As far as I know, although question were raised about a portion of his military service, he has never been proven to have lied, and, in any case, he received an honorable discharge.
I also have followed allegations about his business "track record", and have found nothing especially shady. If the SEC had thought there was more than a technical violation, it would have followed up, but it did not. In any case, no "smoking gun".
Good people do not foment war merely in order to gain profits. I do not believe that this Administration is intent upon putting our troops in harms way merely for oil.
A toady is more or less a flatterer or "yesman". I do not believe that he would put British boys in harm's way, or, for that matter, kill Iraqi boys, merely for profits.
There never was an invasion "frenzy". This whole thing has been very methodical. I always knew that Bush would seek UN cooperation and Congressional approval, once he had maneuvered them into having to take the matter seriously.
The Democrats could always have hidden behind the UN, and refused to authorize force before the renewal of inspections.
My point is that all the key players basically know that the issue is the objective threat constituted by Saddam...... |
