Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis
I'm no fan of any of these clowns, and still want to know why Chaney and Rumsfeld were not held accountable for convincing a standing president that an invasion of a sovereign nation was required ensure our security when there was no basis in fact to support this nonsensical notion.
That said, was Paul Wolfowitz not the Under Secretary of Defense, serving under Rumsfeld during this period of time the author is purporting?
The DoD is in the business of making war for fun and profit. It would be fairly difficult to find a non-hawkish lackey in that position.
Again- I hate all of these douches, but to compare his knowledge of the region to that of Michael Brown's disaster preparedness knowledge, is absurd.
It's really another reason why these Slate "hit pieces" never garner the attention they should.
|
i just really wish they'd quit with the constant war-mongering already. but, i guess the dod and all their corporate buddies have to keep beating the war drums to justify all their military spending.