Bush Deputy CIA Director admits we were lied to in the run up to the Iraq War

[inachu]

Pretty much. The denial held there plus the consistent record of being absolutely wrong on pretty much everything else is why I pretty much believe nothing they say at face value. Remember too that there were cases of people standing firm against the push to war, that drive to alter 'that which was inconvenient' in order to free Iraqi lands to foreign access and investment...which then prompted the creation of the Office of Special Projects as a new mouthpiece to Congress - a Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and Cheney run spin unit with executive backing.

PNAC nuts and Dick Cheney used Bush like the simplest of tools. The sooner republicans can accept that and learn from it, the better off everyone is. Acting like The Cheney Years were Salad Days and that history only counts when the guy we don't like is in office is a piss poor way to run a party/agenda is a great place to start IMO. Btw kudos to those of them that have got it; changing your views in lieu of new, verifiable data is a good thing (also, connecting dots!):thumbsup: Means you're not a drone. Admitting Iraq was a corrupt and major fuckup doesn't mean you are less of an American, I promise.

PNAC.......

All the founding members of PNAC should be forced to have "PNAC" tattooed
on their forehead this way we no longer have to listen to anyone who has
stated that killing 1,000,000 muslim children was worth it.

 

[xBiffx]

It's fun to still watch some pretend that authorizing the use of force with conditions = voted to go to war. It's the gift that has kept on giving for over a decade now.

Quoted for sheer idiocy. What do you think a declaration of war is if not an authorization of the use of force with conditions?

 

[HomerJS]

Quoted for sheer idiocy. What do you think a declaration of war is if not an authorization of the use of force with conditions?

The US hasn't had a "declaration of war" since WW2

 

[xBiffx]

The US hasn't had a "declaration of war" since WW2

Ok. That doesn't change what they were voting for. Just because there was no "formal declaration" doesn't mean they weren't authorizing the use of force with conditions. Which is exactly the same thing as a formal declaration. This just ends up being another argument in semantics.

The previous poster's statement was completely retarded.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

The US hasn't had a "declaration of war" since WW2

None the less the Congressional AUMF has limitations but you knew that...........hmmm then again, maybe not.

 

[HomerJS]

Ok. That doesn't change what they were voting for. Just because there was no "formal declaration" doesn't mean they weren't authorizing the use of force with conditions. Which is exactly the same thing as a formal declaration. This just ends up being another argument in semantics.

The previous poster's statement was completely retarded.

I would have thought a basic condition, justifications for starting said war be true. But maybe I'm asking too much.