charles beauchamp

Um...hold on a second. You are the one who posted a link to a letter from
the President that does NOT say what you claimed it to say. It simply does
not. It says "including" it does not say "limited to" so your contention
remains unproven. In fact, I've been asking liberal idiots for months to
show this contention they continue to make that somehow the President
attacked Iraq because Saddam was behind 9/11.


I applaud you. Now sit down. I've been to war as well. There were no
veiled accusations or flimsy excuses. There were common sense points made.
Just because you disregard them does not make you right. Nor does your
former service mean you have automatic credibility on all issues simply if
you claim dissatisfaction with the policy.

No...you take quotes that simply do not say what you are wanting to
find...and in a glaring example clearly does NOT say what you are claiming
and derive a position that was never the argument before the war...did not
morph into it during the war...and in the aftermath of the war has no legs
as it was never the main point to begin with.

I have stated in plain English the fact that we did not invade Iraq due to
Saddam's backing of the 9/11 attacks. This is a fact as it was never the
argument our side made in the first place...however it was an argument that
your side kept trying to give legs to in the pre-war buildup.

v/r Beau