Re: Please, Tell Me Why

"...Troops get death and pay cuts while Bush gobbles barbecue, rakes in dough ..."

http://hartfordadvocate.com/gbase/News/content?oid=oid:29956

Notice that those small town editorials can't be refuted by any bushcultie, either.

Here's something else the bloodthirsty bushpawn won't be able to comprehend:

"Gandalf Grey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/30/1070127272100.html
>
>Dual studies undermine Washington's basis for war
>By Walter Pincus in Washington
>December 1, 2003
>
>
>More than 10 years' work by US and British intelligence agencies on Iraq's
>chemical, biological and nuclear weapons or programs has "major gaps and
>serious intelligence problems," according to a new study.
>
>Anthony Cordesman, a Middle East and intelligence expert who is a senior
>fellow at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, found that
>"even a cursory review" of charges the US and British governments made in
>white papers released before the Iraq war "shows that point after point that
>was made was not confirmed during the war or after the first [six] months of
>effort following the conflict."
>
>Although the US has the most sophisticated technical systems for collecting
>and analysing intelligence, Mr Cordesman found, Iraq shows that US
>intelligence is "not yet adequate to support grand strategy and tactical
>operations against proliferating powers or to make accurate assessments of
>the need to pre-empt." Pre-emption, or waging war to prevent an enemy from
>attacking, is a key part of George Bush's war on terrorism.
>
>Another new non-governmental report, on the Bush Administration's claim that
>Iraq was seeking specialised aluminum tubes to use in a centrifuge to create
>nuclear weapons material, raises questions about whether policymakers
>ignored qualified critics to promote the Iraqi threat.
>
>It finds shortcomings in the way the US intelligence community handled
>technical questions involving the tubes. Nothing has been uncovered in Iraq
>to support the notion that Saddam had such weapons or entertained any such
>weapons transfer.
>
>The CIA, meanwhile, has acknowledged it "lacked specific information" about
>alleged Iraqi weapons of mass destruction when it compiled an intelligence
>estimate last year that served to justify the US-led invasion of Iraq.
>
>But it said that and other uncertainties surrounding the case had been fully
>presented to Mr Bush and other US policymakers in the October 2002 National
>Intelligence Estimate.
>
>The US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, told the UN Security Council last
>February that Saddam and his regime were "concealing their efforts to
>produce more weapons of mass destruction".
>
>However, an explanation issued over the weekend by veteran CIA analyst
>Stuart Cohen, who was in charge of putting together the 2002 intelligence
>estimate, made clear the case against Iraq, as presented by the CIA behind
>closed doors, was much less clear-cut.
>
>The Washington Post, Agence France-Presse
>
>
>
>
>--

There's no evidence that any terrorism ever ensued from any action taken in Iraq.

Despite that fact, a person who lusts only for the blood of innocents wants to kill.