From: "Judy F." 



Mark Hessey wrote:

> No, you're still projecting the opinion you want to believe onto Bush as a
> fact - yes it may turn out to be true that there were no WMD left (we know
> he had them in the past as he used them) but that future fact does not
> equate with a "lie" on Bush's part.

I regret to inform you that I'm not projecting my opinion.  There have been
no WMD found.  The UN concurs.  Bush had plans to invade Iraq from
"day one" of his adminstration--WMD or no WMD.  Please don't
parse here. If we haven't found them after about 2 years of searching, they
ain't there.

> I, of course, will say that my way isn't odd - that doesn't mean you cannot
> find it so :-) However, as we see above your interpretation is adding facts
> that are not there.

But the facts are there. NO WMD!

> That's exactly what they'll be getting, in due time. Those appointed to the
> governing council are not permanent leaders, merely interim appointees to
> help facilitate the future. Surely you would not have Paul Bremer holding
> town council meetings throughout Iraq for the next year, then open
> elections? Is not a governing council with representatives from all the
> major groups a much more efficient means of determining the best path?

I don't know which is the best path...but I do know when a leading Iraqi
politician calls for open elections that is his right and makes sense. It
is his country not ours.

> I guess we're back at Geo.'s point on time - you thought the end of major
> combat was the end of the war and expected things, apparently, to look like
> the US Senate chamber in 3 months

No, I didn't except things to look like the US senate in 3 mos.  In fact,
their government will probably never look like the US senate, nor should
it.  THey should be able to choose their own kind of government.

Judy
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5