President Bush is a Weenie!

[1X83Z]

Yes, yes - I've resorted to childish name-calling.

US news media focus has been shifted from bombings in Israel to bomibings in Iraq. I'm sick and tired of hearing of soldiers being killed by Iraqis after the war ended. On my favourite political analysis show, The McLaughlin Group, panelist and Newsweek writer Eleanor Clift predicted that more US troops would die after the war was over than during the war. I thought she was crazy for making such a prediction originally, but unfortunately, this looks like it will probably come true.

With all these deaths and very few official remarks from the president himself, it's clear to me that President Bush never did truly have a strategy for what to do after the Iraq war - if he did, it certainly wouldn't have been the poorly-thought idea of firing each member of Iraq's military. What the hell was that about?

ALPHA remarked earlier in another forum that the war was clearly for oil - I brushed it off as generally ignorant, but I'm re-considering. We still haven't found what we came originally looking for, and the first (and, evidently, only) positive things we did post-invasion were install a government and put out oil fires.

The Bush administration's war, originally milked to the bone for popularity, appears to be backfiring, and so has my support and confidence in, him, and his staff.

Comments?

 

[Giancarlo]

Just hold your breath until 2004.

 

[1X83Z]

I'm afraid it won't happen in 2004, and even if it does, at what cost? We'll get some semi-Socialist pushing nothing but equal healthcare, which is okay actually as long as the Republicans still control Congress.

 

[vat_man]

I think I read on CNN that the Iraq war toll has now passed the toll from the '91 Gulf War - and the talk from the troops on the ground I heard on the radio news last night wasn't particularly encouraging. Troops were talking about dates to be shipped home being pushed back a number of times, and for many they'd been advised they were staying indefinitely.

I completely agree with your sentiments, Doug. I was very cynical about Bush administration's motives on this war, but I didn't think naivety was going to be an element in managing a post-war Iraq scenario.

It will be interesting to see what Europe does - I suspect the European nations, particularly France and Germany, will be more than happy to let the US stew in its own juices for a while.

It will be interesting to see the US public reaction to post-war Iraq. As I expected the lack of WMD's has gone off the boil (fobbed off on to the CIA - where does the buck stop again?), but the Democrats have got two very powerful weapons to run with in the coming 12-15 months - the financial burden of the war and clean up, and media images of dead GI's.

Promises to be a very interesting run up to the '04 elections - and meanwhile, North Korea runs increasingly off the rails - what do those guys have to do to get attention? Nuke Tokyo?

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by vat_man

It will be interesting to see the US public reaction to post-war Iraq. As I expected the lack of WMD's has gone off the boil (fobbed off on to the CIA - where does the buck stop again?), but the Democrats have got two very powerful weapons to run with in the coming 12-15 months - the financial burden of the war and clean up, and media images of dead GI's.

That's another problem. Poor George Tenet - does any informed person actually believe he is to blame for this idiotic Bush administration screw-up? I don't even understand the screw-up fully: it's British intelligence (carefully cited so when this happens we could get away with it) that the Brits still stand by. So dump it on the Brits for God's sake! And if not the Brits, why can't President Bush take responsibility himself? Which leads back to your comment.

The distrust in this country to the White House is astounding, especially because President Bush refuses to make statements regarding the war - if he'd simply set some sort of 'out of Iraq' date, or acknowledge the responsibility he carries for postwar Iraq's redevelopment, it would be completely different - but he refuses to do that, so we're all leery of him and anything he does regarding the war - it's scrutinized to bits by the press.

Promises to be a very interesting run up to the '04 elections - and meanwhile, North Korea runs increasingly off the rails - what do those guys have to do to get attention? Nuke Tokyo?

Maybe Russia can give them some attention. What does this country need, a 'do not disturb' sign? We're busy!

 

[vat_man]

Originally posted by M5Power


That's another problem. Poor George Tenet - does any informed person actually believe he is to blame for this idiotic Bush administration screw-up? I don't even understand the screw-up fully: it's British intelligence (carefully cited so when this happens we could get away with it) that the Brits still stand by. So dump it on the Brits for God's sake! And if not the Brits, why can't President Bush take responsibility himself? Which leads back to your comment.

