Ha! Simply label is “propaganda” and move along…. Nice, Mcair….

Saying there is intel to justify the presence of weapons is one thing, verifying that intel and presenting all the known facts is something else. The administration pushed all the circumstantial evidence they had, and excluded anything that indicated that the intelligence was shaky, at best. I am not defending the actions of Democrats that voted to authorize use of force.

They took the word, and put on the payroll, the indicted embezzler Ahmed Chalabi – now thoroughly discredited. One of their key Iraqi informants, codename “curveball” was a drunk that nobody – save the neo-cons – took seriously.

The president was either lying or is guilty of criminal incompetence in this fiasco. Which is it?

Make your choice.

Propaganda…..maybe, but not nearly in the realm of propaganda as anything the great white fat man Moore has ever made.

d.narloch

Help me here folks – what does this video prove? That there were WMD in Iraq? How does this exculpate Bush from hyping intelligence? How does it excuse the Bush gang from their lies about Yellowcake from Niger, the aluminium tubes, Atta meeting with Iraqi agents in Prague etc.etc.?

Do you’ve shown some prominent Democrats declaring Hussein to be a threat – if uncontained. Were any of them advocating immediate invasion? No.

The US and its allies had Hussein contained – and if you doubt this, then consider that no WMD -or facilities for their production- have been found. Iraq had no significant military. None of the neighboring countries were claiming that Hussein was a threat to their security (save perhaps the Likud faction in Israel.

Lastly, if you want to play the “gotcha” with Democrats, lets hear from the president’s own father, regarding Dester Storm:

Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in “mission creep,” and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under the circumstances, there was no viable “exit strategy” we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations’ mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different — and perhaps barren — outcome.

That mcair troll is amusing. And he/she/it gives more evidence of why the lefties in this country have had to relinquish power and will continue to slide into the abyss. They can’t be trusted with anything except white flags.

And for the record, this video is two months old or so, You would have seen this when it came out if you read my blog

Tweet!!!

Offsides on mcair. Five yard penalty. Still first down.

OR Saddam managed to fool the world into believing that he had WMDs when he really did not… EVERYONE agreed he had WMDs before we went in. So is Chirac, Putin, Blair, and the leaders of all the world’s powerful countries guilty of the same? Because they believed the same thing. And about about Bill Clinton, was he also guily of incompetance? He was the president that stated Regeim Change in Iraq as official US foreign policy, Bush followed through on the policy. Are they BOTH in on this?

The problem is you can’t just pin it on Bush. There are way too many other leaders guilty of whatever you try to pin on Bush.