Coming to a Theatre Near You?
How many times has the current administration stated that if we leave Iraq too soon, the “enemy�, the “jihadists�, will follow us here? To these United States. Our communities. Our shopping malls. Our movie theatres? Better to fight them there than to fight them here, goes the logic.
McClatchy Newspapers addresses the issue here:
It’s become President Bush’s mantra, his main explanation for why he won’t withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq anytime soon.
In speech after speech, in statement after statement, Bush insists that “this is a war in which, if we were to leave before the job is done, the enemy would follow us here.�
The line, which Bush repeated Wednesday in a speech to troops at California’s Fort Irwin, suggests a chilling picture of warfare on American streets.
But is it true?
Military and diplomatic analysts say it isn’t. They accuse Bush of exaggerating the threat that enemy forces in Iraq pose to the U.S. mainland.
“The president is using a primitive, inarticulate argument that leaves him open to criticism and caricature,â€? said James Jay Carafano, a homeland security and counterterrorism expert for the Heritage Foundation, a conservative policy organization. “It’s a poor choice of words that doesn’t convey the essence of the problem – that walking away from a problem doesn’t solve anything.â€?
U.S. military, intelligence and diplomatic experts in Bush’s own government say the violence in Iraq is primarily a struggle for power between Shiite and Sunni Muslim Iraqis seeking to dominate their society, not a crusade by radical Sunni jihadists bent on carrying the battle to the United States.
It’s hard to believe anyone would fall for this logic. Perhaps now is the time to sell that bridge I’ve always wanted to unload.
More News and Commentary for Moderates
�’Moderate’ is not a 4-letter word.�
opinions powered by SendLove.to
44 Responses to “Coming to a Theatre Near You?”
Just remember: We’re fighting for democracy over there so that we don’t have to have it here.
I’m unclear as to whose words you are mocking……Bush’s or Carafano’s? Or both?
If Petraeus’ counterinsurgency style warfare does not produce convincing results by Secretary of State Pelosi’s deadline, I will agree we need to give it a rest and carefully monitor what happens. If it remains clearly geographically contained sectarian violence, then I guess that is just the more democratic version of the internicene killing to continue on in Saddam’s absence. I have nothing to offer as evidence it would raise the threat of terrorist attack here anymore than our rolling out the welcome mat to CAIR already has.
However, since I am being told that fighting is actually taking place becasue of the US presence, we shouldn’t even have that to worry about in the future.
Oh yeah and which military and political experts are those?
You are proving the unprovable. You are implying they wont come over here and yet they have already.
They have blown up the trade towers twice. They have attempted to kill your family and mine in airliners in plots exposed.
Yet the very success of our government at stopping these plots is the evidence you use to prove your weak argument that terrorists who have already done billions and killed 1000′s here in the USA really don’t want to do that again.
Let me ask you a question. How many terrorists have blown up buildings in the USA since we invaded Afghanistan?
None?
How many terrorist have launched attacks on American soil since we invaded Iraq?
None?
Hmmm I see your point. They really don’t want to come over here when they can show up in Iraq without a passport and be embraced by their bosom buddies. Heck yeah your right. Why would we ever think they would want to come over here?
Just remember: We’re fighting for democracy over there so that we don’t have to have it here.
Nic is mocking Bush, and very cleverly, too.
The problem is simple. Terrorist are going and killing where the killing is good…and that is in their own backyard…and the primary victims are overwhelmingly Arab and muslim. If the US leaves Iraq without a stable a government that can look after its people the killing won’t stop it will escalate and then they will move to other targets, most likely in the Middle East and North Africa.
James Jay Carafano
Petraeus has already failed. There has not been one shred of success. Any suggestion otherwise is laughable.
These are republican political delaying tactics at the expense of our kids lives. I think it is clear that it is not possible to have a “victory” under republican leadership, much less under THIS president. The shia are merely waiting for us to leave before they take over Iraq and make it a province of Iran and the Bush Cheney team have no idea what to do about it. We are in this situation simply because of the republican ideology of “On the Cheap military operations”, for the purpose of, “Save the Rich on Taxes”, because apparently they are better than the rest of us.
As for the long standing asinine republican suggestion that “the terrorists will follow us here”, well, if we don’t sell them a ticket, they can’t get here. Unfortunately that might be far too anti-free trade for the republican party to accept.
Anyone who claims he knows what would happen after the US leaves is depending too much on tea leaves.
The sectarian war scenario leaves out al Qaeda and the future role of Iran. The al Qaeda scenario, omits the sectarian conflict.
To stay is risky. To leave is risky. There is no good answer.
What makes me mad is the suspicion I have that Bush is just drawing this out so he can leave the mess for someone else to clean up. He started it, and he should finish it before he goes.
What is truly keeping the terrorists from coming over right now? I mean, what is stopping 1 or 5 or 10 terrorists from coming over here now? The 9/11 bombers came into this country legally and overstayed their welcome. What has the Bush administration done to prevent that from happening again? Has he increased the resources of the INS to track legal aliens? No, I don’t think so. Has he increased the resources of the border patrol to ensure that people are less likely to come across the borders illegally? No, I don’t think so. I think, in fact, that he has cut the budgets of both of those agencies. So really, what is preventing terrorist from coming over right now?
I think the reason that phrase about fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them here even qualifies is that it says that it is easier for terrorists to find and kill Americans over there than it is to come over here. So basically, our soldiers are being used for target practice by the terrorists and as decoys by the US government.
The argument that since they haven’t come over here since 9/11 proves that Bush’s policy is working is bogus. When the towers were bombed in ’93 they didn’t try again until ’01. So if Bush’s policies are keeping the terrorists away now then Clinton’s policies were keeping them away just fine while he was president. My feeling is that if a Democrat had been president when 9/11 happened, rather than rising up together as we did as one nation, the Republican’ts would have been roundly critisizing the president for not protecting the country.
Nobody: The only reason 9/11 happened is because Bushco was asleep at the wheel and ignoring PDBs.
Gary: ‘It’s hard to believe anyone would fall for this logic.’
So I take it this quote means you are not an American citizen? This is th eland where people are suckled at Madison Ave’s tit from birth. Say it on TV or radio and most will believe anything. Ask Orson Welles.
“How many terrorist have launched attacks on American soil since we invaded Iraq?
None?”
Lets keep something in mind about the terrorists. Men sneaking into the US and blowing stuff up is not prevented by the military. The war in Iraq has ZERO effect on terrorism worldwide as far as stopping it. There have been several large scale attacks in Britain and Spain since this war started. Any reduction in attacks on American soil is due to the efforts of our CIA and FBI, those who’ve always been responsible for stopping them.
Military takes care of nations, intelligence agencies take care of saboteurs and spies. Terrorists are sabotuers and should be fought as such. Worldwide since the “War on Terror” began, terrorism is up, and I know as an American I certainly don’t feel Bush’s policies have made me any safer. If anything i imagine more problems down the road as a result of them.
Equating the insurgents in Iraq to some force thats going to sail across the world to take us out is just silly. They are Iraqi’s trying to get an upper hand in the power vacuum we’ve created for them. Eventually either the Sunni’s or the Shiites are going to win, then we have a violent theocracy we can begin to deal with. Neither side is worthy of our support, but until they become a nation again I really don’t see what we can do to help them.
Alright I’m calling you on this one. You are either lying to try and prove your point are willfully blind and ignorant about any and all facts about Iraq that don’t fit what you want to be. Even the worst critics will admit if they are honest that there has been at least some temporary improvement in conditions. That it can’t last, will just get worse, ect, ect, wile I may disagree, they can be the way the situation is perceived. What you said has no link with reality.
I think this is right on the money, and expands well beyond just ‘them following us home’. Everytime you say ‘we are winning’ or ‘last throes’, you raise the bar of expectations. When the world sees a car bombing the very next day, the dichotomy between the words they started off believing and the observations is so great that I think it actually pushes people farther in the other direction, perhaps making them think things are worse then they are.
The terrorist leaving Iraq to attack us here is absurd. It is as plausible as the British invasion and terrorist schoolkids from the South Park episode a couple of weeks ago.
How would Bushco have started the war with Iraq if 9/11 never occurred? You do know that Rumsfeld brought up planning to attack Iraq on 9/12 at 3pm in response to WTC attacks- did they even know who had attacked us by then?
Military takes care of nations, intelligence agencies take care of saboteurs and spies.
You want OUR intelligence agency to take care of this problem??
Are you insane?? The ones that told Bill Clinton to blow up some tents? The ones that had him blow up an aspirin factory? The ones that told Bush there was WMDS in IRAQ.
You want this agency to keep you safe?
Please tell me what your smoking. I want it.
As for me Ill take my chances with a bunch of National Guardsmen from Idaho.
The same way he got this one started. Say they had a nuclear weapons program under way and that they were in bed with terrorists. The terrorism angle would have a bit less weight but I’m sure he could have pulled it off.
The country wouldn’t have come together- Bush needed the political capital from the patriotic post 9/11 phase(remember he was at 90%) to convince the public and Congress that it was necessary. They had to conflate al queda and Saddam, so that it all ran together in our gullible heads! I don’t think he took part in 9/11 but why did he keep reading “My Little Goat”?
If there is one thing people should have learned by now is that Bush does not need a mandate to do anything. He’s the Executive Branch and he had Congress in his pocket for most of his term. He just does stuff and damn the consequences. All this talk of Bush worrying about his “politcal capital” means nothing. He doesn’t care about polls, or procedure, or even the law insofar as he doesn’t get impeached.
But at the beginning he did- don’t you remember Libby fed those WMD stories to Judith Miller so that she would get the administration’s POV in the NYT’s, and Cheney haunted the CIA demanding connections between al queda and Saddam- whether it was solid or not. They put a lot of unconfirmed intel in the speech for Colin Powell to deliver at the UN, and had Doug Feith come up with his own alternate intelligence at DOD. They got away with it for a while, until the press finally woke up.
Oh yea those things were done, I’m just saying they would have also been done if 9-11 never happened. Enough misinformation would have been hobbled together, and the seeds would have been planted with the press, so that when he decided to invade it would have been on similar slim justifications.
And they didn’t get away with it for awhile, they got away with it period. They might have been called on it by the press, but those are just words and Bush is nothing if not resisitant to harsh words from the press. They carry as much weight with him as UN denouncements of terrorism carry with terrorists.
James Jay is right, the terrorists are going to go where it takes the least amount of effort and expense to go and kill Americans. They have a much better time infiltrating an Arabic speaking country than trying to run around unnoticed in the US. Iraq is a short bus ride away for most of them, why bother with trying to get passports or a visa. Like any business or military operation they are trying to get the biggest bang for their buck.
Nobody: ‘You want OUR intelligence agency to take care of this problem??….The ones that told Bush there was WMDS in IRAQ.’
You are conveniently overlooking the fact that many intelligence officers in CIA, DIA, and other agencies, were telling Bushco that there was no link of Saddam to 9/11 and that there was no evidence of WMDs. Bushco simply had those people removed, retired, or replaced- sort of like he’s done with military men who”ve spoken out against the war, or w the US Attorneys who would not be political henchmen.
In short, when Bushco says that all the info they had linked saddam to 9/11 and WMDs, they are lying. That’s what they wanted to hear, despite strong objections. Similarly, there were conflicting reports in other nations’ agencies.
Repeating this fallacy is known as deceit, or lying.
a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.
On 8 November 2002, the UN passed Resolution 1441 urging Iraq to disarm or face “serious consequences”. The resolution passed with a 15 to 0 vote, supported by Russia, China and France, and Arab countries like Syria. This gave this resolution wider support than even the 1990 Gulf War resolution.
Yes I can see quite clearly where Bush Lied. That Liar. How dare he.
When will you guys change your story to the truth? I dont mind you being against the war but couldnt you at least use some truth in your objection to the war.
Repeating this fallacy is known as deceit, or lying.
Stop the presses I just found this report
The director of central intelligence, George J. Tenet, has named a team of retired C.I.A. officers to scrub the classified intelligence reports that were circulated inside the government before the war on a range of issues related to Iraq, including those concerning Bagdhad’s links to terrorism, casino gambling, Viagra placebos, removing coke and heroin from CIA safehouses, kiddie porn in the McLean, Virginia area and unconventional weapons, officials said. The team plans to compare those reports with what has actually been discovered in Iraq since the war ended and then to rewrite actuality. The previously undisclosed C.I.A. cover-up was initially prompted by a request last October from Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld to Mr. Tenet, a senior intelligence official said Monday. That cover-up focused on Mr. Rumsfeld’s role on behalf of Bechtel Corporation to run a pipeline and raise revenues to help arm Saddam Hussein against his enemy, Iran at a time when the U.S. supported a strict embargo.
Silly me I should have known that you had the goods on Us War Types.
Then why is the Iraqi government easing the curfew in Baghdad?
There have been too many former CIA agents that have come forward , plus Wilson’s op-ed, plus Colin Powell’s interviews , plus reporters like Michael Isikoff’s pieces to believe any links now between Saddam and al queda. The intelligence was faked and fixed to bring us into war- so that Bechtel and KBR and Halliburton could all clean up on the destruction of Iraq.
Eric- Please, feel free to provide any evidence you wish. The people claiming, ” there has been a little bit of improvement”, are, by their own statement, grasping at the thinnest straw ever produced. Might as well say, it isn’t a straw at all. So I did.
Nobody’s suffering from the true Bush Derangement Syndrome, in that he’s joined the Admin on their own little planet.
Bush is clearly lying when he says that all our intel showed Saddam had WMDs and ties to 9/11.
When are you BDS types going to stop with the lies? Repeat it all you will but it’s still the same, and now you cannot even effectively scare the zombies here that you used to with the color alert system. In short, both Bush and his acolytes, as well as the BDS types, like Nobody, are irrelevant.
Cosmoetica when are all the antiwar types going to stop with all their lies and talking points. I point out that even the democrats voted for the war in Iraq and yet its Bush Lied.
No he did not lie. If anyone lied it was the analysts. Now why would they lie? I propose they would not. I also propose that intell work goes like this.
You collect a whole bunch of tidbits of information. You get defectors with agendas to tell you stuff. You interview people. You look at maps, you look at recon photos, satellite photos. You read books, you listen to politicos speeches from the country in question. On and on. Tidbits of information collected and then analyzed.
Analysts are being asked to take a whole bunch of nothing and put it together and come up with a picture. Its not exact. Its highly speculative and contingent upon the analyst being objective.
Now when you got 50 or 100 analysts all working with sketchy information you are going to end up with varying viewpoints. However if the consensus is that they HAD WMDS then that is a consensus. it does not mean it was unanimous.
The antiwar on the other hand take 5 people as proof positive Bush Lied. Oh yeah and Joe Wilson. The guy goes to Africa, talks to some people returns and writes a report and this is PROOF???
Sorry lets come up with better facts to support your antiwar stance. Your old ones are full of holes. So full in fact its why Bush is still the president and has not been impeached.
Was that a refutation, or simply making your case as a BDS sufferer? The latter seems likely, since you offered nothing, repeated the same disproven canards, and ignored the facts.
I wonder if Kim Ritter still has any hair to pull out after reading such laughable nonsense.
There are people who say we never landed on the moon. So if I find a scientist or 5 that worked at Nasa and they tell me in an interview that we never landed on the moon
Is that proof?
No its 5 scientists with differing views of the facts. How do we really know we landed on the moon. There is only just a few people on this planet that actually know if we landed on the moon or not. The rest is accepted on faith.
Now if you tell me I hate Bush, I think hes a liar and nothing he says can be the truth. Well then at least you have spoken a truth. But to claim because SOME people say Iraq had no WMDS is proof that Bush Lied is like my cousin who will fight me if I push him hard enough about landing on the moon. Our government lied and thats all you need to know.
That has been the position of the antiwar and its a weak, seriously flawed position in which the proponents have more faith in speculation and hearsay then they do the truth. And yet it is they who claim they are seekers of the truth.
Okay here is your refutation. Here is why Bush has not been impeached by the Democrats.
Like other aspects of the U.S. government, the CIA has a system of checks and balances. The CIA reports both to the executive and legislative branches.
On the executive side, the CIA must answer to three groups — the National Security Council, the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and the Intelligence Oversight Board.
On the legislative side, the CIA works primarily with the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. These two committees — along with the Foreign Relations, Foreign Affairs and Armed Services committees — authorize the CIA’s programs and oversee the CIA. The appropriations committees appropriate funds for the CIA and all U.S. government activities.
So now when I state that the CIA presented the same evidence to the President as it did to congress I want you to show me where in this oversight chain of command the President was able to FIX the information to suit his needs and if he did why the Democrats were not screaming to high heaven that the information being fed to them was not LIES.
No you guys overlook the truth and turn to conspiracy theories and conjecture and some disgruntled former employees and a Democrat with an agenda as proof.
Now if you want to just say I hate war and I hate Bush and I hate our forces fighting in IRAQ that is a position I can respect and understand.
NobodySays- You haven’t proven that your version of events has any shred of truth. If you are bound and determined to believe it, no one here can stop you. But be aware that it has been discredited in many different ways in many different sources- many of whom initially supported the president, VP and the Iraq war. I believe that you believe what you write- but unfortunately, that doesn’t make it the truth.
BTW, you righties really need to stop the old canard that those who disagree with our misadventure in Iraq hate our forces fighting there- many who disagree with it have sons and daughters fighting there, or have volunteered themselves to go out of duty to country.
Kritter prove to me where in the chain of command Bush could have fixed the evidence.
You are arguing a lie. You are defending it as truth. Show me where. I presented facts and said SHow me.
You cannot so your response it to call me a delusional liar.
I love the sound of Rightie. Ohh that sounds so good to be on the RIGHT side of truth.
Nobody- do you read the news, or watch it? Many Intel officials have come forward that evidence against connections of Iraq to 9/11 was bared, and it was strong. Bush ignored it it and went to war. Same with WMDs.
The lie is that he and Cheney claim that the evidence was solid, and that other nations all supported it. Baloney.
You can call a lie Mitzi Gaynor or strawberry gum drops, but it’s still a lie. What make it worse was that the Right went apeshit over Clinton’s lies about a blowjob, and support Bush’s far deadlier lies.
Sorry, game over. There is no question that lies were told- merely the number and extent.
And, in a couple years, you can be sure that dozens of ex-Bushies will try to rehabilitate their reps by exposing lies we do not even know of now. Then, the defenders will merely call them liars as well, and further insulate them from the reality that will show Bush as an unmitigated disaster.
BDS strikes agsin.
Nobody says- where did I call you a delusional liar? I said I believe you think it is the truth- but that doesn’t make it so. There is an alternate universe of misinformation out there- and hardcore supporters of Bush and Cheney subscribe to it. Most of the rest of America has caught on to their massive deceptions and are trying to deal with the disaster it unleashed in the ME the best we can.
What Nobody is saying is that there was people that didn’t go with the consensus. And these are the very people that you hang on their every word. Damn, even France thought that Saddam had WMD and the were tight with him.
What I find humorous, if this subject isn’t Saddam and WMD but rather globalwarming you would be considered a denier. Kinda funny how your mindset can put you on both sides of this consensus thing and be so damn sure that only you opinion is the right one.
Everyone keeps saying Bush Lied. Show me where he lied. How he lied.
You keep saying he lied, he distorted the evidence, covered it up or whatever nonsense. I just want you to prove to me how he did that given how the CIA is in oversight by everyone from Ho Chi Minh to Gunga Din.
Show me how. Im from Iowa. An ex analyst with Democratic credentials coming forward is hardly evidence in this time of hate filled Rhetoric.
I want evidence that he covered up, distorted to such a point that the democrats in these committees as well as the congress in general would STILL go along with him and vote for war.
You offer nothing but again enough people have come forward and said this that or the other. You bluster that Joe Wilson went to Africa and wrote an OP ED piece. Why thats certainly evidence.
You offer nothing but Innuendos and distortions. Had Bush indeed lied, had the Democrats on the committees that oversee the CIA evidence believe they were lied to or Coerced Bush would be on trial right now.
So again show me where there is proof, Substanial proof. Proof that would stand up in court. Not a mosiac of theories and disgruntled ex employees coming forth and saying Yep he did it.
Because honestly thats what the world did to Saddam Hussein. The evidence against him was pathetic I will grant you that. So we fabricated all kinds of stuff against him including very real truths such as broken UN resolutions but still that does not altar the fact that the evidence against him was all circumstantial inuendo and speculation.
People came forth and said Saddam has WMDS. Well gee its okay for them to be used against Saddam so it must be okay to use them against Bush? But that does not prove Bush Lied. That only proves our Cia SUCKS.
The very methodology you use to Condemn Bush, is the Methodology that got us in war with Iraq. I have a hard time understanding how you can say I hate chocolate while you eat tootsie rolls all day long.
And YES TONTO thats exactly what Im saying.
