Beerbarrel wrote:

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 22:46:55 GMT, Greg wrote:



From: clifto
Organization: Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy
Newsgroups: rec.radio.shortwave
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 12:00:52 -0600
Subject: the church of bush

John Barnard wrote:
The war started with lies

Repeating that lie hasn't made it true yet, and it won't. But just for
entertainment purposes, why not cite us one of those lies?

All of this comes just as former Marine Corps General and former CENTCOM
commander Anthony Zinni has begun to speak out about the war in Iraq. Zinni
is the subject of a multiple page article in the Washington Post in which he
says "If I'm ever in a position to say what I think is right, I will. . . .
I don't care what happens to my career."

Zinni is indeed telling it like it is. To quote the Post:

"Iraq is in serious danger of coming apart because of lack of planning,
underestimating the task and buying into a flawed strategy," he says. "The
longer we stubbornly resist admitting the mistakes and not altering our
approach, the harder it will be to pull this chestnut out of the fire."

Apparently the time that Zinni turned against the Bush Administration (he
endorsed Bush in the 2000 election) was when he saw Vice President Dick
Cheney speak to a VFW convention.

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of
mass destruction," Cheney said. "There is no doubt that he is amassing them
to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."

Cheney's certitude bewildered Zinni. As chief of the Central Command, Zinni
had been immersed in U.S. intelligence about Iraq. He was all too familiar
with the intelligence analysts' doubts about Iraq's programs to acquire
weapons of mass destruction, or WMD. "In my time at Centcom, I watched the
intelligence, and never -- not once -- did it say, 'He has WMD.' "

That's right. Zinni says that "never ‹ not once ‹ did [the intelligence]
say, 'He has WMD.'" It was uncertain. It was always uncertain. Once Cheney
left the stage Zinni was conviced of two things: first, that the Bush
Administration was determined to invade and occupy Iraq. And, second, "These
guys don't understand what they are getting into."

(http://www.warblogging.com/archives/000781.php

Greg

Why does it always have to be WMD's with you guys? You all seem to
forget the other hundred reasons that we should have kicked his butt!

Usenet'Hole List
---------------------------------
chicken little and his mom!,

It wasn't the other reasons that the Chimp-in-Chief used as the premise to
invading Iraq. The US can't claim the Human Rights card as it didn't do much to
curb those crimes while they were happening. It isn't the 9/11 terrorist angle as
Powell was saying that he didn't see any evidence of a connection (20/20
interview, 9 Sept. 2005). One of Ahmed Chalabi's (remember him?) associates gave
unreliable evidence as to the an Iraq-Al Qaeda connection but it was never
corroborated by NSA, CIA or FBI.

You may also want to take a look at the Downing Street memo which states "...Bush
wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of
terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the
policy..." The British gov't doesn't dispute the authenticity of the memo.

The Chimp pulled a cruel one on you.

JB