Maybe Russia can give them some attention. What does this country need, a 'do not disturb' sign? We're busy! [/B]

Similar issue here - the Prime Minister's tried a similar tack of 'the intelligence agencies didn't tell me' and the intelligence agencies confirmed this - but the vast majority of the population don't believe a word of it. Thing is, the opposition party is so hopeless, and the populace so grateful for their newfound wealth (which is all locked up in our houses anyway - ) that it won't matter anyway.

Problem with the North Koreans is they've come out and said they'll only talk with you lot. Apparently threatening to blockade their ships is upsetting them. I wish the Chinese would get off their arse and just invade them - although they apparently considered it and don't think they can get their army mobilise quickly enough to get the job done quickly - which would suggest they think the North Koreans have nukes.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by vat_man
Similar issue here - the Prime Minister's tried a similar tack of 'the intelligence agencies didn't tell me' and the intelligence agencies confirmed this - but the vast majority of the population don't believe a word of it. Thing is, the opposition party is so hopeless, and the populace so grateful for their newfound wealth (which is all locked up in our houses anyway - ) that it won't matter anyway.

I hope Australia and Poland (both who committed troops, but didn't get all the intelligence) really get on President Bush's back if he happens to discover weapons of mass destruction right before the US elections. This would show no concern for the fallout occurring in these countries, and further would prove the war, or some of it, was for political gain. I hope for the president's sake he announces a discovery of weapons long before election day.

Problem with the North Koreans is they've come out and said they'll only talk with you lot. Apparently threatening to blockade their ships is upsetting them. I wish the Chinese would get off their arse and just invade them - although they apparently considered it and don't think they can get their army mobilise quickly enough to get the job done quickly - which would suggest they think the North Koreans have nukes.

And that they're ready and willing to use them! Is the only way to shut Korea up to strike first? If so, now you know why President Bush is staying out - there's no way he's going into another country first without literally seeing what he claims they are in posession of.

 

[vat_man]

Originally posted by M5Power


I hope Australia and Poland (both who committed troops, but didn't get all the intelligence) really get on President Bush's back if he happens to discover weapons of mass destruction right before the US elections. This would show no concern for the fallout occurring in these countries, and further would prove the war, or some of it, was for political gain. I hope for the president's sake he announces a discovery of weapons long before election day.

Yeah, right - our foreign policy's so pro-US at the moment that if you guys bombed Germany and France we'd probably back you.

And that they're ready and willing to use them! Is the only way to shut Korea up to strike first? If so, now you know why President Bush is staying out - there's no way he's going into another country first without literally seeing what he claims they are in posession of. [/B]

Once bitten, twice shy, I guess. Is it because China are seen to be backing North Korea that's making the US shy on this one? Leaving the cynical 'Iraq-oil/North Korea-no oil' thing out of the equation for a moment, you've got a country fairly openly pedalling arms and drugs internationally, and has threatened the US and several of its close allies (including us). Why hasn't there been firmer action?

With a Chinese delegation heading over to the US soon, it will be interesting to see if there's any shift in US policy on this one. If the Chinese tell the US that they'd be prepared to play along on some plan of action there, it could be very interesting.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by vat_man
Yeah, right - our foreign policy's so pro-US at the moment that if you guys bombed Germany and France we'd probably back you.

Give it time!

Plus, wouldn't it be better to be with us than against us? You don't want us to make impulsive, angry, global anti-Australian decisions like re-naming Australian Toast so it becomes Freedom Toast, do you?!

Once bitten, twice shy, I guess. Is it because China are seen to be backing North Korea that's making the US shy on this one? Leaving the cynical 'Iraq-oil/North Korea-no oil' thing out of the equation for a moment, you've got a country fairly openly pedalling arms and drugs internationally, and has threatened the US and several of its close allies (including us). Why hasn't there been firmer action?

Because we already fought this decade's war. President Bush doesn't want to have to repeat the same agonizing steps again - first getting support from the US, then from the world, then from UN, then attacking. Plus, he can't fight another war until he finishes this one. Plus North Korea's no Iraq - a war against North Korea would be a lot harder to fight. He would need much more support than he got during Iraq.

If the Chinese tell the US that they'd be prepared to play along on some plan of action there, it could be very interesting.

Maybe the US could do it with the help of China, but I wonder if Britain would back us again as they did in Iraq. President Bush needs to wait for his second term before making any major decisions here.

 

[vat_man]

Originally posted by M5Power


Give it time!

