It's not what you know, but what you can prove!

[Quotox]

Kestra, I am going to give you a free piece of advice about making a convincing argument: Actually read what quotes says and read the sources from which you are quoting.

You have cited snippits of things and say "look this is what they say." The reality is that if you read your quotes they do not claim to say what you said.

I'll give use these quotes as an example:

“We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein ... had either direction or control of 9/11.” [Source: DOS Web site]

Fact:
President Bush sent a letter to Congress on 3/19/03 saying that the Iraq war was permitted specifically under legislation that authorized force against “nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.” - Globalsecurity.org

The first is a statement similar to ones that have been made by the president and administration officals. Because you did not give us a person at the state depart or a time it was said, just the website, I'll give you the benifit of the doubt that your quote is true and accurate.

The second is a citation of a letter in line with the authorizing resolution required by the War Powers act. (Here is the resolution text and here is the president's letter.

The resolution empowers the president not only to those organizations or states who are connected to 9/11 directly, but also recognizes the broader issues with the war on terrorism. The second half of the sentance you site reads: "or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons." Furthermore, the letter the president sent is not an explanitory document. He is sending the letter as legally required notice to legislators so they are made aware of the deployment. Finally, the resolution gives the president the perogative (as is his constitutional right under the constitution) to make these decisions as to regards to this use of force.

In regards to the letter you sight itself, it actually reads in section (2): acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. This paralells with what the resolutions says. Gee, go figure. You mean he didn't have to link 9/11 and Iraq to act according to the law. And whoa, this means the policy wasn't about going after 9/11 attackers but the general problem of terrorism. Whoa there goes that Bush Doctrine and that preemptive strike issue again.

Furthermore, the president has laid out contacts between terrorist organizations and Iraq. He need not make any more of than that to meet the needs of the authorizing legislation.

If you do not see the error of your technique, I'll use another quote of yours.

Condi Rice
Nobody ever said that it was going to be the next year [that Iraq acquires nuclear weapons]." [Source: PBS Web site]

Fact:
"[Iraq] could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year." - President George W. Bush, 10/7/02

I did you a favor and looked up these quotes completely.

For Dr. Rice's go
here .
For the President's go here . Oh, I compliment you on this choice as its the Cincinnati speach. This is my home town and was all to proud when he gave it.


I'll deal with the Cincinnati speach first because I am more familiar with it. The president actually said: "If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed" Interesting you left off the conditional parts that are needed to make the result true. Furthermore, if you go through this speach, it details a broader set of issues. The nuclear question is not even addreseed until the final parts of the speech after he has made several other key points in regards to terrorist contacts and other security issues associated with Iraq. So if you take Dr. Rice's statement as completely true, you will see in fact that she said is true.

But, now lets actually lets look at what she said. Your quote is from an interview on The News Hour interview. She said: "Nobody ever said that it was going to be the next year, but the question was that if it was possible that he might have one by the end of the decade, and if it was possible, as the national intelligence estimate said, that if he acquired fissile material, it might be far sooner than that. Was that a threat that you could allow to sit unanswered?" Wow, actually when expanded to the entire quote, these two statements actually aren't fudging at all. THey are consistent. Holy Crapoly.

You need to think and read. You are sloppy and insulting and just spewing falsehoods--not to mention that you make logical errors I don't have the energy or inclination to correct.

So do us a favor, come armed to the fight please with stuff you have read not whatever web site you got your quick wit from.