Yes and all those people coming forward today denying there is Global warming are nitwits, apologists and morons who just dont know the truth.
The perspective that the antiwar does not grasp is that they will grasp at anything to make their case, while deny due processes and diligent fact finding before publishing anything. Joe quoted from an AP article in another post and the quality of the (AP)reporting was downright atrocious. That reporter only had one thing on his mind.
Getting Bush. At all costs and the truth be damned. I refuse to accept this country has stooped to “damn the truth full Impeachment ahead.”
In times of war the truth is the first thing to go and I do believe the antiwar has declared war on The president of the United States.
Tonto- the point is that just like the US Intel, and the Brit intel- NO nation had unanimous intel that said Saddam had WMDs, and only the hysterics in the US intel thought he was tied to 9/11.
When Bush and Cheney, and their lapdog Powell, say that they have incontrovertible proof of WMDs and ties to 9/11, knowing that there were many, many major players in intel that found those claims laughable- it is a LIE to portray the intel as unanimous, incontrovertible, etc.
This is really not a difficult idea to gtrasp, as long as one does not suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome, and view him as some sort of Messiah. He lied. That is incontrovertible. Only the extent and depth is arguable.
Nobody- look at all the people in Intel who have spoken out, and been removed. There is your proof. That you refuse to see it is evidence of BDS. And it is the people who still foolishly want to add bopdies to the lost fire of Iraq that are grasping desperately. As someone else at TMV posted, Bush is just running out the clock, so that a Dem Prez gets stuck with cleaning up his mes, and then R’s can say D’s cut and ran.
Bush needs no enemies- his own incompetence and lies have turned the US against him, after all the unwarranted goodwuill he got for his incompetence for letting 9/11 happen in the first place, for had he read his PDBs and put in place appropriate measures, there’s no way the planes wd have been hijacked.
Stop sucking from the Far Right’s helium bottle and let yr mind detox; then reality may come into focus.
Cosmo, aren’t we twisting Bush Derangement Syndrome. Theres part of the problem, round and round we go, muddle it up till nobody knows what the other is saying.
I will note that the definition as you use it has been added just TWO DAYS AGO. I will also concede that there will be some who will use this term, as you define it, quite often from here on out (especially here in the comment section of TMV). But as I said, round and round we go, and of course, that ensures that we never get anywhere.
I’ve never found labeling very persuasive, have you?
You got a link where Bush said the intel was unanimous, because my understanding of intel is that it is never 100% accurate.
Tonto:
Did you miss Powell’s presentation to the UN- the one he now disavows?
Humorously, you even undermine yr own point w yr link, for Andrew Sullivan, apparently, beat me to the punch. Haha.
As for labeling, ’twas you who typed, ‘Kinda funny how your mindset can put you on both sides of this consensus thing and be so damn sure that only you opinion is the right one,’ about those who disagree w yr position.
Irony is best when it’s unintended, and undermines its speaker.
Really Cosmos, if you think pointing out how you are on both sides of this consensus thing depending on the situation, is labeling? Well fine. Was it an accurate statement? You are free to show me where I am wrong.
Did I undermine my point? The term, BDS, has been used by the right for 3 to 4 years. The term as you use it, has been used for what? Two days. My point is that we now have both sides screaming the same thing at each other. Well thats real productive. I merely conceded that the term, BDS, in its new an improved form, will find its way into the the TMV comment section quite a bit in the future.
So Powells 20/20 hind sight is now proof that Bush “LIE(D) to portray the intel as unanimous, incontrovertible, etc.”? Are you telling me that Bush made Powell to go out there and lie for him? Why would Powell do that? I’m really looking forward to a link where Bush “LIE(D) to portray the intel as unanimous, incontrovertible, etc.”?
Yeah, you really got me pegged/sarcasm
First- the helium comment was directed toward Nobody. He’s pegged. zzzzz
Let’s see, Powell, as Bush’s surrogate, states that there is no doubt that Saddam was connected to 9/11 and WMDs, on the biggest stage in world politics, and that’s not proof they lied, given that we now know that many, many intel folk were 100% opposed to those claims- and were right.
Yes, that is called lying- to knowingly deceive. It’s called reading and logic.
As for BDS, as I said, Sullivam got there first- when I don’t know; but his/my version is far more cogent, and far more deadly. no sarcasm, unfortunately!