Plus, wouldn't it be better to be with us than against us? You don't want us to make impulsive, angry, global anti-Australian decisions like re-naming Australian Toast so it becomes Freedom Toast, do you?![/b]

Well, good point - you should stick to the usual anti-Australian decisions, like steel and lamb tariffs, not to mention the FDA rules.

Because we already fought this decade's war. President Bush doesn't want to have to repeat the same agonizing steps again - first getting support from the US, then from the world, then from UN, then attacking. Plus, he can't fight another war until he finishes this one. Plus North Korea's no Iraq - a war against North Korea would be a lot harder to fight. He would need much more support than he got during Iraq.

Maybe the US could do it with the help of China, but I wonder if Britain would back us again as they did in Iraq. President Bush needs to wait for his second term before making any major decisions here. [/B]

But Bush said it was over - he wouldn't lie to us, would he? Haven't you had two wars this decade already?

You're right, though - North Korea would be a BIG one. Big, fairly well equipped army, and a desperate regime with no way out - and high collateral damage allies very close to the game too.

You wouldn't be able to play that one on your own - that would need UN support. Given the rhetoric going on over there and the fairly spectacular way the North Koreans kicked the nuclear inspectors out, if they play up any further there shouldn't be any problems, providing China's on-side.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by vat_man

But Bush said it was over - he wouldn't lie to us, would he? Haven't you had two wars this decade already?

President Bush tried to lump Iraq and Afghanistan under one big 'terrorism/evildoers' umbrella, though he clearly lost sight along the way.

You're right, though - North Korea would be a BIG one. Big, fairly well equipped army, and a desperate regime with no way out - and high collateral damage allies very close to the game too.

You wouldn't be able to play that one on your own - that would need UN support. Given the rhetoric going on over there and the fairly spectacular way the North Koreans kicked the nuclear inspectors out, if they play up any further there shouldn't be any problems, providing China's on-side. [/B]

Yeah - China would definitely have to take the first few steps, though; as you say 'once bitten, twice shy.' That speaks volumes about President Bush's attitude for things of this nature by now, I'd presume.

 

[GilesGuthrie]

I would say that there are two issues keeping the US out of N.K:
1. The US continually chases Chinese approval so that it can sell stuff to the Chinese. Therefore, with the Chinese not doing anything, it would be foolhardy for the US to go steaming in - that would just bring back all the trade barriers.

2. The US got their holes kicked in North Korea once before, I seem to recall.

I really don't think that the Bush administration cares about what the US or world population think. This won't change until the run-up to the election, when suddenly the US people will be the focus of the Bush administration. God I hate politicians.

In the UK, the Blair government is being lambasted for the whole WMD thing. Basically the press and the Opposition parties are calling Blair a liar. Or at the very least, someone who is distorting the truth even more so than he does normally.

Yesterday, figures were released that say that the Blair cabinet employs 67 people whose sole job it is to 'spin' news stories. These people were collectively paid just under £6m last year. Nice work if you've the morals of an alley cat.

 

[rjensen11]

What if we just backed out now and had the rest of the United Nations deal with it?

 

[Danoff]

does any informed person actually believe he is to blame for this idiotic Bush administration screw-up

What screw-up? As far as I can tell the war with Iraq has been going fantastically. Best run war in history perhaps. Our cause was just, our means were humanitarian, we're helping clean up. The US has been fantastic in Iraq. The world should be amazed.

So what screw-up are you talking about?

The Bush administration has been doing a fantastic job with Iraq when it hasn't decided to pander to whining nay-saying idiots.

 

[westside]

Wow, where to start.

There is a fundamental difference between North Korea and Iraq that justifies war against one and not the other. When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1991, we went to war with them, quickly won, and then called a cease fire and set our terms. Those terms included restrictions on the weapons Iraq was allowed to posses, who they could trade with, what they could trade, and what kinds of humanitarian aid we were going to give them.

Iraq did not live up to those terms. They used oil money to fund forbidden weapons programs of which we do have proof (chemical and biological labs, centrifuge tubes, missiles with ranges much longer than they were allowed to have, murdered scientists, etc).

So what does the US do when a conquered nation doesn’t live up to the terms we set? President Clinton’s answer was nothing. For eight years under his presidency, Saddam funded weapons programs, evaded inspectors, and generally laughed at our war terms that were turning out to be a bluff. Our credibility sank. If we win a war, set terms, and never enforce them, why go to war? Any other renegade nation will readily agree to any terms we set, so they can resume their illegal activities when we leave.

We had to go back into Iraq to enforce the terms we set at the end of the last war. For years we tried to do this with UN resolutions, and for years Saddam broke every single one of them. We gave him ample warning that if he did not comply, we would come make him comply.

North Korea, on the other hand, is not subject to our terms because we didn’t just beat the crap out of them in 1991. They haven’t broken 17 UN resolutions. So we’ll talk with them first. Sending troops to NK is a long way down the line.

 

[westside]

As for the other stuff, I’ll try to address each point briefly:

People say they’re surprised we’ve reached the same number of US casualties as the 1991 war. In 1991 we only went in to kick Saddam out of Kuwait. This year we are occupying their country! I am astonished our casualties are not already ten times the 1991 numbers.

Bush’s statement about British intelligence and Iraq’s nuclear program was a true statement. Not technically true, not somehow true, not true in a certain light or spun a certain way. Just true. The British showed evidence that Saddam sought uranium from Africa. Bush said that in his speech. Then after the fact, the CIA decided the intelligence wasn’t solid. The British still stand by it. The statement in the speech is still true, and it didn’t affect the justification for the war in any way whatsoever.

Bush never said the war was over. The war is not over. He said the “battle of Iraq” was over—there are many battles in a war. He said “major combat operations” were over, which is true. Peacekeeping is not over. Rebuilding is not over. And he should not set a deadline to leave Iraq because we should stay there until we’re sure the country is safe from Saddam.

One more point: people also love to claim that we had no international support for this war. Almost 40 nations have sent money, troops, or some other form of support. That’s not international? And then Bush gets criticized for wanting to include China in talks with North Korea? Give me a break!

 

[Danoff]

westside,

It's pointless to even try. They don't want to hear facts, they want to bash the president because it's fun. They're not going to listen to a string of facts that prove them incorrect, they're going to claim that it's all a big effort on bush's part to mislead everyone so that he can have fun killing iraqis, which, as we all know, is president bush's favorite pasttime. He's just trying to murder iraqis and he tricked the nation into helping him.

Don't even try with facts.

 

[westside]

Danoff, you're probably right. Bush-haters will spin the facts any way they want so they can continue their unjustified crusade against him. If we put out oil fires in Iraq, it's because we want to steal their oil--never mind that we are not, in fact, taking any oil from them but instead spending our own money to help them build the infrastructure they need to pump and sell the oil Bush has emphasized over and over again belongs only to them.

If we send troops to Iraq with 40 countries backing us, Bush has clearly started a unilateral war with no international support...wait, liberals can't possibly spin this fact, so they must just be ignoring it.

 

[milefile]

More troops have been killed in the current Iraq war, since the end of "major operations", than were killed in the entire 1991 Gulf War. Some millitary officials even think this may have been Iraqs plan all along, to back down, change clothes, and blend in, only to wage an agonizing, expensive, and protracted geurilla war after the fact. It could be very effective. This has been demonstrated in Viet Nam. It is very possible that the worst is yet to come.

Bush fears N. Korea. Of course we could kick their asses. But we'd see allies anihilated in the process. And I think China is getting a little sick of them.

I believe Bush lied to America regarding the Iraq war. I think he knew much of his intelligence was dubious at worst, and old news at best. He needed a clincher to justify it. The imaginary nukes did the trick. And the way he has passed the buck off on the CIA makes me sick. It's like pointing and saying "he did it." I don't think Bush is trustworthy.

Some people say that because the war got rid of an evil dictator and bla bla bla that it's all good and we should all cheer for Bush. That's weak. He lied. This is a classic example of ends justifying the means, which is a moral tactic employed by sneaky people (I'll say what I have to say to get this done, and when it's all over nobody will care that I lied because they'll be so happy... and besides, I can always blame it on someone else). He and his administration are trying to convince us that anything they said before the so-called "end of major operations" no longer matters because Saddam is gone, I mean, underground. The ends do not justify the means. It is good that Saddam is no longer ruling Iraq. But it is bad that American and British troops die almost every day because of it. It is bad that innocent civilians, women and children, were killed for it. When I consider what has been gained in light of what has been lost, it's hard to say the world, in general, is a better place now, despite what Ashcroft has been paraphrasing for months.

I could never vote socialist, I mean, democrat. And I want to vote for somebody who might win. But I might stop caring about that so much after this.

