> > What was left out however, is the remainder of his quote. In > the Huntsville Times this weekend was a comment or two about > this now-famous quote. The next sentence Kerry says has the > following meaning (I can't quote him, for I can't find the > article on the Net): > http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2002_1009.html
Kerry voted for this resolution for one and only one reason; he was too scared (politically) not too. See below. > > And as we all know, the US didn't receive any support from > the UN and choose to go it alone. Kerry was supporting the > efforts to find the WMD but the use of force was to be a last > and final resort. > No, we don't all know. We received some, not all, support from the United Nations members and we did not "go it alone". Please define "a last and final resort"? How many years? How many failed trips by inspectors? How many contracts for oil to Russia and France? > > My point is that all the quotes offered as evidence of > several other politicians supporting the war effort are > perhaps taken out of context in an effort to distort the > opinions of those quoted. Clever tactic unless you take time > to read the rest of the quotes. > Maybe you should take the time to read the reports of the independent commission Bush has said he will appoints. Seems like the press is not the only ones taking things out of context. > > And I guess I'm wrong in thinking that since Dubya has now > agreed to an independent probe into the faulty intelligence > that he is now admitting that the intelligence was indeed > wrong? > > I mean, if he is so sure as to the accuracy of the > intel, why spend more of our money to find out why it was > wrong. > No, he's bowing to the political pressure. Bush is too politically scared in an election year to tell the media and all the scared congressmen to just wait and see what happens. Politically speaking though it is a wise move. It will take a while to name the commission, and for the commission to do their work and issue their report. By then, the election will be over. He displaces the political pressure until after the election. > > But as another topic, if 9-11 didn't happen, do y'all think > the rush to remove Saddam would have been as high a priority > as it became? > No rush but it would still eventually come. Not only did 9-11 change the way we looked at Iraq, but it probably also changed the way Iraq looked at its situation. Eventually they would make a stupid mistake that even the United Nations would have to acknowledge and we would be at them again. At least under the current environment we don't have to go back to the United Nations and say "pretty please" can we advance 5 more miles, "pretty please" can we topple a statue, and have to put up with months and months of useless speeched from that idiot of a UN ambassodor from France. ______________________________________________________ RollTideFan - The University of Alabama Athletics Discussion List "Welcome to RollTideFan! Wear a cup!" To join or leave the list or to make changes to your subscription visit http://listinfo.rolltidefan.net
