Is he really that stupid, or is he dishonest? On March 17, 2003, the night Bush launched the war on Iraq, he told us over the air that "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” What we now know, without a doubt, is that Bush had been told to remove the claim about Niger uranium from one of his speeches because it was based on an Italian forgery, and there had been nothing found to bolster that claim between the time of that speech and the time Bush launched the war. What we now know, without a doubt, is that the USA's nuclear scientists told Bush before the invasion that those aluminum tubes could not be used for nuclear weapons production. What we now know, without a doubt, is that Hans Blix and his UN inspectors had investigated all of Bush's claims about chemical vials and such and had declared those claims garbage. Even if Bush had honestly believed that Saddam had WMDs, he surely should have had some doubt. Any honest, intelligent person would have. It has become quite clear now why Bush launched his invasion before the UN inspectors could finish their assigned task. Given any lack of evidence, and the fact that the UN inspectors were going wherever they wished, the likelihood that Saddam had WMDs was growing less by the day, and Bush's case for war was falling apart. The only "grave and gathering danger" was to Bush's case for a war.
Do I really have to got to the bathroom, or is it just gas? UH-OH. I'm talking to myself on a message board again, just like Rex. Sorry folks. :lol:
