Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Graybeard58
  1. The war was not that long ago. If Rangel cannot remember - it may be the onset of dementia. Maybe not even the onset....
  2. The "buildup" to the war was a protracted period during which Saddam Hussein was repeatedly told what he could do to avoid it. If Rangel wants to call it a "rush to war" or a hasty judgment - he can - but it flies in the face of what actually occurred.
  3. The decision to go to war was based on a number of factors, including the presence of WMD or WMD capabilities.
  4. Intelligence is never perfect.
  5. There was uncertainty as to the state of WMD capabilities in Iraq in March 2003.
  6. Leadership involves decision making in the face of uncertainty or imperfect intelligence.
  7. The President knew that whatever the true state of nature (i.e., that Iraq had WMD or that Iraq did not have WMD) in March 2003, it would be only a matter of months before the end of the war- and that would afford an investigation, and on the ground audit of the true state of Iraq's WMD capabilities. The President also knew that this audit or investigation would be completed well before the 2004 election campaign was over, and that a finding that there were no weapons or capabilities would be politically damaging.
  8. He erred on the conservative side by electing to go to war, given the uncertainty, in order to protect the United States. If the President had decided not to take action and the intelligence had been understated (i.e. the true state of nature was that Iraq was closer to nuclear and biological capability than we had surmised) then the nation and the Middle East would be at risk.
  9. The nation voted in November 2004 with full knowledge of 1-8 (above).
  10. Charlie Rangle is a dickhead.

17 posted on 06/17/2005 11:12:10 AM PDT by Wally_Kalbacken (Seldom right, but never in doubt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Wally_Kalbacken
The nation voted in November 2004 with full knowledge

You have to admit though that John Kerry was an abysmal alternative. It's sort of like offering someone a shit sandwich for lunch, or death by execution. Just because the majority choose the sandwich, doesn't mean it's tasty. JK was unfit for command; don't you think that devalues the choice we all made last November?

21 posted on 06/17/2005 11:15:00 AM PDT by Huck (Don't follow leaders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson