Iraq: Bush Myths vs. Reality

[SHRED]

Wow...something you won't find on FAUX News everyday.

________________________

Iraq: Bush Myths vs. Reality

Iraq: Bush Myths vs. Reality
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
By Martin Frost

We have clearly entered a new phase of our involvement in Iraq — public opinion is turning against the administration and the president will be devoting a good bit of his time trying to convince the American public that our policy should not change. This is the right time to take a close look at myths and realities about Iraq.

I approach this subject as a Democrat who voted to authorize the use of force against Saddam Hussein (search) on two separate occasions: In 1991 when Bush 41 was president and in 2002 when Bush 43 sought congressional approval to launch the current military campaign.

Myth: Saddam Hussein was a part of the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States and possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Reality: Former Secretary of State Colin Powell (search), in one of his last interviews before leaving office, made it clear that Saddam was not involved in Sept. 11. Additionally, we thoroughly searched Iraq for weapons of mass destruction and could not find any. The administration is now justifying our involvement in Iraq on the basis of nation-building (democratization) — something President Bush derided during the 2000 campaign.

>>>>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160556,00.html

[jeff30997]

1. This is from Sucks News?

Wow ! Maybe the tide is turning for the Bushies.Encouraging.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[achtung_circus]

3. Bought the whole line of bushit, didn't you?

[jeff30997]

5. He's a heavy Kool-Aid drinker I would say.

[uppityperson]

6. That didn't take long, did it? Search is my friend.

[jeff30997]

9. Lol.I did the same thing.

Except hitting alert,but it was a close call.:evilgrin:

[uppityperson]

10. I have little tolerance for it right now.

Do a quick search, hit alert, let the mods decide. It was a close call, almost staying within the lines but not quite, esp when checked other postings.

[uppityperson]

4. Did you know it is spelled "al Qaeda" without the U?

oh dear

[jeff30997]

7. Ooops! The freep is gone !

[EstimatedProphet]

8. Was this guy Bill O'Reilley in disguise?

Go through that list, and I am about as guilty as Saddam! the point is:
1) he didn't have WMD's AT THE TIME
2) he didn't have terrorist links AT THE TIME
3) he didn't have treaty violations AT THE TIME
4) he didn't have Al Qaeda contacts AT THE TIME
What is up with these conservatives anyway? The stuff this guy is talking about WAS DONE before we did anything about it.
Apparently he has a career in law enforcement waiting for him, arresting people who have already gone to jail.