Quote:
Originally posted by Lurch@Oct 29 2004, 12:31 PM
2. Bush desire to go in with low manpower did influence this. Symtom of the larger problem which I would hang on Bush.
3. Timing: as you note, story is still not straight. As such, there are two choices. Release after the election when it don't much matter, or release pre-election and let people make up their own mind.
4. Can't believe you would go here on the issue of speaking before 'all the evidence is in'. The balance of the evidence is enough to go to war, but not to criticize during a campaign?? Furthermore, the majority of the Dems I have seen discussing the issue acknowledged that it was not a slam dunk in this instance, but it was symtomatic of the larger 'rush to war' issue. In reply, GOP speakers come up with "Even the Democrats acknowledge this story is BS". Politics aren't made for open discussion and admissions that you aren't 100% sure, which is ironically a common criticism of Kerry.
|
2. How many troops are needed to guarantee 100% weapon recovery in a country literally filled with them? I read somewhere that this deposite amounts to 0.5% of the recovered weaponry in Iraq. I hope you get cut a little more slack on your job.
3. Timing is a huge issue ... they could have released this story a year ago if they just wanted to "let people make up their own mind". By doing it now they clearly want to make said people's minds up for them. Hence my issue with the timing.
4. I didn't know if Hussein had weapons of mass destruction last March, but I did know that there was enough circumstantial proof to make waiting for concrete proof a dangerous proposition.