2006-03-09
Rumsefeld: What civil war in Iraq?
Oh yeah, and we don't torture, either. And this whole thing was about democracy. And Iraq posed an imminent danger to U.s. security before the war. And...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Tom:
- I agree with you on the torture issue, though it galls me that you and Nadir apparently have no consternation for the other turtoring nations out there, like Cuba and Zimbabwe.
- I even agree with you that Iraq posed no imminent danger to the US, and that the Bushies pumped up that possibility to help get neccessary UN and congressional votes. But I'm certain that the Bushies believed that the invasion's search for banned weapons would support, rather than undermine, their claim.
- But on the issue of democracy, even Nadir's BOLD FACE EXPOSES(!) of necon documents show that the Bushies want to use their military influence to effect democracies.
Rumsfeld is such a snake. He won't even pretend to give a fake answer. "We won't get involved unless Iraqi security forces can't handle a civil war on their own."
But I thought we were only staying in Iraq until their security could handle the insurgency. If they can't deal with some rabble rousers, how will they handle a civil war?
It just goes from bad to worse, don't it?
Post a Comment