Dang, Jlallen, you think you could back up any farther when you say:
"Bush never linked Al Quaeda to Iraq.
The Brits stand by their intelligence on uranium sales.
Its too early to make the call on WMD."
Let's break it down. The first two "rebuttals" transparently ignore the clear inferences of Bush and ALL OF HIS SPOKESMEN. They made a policy of speaking of terror and Iraq in the same paragraph and sometimes the same sentence, as if they were one and the same. They SAID that Saddam was linked to terrorists, that he supported them, trained them and was united with them in his hatred of America. What exactly do YOU think they meant?
Why do YOU think Bush pointedly stated that there was British intelligence on uranium? Do you think he pointed that out so that we would know that our best intelligence had discredited that possibility? Do YOU think that he was pointing out how the British were exaggerating the connection? Do you? Huh? What is it that you think he made those statements for? I'd really, really like to hear your "thinking" on that but I bet I don't hear anything but one of the "pinhead" posters replies. Just this time, though, make me wrong by actually writing a post that has some analysis in it.
By the way, the "it's too early to make the call on WMD" is a big drop from the previous "they're there and we (you choose) found them - will definitely find them. Do I sense the beginning of DOUBT? Could it be that even such GAWB worshippers as you are beginning to face the ugly reality that you were played for a fool by the "honest, non-Clinton, patriot" Bush? I believe that circumstances are bringing you there. Your one hope is that the spin machine declares a "find" of some, probably redefined, nature and declares victory so the denial can survive the facts.
If the true believers are beginning to have doubts, can the thinking public be approaching a tipping point where Bush and his administration are seen as spinners, distorters and dupers? We'll see in 2004. |
