On 8 Mar, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 09:35:57AM +0100, steef wrote:
>> >
>> yeah. first bomb them down on false premises and lies and then tell
>> them: o jeez: you cannot do it without us: you have no functioning
>> economy.
>>
> Ummm, the premises were not false. The Brits had the same
> intelligence and came to the same conclusion. The Democrats saw the
> same reports as the Republicans and they *nearly all* agreed with
> Bush. The false premsises thing is liberal revisionist history.
>
The Brits were worried until we told them that "the intelligence
will be fixed around the policy", remember. And the reports which
congress saw (both parties), were the "fixed" ones.
Congress certainly could have questioned the intelligence; there
was some conflicting evidence available publicly that they should have
been aware of. Some members of congress did state that they had
reservations, but were voting for the resolution because Saddam Hussein
would only respond to a threat that had teeth. Whether they actually
thought that Bush would seek further authorization before invading is
probably impossible to determine at this point.
Lastly, it's hardly "liberal revisionist history", since some of
the people who spoke out about the distorting of intelligence that was
going on at the time were conservatives.
-Chris
------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Christopher Judd, Ph. D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
