shakran

I think you're reading me somewhat wrong here. I had a very tough time deciding whether to vote for Gore or Bush in the last election. Gore was a proven liar (the finance story) but Bush was a proven dullard (look what he did to Texas).

After 9/11 I supported Bush when he went into Afghanistan.

It was only when Bush started trying to tie Iraq to 9/11 that I became suspicious. I got about 4 hours of sleep the week of 9/11. The rest of the time was spent covering stories on it. I covered just about every aspect of it you could think of, and I knew that NONE of the terrorists were Iraqi. Why was he implying that Iraq was somehow responsible?

Then when I saw the "evidence" of WMD's that he was presenting, I really got concerned. Didn't seem like very good evidence to me. Powell touted a semi trailer in the middle of the desert as the best evidence they had that Iraq had chemical weapons sites. A semi trailer? Who says it doesn't have electronics or lumber or bricks in it? There just wasn't enough evidence to justify the invasion, yet Bush invaded anyway.

THEN, after months and months went by with no evidence that WMD's were anywhere near Iraq, and Bush started downplaying the WMD idea and playing up the idea that Saddam was a bad man and needed to be removed, I got really confused. Wait a minute! All this time he's told us we invaded because of WMD's! Now all of a sudden we invaded for a "humanitarian" cause? Why weren't we notified?


There's only two conclusions we can make from this: Either he's an idiot who doesn't remember from day to day what his thinking was the day before, or he's been misleading us as to his true motives and is now trying to make us forget about it.

Either way, that makes him unfit to lead our country.

That's why I said it didn't really matter which conclusion was the correct one - because whether it's choice A or choice B, the result is the same - we have a leader who is either incapable or too unethical to be trusted at the helm.