too, just doesn't understand what he's talking about in this situation. When it's said that we've had no new evidence on WMD, it means we are going on the same evidence that Clinton had when he bombed Iraq, the same data that the UN had when it issued UN Resolution 1441. What the story is saying is that we felt that the very same threat still existed that the UN acknowledged, the same threat that a number of democratic Senators(including Carl Levin and John Kerry) feared when they urged Clinton to act against Iraq. What Bush did was finally enforce the 10 or so UN Resolutions against Saddam, probably saving the world from becoming aware of the UN's obsolecensce for at least another decade or so.

He's a fairly good fellow too, just doesn't understand what he's talking about in this situation.

Condescending judgement?

[puk]

well i guess this will clarify the WMD problem:



1) Go to www.google.com
2) type in (but don't hit return): "weapons of mass destruction"(no quote marks)
3) Hit the "I'm feeling lucky" button, instead of the normal "Google
search" button;
4) READ what appears to be a normal error message carefully












puk
i apologize if it was posted (i was on vacation the last 2 wks & didnt checked all posts)