 

[westside]

When did Bush lie? Give me one solid example, one quote that proves he lied.

I agree that ends do not justify means. The war is not justified because in the end we removed a dictator. The war is justified because of the past 12 years of weapons buildup and deception by Iraq which violated the terms we set in 1991.

If you're going to claim that Bush lied and made up evidence to go to war, you're going to have to explain what possible motivation he would have for doing so. Well, first you're going to have to ignore the facts about the 1991 war, which provides more than enough justification for this war. Then you're going to have to claim there's a "vast rightwing conspiracy" which wanted to send troops in to Iraq just for fun, since Bush didn't do it alone. Actually, you're going to have to prove a vast worldwide conspiracy, including 39 nations. I think this is more a case of imaginary intelligence gaps and imaginary lies than imaginary nukes.

 

[Danoff]

More troops have been killed in the current Iraq war, since the end of "major operations", than were killed in the entire 1991 Gulf War

I'm going to need to see some evidence. As I understand it, just now we have reached the death toll of the first iraq war. For the whole Iraq INVASION and OCCUPATION, the death toll is just now the same as the death toll for the REMOVAL of Iraqi troops from a different country. Those are astoundingly good numbers. Especially when you consider that the death toll in the first Iraq war was REDICULOUSLY low.

We lost what like 150k troops in vietnam. We've lost like 150 troops in Iraq right now. Ok, so maybe it's 250 by now. BIG DEAL!! It's WAR!!! One of those 250 casualties was a guy who was playing football on an aircraft carrier who end up trying to receive a pass that was headed for the ocean. They never found him.

My point is that if you get 150 thousand people together anywhere and watch them for a little while, you'd expect more than 200 dead. If you watched 150 thousand randomly selected people in the American population you'd expect 200 dead at the end of 10 weeks.

Which reminds me, we've only been in Iraq for 10 weeks!!!! Have some patience. That's not really enough time to find anything in a country of that size.


DO YOU PEOPLE REALLLY THINK SADDAM DIDN'T HAVE WMD!!!!????

NOBODY, ever even came close to claiming that he had nuclear (or as bush likes to say, nuculer) weapons. It was claimed that he was attempting to get them. Is that so hard to believe? Tell me Saddam didn't want nuclear weapons.

The public opinion and support on this war has been pathetic.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by westside
When did Bush lie? Give me one solid example, one quote that proves he lied.

I agree that ends do not justify means. The war is not justified because in the end we removed a dictator. The war is justified because of the past 12 years of weapons buildup and deception by Iraq which violated the terms we set in 1991.

If you're going to claim that Bush lied and made up evidence to go to war, you're going to have to explain what possible motivation he would have for doing so. Well, first you're going to have to ignore the facts about the 1991 war, which provides more than enough justification for this war. Then you're going to have to claim there's a "vast rightwing conspiracy" which wanted to send troops in to Iraq just for fun, since Bush didn't do it alone. Actually, you're going to have to prove a vast worldwide conspiracy, including 39 nations. I think this is more a case of imaginary intelligence gaps and imaginary lies than imaginary nukes.

I say Bush lied because he admits the uranium intelligence was fase, and I believe he knew all along it was fase. But he also knew it would sufficiently whip up America into artificially supporting the war. The document used to support this claim, from every description I've heard, is a very bad forgery. So, if Bush was so much as slightly doubtful about the document, the fact that he went on TV and announced it to the world makes him a liar. What is Tennet supposed to do? Say the president is passing the blame? Of course he won't do this to his boss. Like you and me, he wants to keep his job. I do not claim he "made up" anything. I believe he decided that he was going to war, and then used intelligence to justify it, even if it was false and he knew it. Bush knew all along that if any of the intelligence turned out to be bad the blame wouldn't fall on him; it was relatively politically safe.

The rest of your post is just weird and irrelevant and you're about to start calling me a "liberal". Maybe I should go to the bathroom now so I won't piss myself laughing. You seem pretty confident that anyone who doesn't like or trust Bush must be a liberal. You really ought to thank the right wing media (there really is such a thing, and it's not the same as a conspiracy) for making that word such an insult. I think Jordan should add it to the swear filter. Try using a descriptive term next time.

 

[Danoff]

I say Bush lied because he admits the uranium intelligence was fase

Prove it.

You can't because it isn't necessarily true. Your statement above has not been shown. The CIA admitted that they weren't sure about the Brittish intelligence. THAT WAS WHY BUSH SAID THE INTELLIGENCE WAS BRITTISH!!! He didn't want to put our name on it. He thought he would include it though because he trusted that they did their homework. And I believe they did. Our intelligence just didn't have the same information so they couldn't make the claim.

I don't see a lie here.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by danoff
Prove it.

You can't because it isn't necessarily true. Your statement above has not been shown. The CIA admitted that they weren't sure about the Brittish intelligence. THAT WAS WHY BUSH SAID THE INTELLIGENCE WAS BRITTISH!!! He didn't want to put our name on it. He thought he would include it though because he trusted that they did their homework. And I believe they did. Our intelligence just didn't have the same information so they couldn't make the claim.

I don't see a lie here.

The only proof I have is hearing on the news for the past three days that the intelligence was false. I can prove it was false about as well as you can prove it was true.

The second Bush said it in his state of the union address, he took responsibility for it. He is not a puppet of the CIA. The final decision is his, not Blair's and not the CIA's.

 

[westside]

Thank you, danoff. The British intelligence quote is not a lie. Bush stated that British intelligence had learned Saddam was seeking uranium from Africa. That is indeed what the British did, and still do, stand by. After Bush gave his speech, the CIA said they doubted the evidence, but the evidence has not been proven false. Even if it were proven false, that would not make Bush's statement a lie. Nice try.

Moreover, this one line is not the entire justification for the war. One justification is the terms we set in 1991, which I described and which no one has argued with. Another justification is Saddam's buildup of nuclear AND chemical AND biological weapons. Not just nuclear. Not just uranium from Africa. The claim about uranium from Africa, while justified, is not the reason we went to war.

I don't think it's "weird and irrelevant" to ask what Bush's motivation would be to make up reasons to start a war. Otherwise your claim just doesn't make sense. Think about it. Why would Bush, his administration, the CIA, the FBI, and 39 other nations decide, with no clear motivation, to invade Iraq?

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by westside
Why would Bush, his administration, the CIA, the FBI, and 39 other nations decide, with no clear motivation, to invade Iraq?

Oil.

 

[milefile]

Your repeated invocation of "39 other nations" is a joke. Who gives a rats ass? The nations that actually matter in the world, the ones that we'd miss if they disappeared, did not support it. Little, fearful, greedy countries who want something from America supported it.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by westside
Thank you, danoff. The British intelligence quote is not a lie. Bush stated that British intelligence had learned Saddam was seeking uranium from Africa. That is indeed what the British did, and still do, stand by. After Bush gave his speech, the CIA said they doubted the evidence, but the evidence has not been proven false. Even if it were proven false, that would not make Bush's statement a lie. Nice try.

Thank you. So you believe British intelligence and not the CIA?

 

[westside]

Do you honestly believe we invaded Iraq to steal oil? Why are we building hospitals over there? Why are we shipping in water, medicine, and food? Why are we training their police forces? Why are we helping them open universities? If we wanted their oil we could occupy the western half of the country, pump it out to our ships, and never even bother with Baghdad and the rest of the country and Iraqis.

Why would America have any motivation to steal oil? We're the richest country in the world. We have our own untapped oil reserves in Alaska.

Our actions are not consistent with going in to steal oil. And you still haven't given clear motivation why we would want to do that. Or evidence that we wanted to do that. Or evidence that we are doing that. You don't even have any imaginary evidence. You just have the word "oil."

 

[westside]

Thank you. So you believe British intelligence and not the CIA?

That's not what I said. This is what I said:

The British intelligence quote is not a lie. Bush stated that British intelligence had learned Saddam was seeking uranium from Africa. That is indeed what the British did, and still do, stand by. After Bush gave his speech, the CIA said they doubted the evidence, but the evidence has not been proven false. Even if it were proven false, that would not make Bush's statement a lie. Nice try.

What that means is that Bush said the British had intelligence. They did. They do. It's not a lie. So it's not a case of CIA versus British intelligence. And it's not a case of a lie.

nations that actually matter in the world, the ones that we'd miss if they disappeared, did not support it

What nations would those be? France? Germany? You think they matter? You think their support would mean anything at all? Would you change your mind about the war if we had France on our side? I read somewhere that "going to war without France is like going hunting without your accordian." Amen.