Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin
I think Bush did think that Saddam may have been involved with 9/11. If you remember, that guy Richard Clarke said that Bush kept asking him to see if he could find evidence of Saddam's involvement with 9/11. Why would Bush have kept asking him, if Bush was not convinced that there was a connection? If you remember, there were reports that linked Muhammad Atta to some Iraqi intelligence officers. At one time, they were pretty confident that those reports were accurate. Later on, they realized that they could not confirm the accuracies of those reports.
So once again, something is only a lie if the person saying it knows that the information is false.
|
Rupert,
Seems to me that you DO really want to know.
Heck, most decent Americans would like to know more about the war they were sold...and bought.
Truth in advertising? Nahh...doesn't play too well in DC.
Too bad so many kids had to die for it. Both theirs and ours.
Just my take...cause "it figures"...Bush was looking for an excuse (rationale) for the invasion. Lots of crude (2nd largest in the world) was up for grabs.
Cheney was the puppeteer (Halliburton, pipelines, military supply, no-bid contracts).
The "cheerleader" did his best. He even landed on the flight deck of the A. Lincoln to tell us all 1368 days ago that the "mission" had been "accomplished".
Too bad that it hasn't been...but "it figures".