fayfreethinkers.com

There was no failure of intelligence about 9/11 - there was willful disregard of intelligence about 9/11. Clinton's people, as well as the U.N., had been "following the money" as part of both the Iraq "problem" and as part of their (sane) response to/attempts to curtail the terrorist threat. Following the money (procedures that, of course, also follow what was purchased with the money) was a highly successful technique W & co shut down as soon as he got into the White House - too many of his family and buddies were involved in that money trail.

Cafferty gives a nice summary of the situation:

LINK

Cafferty failed to note the semantic argument: whether the old shells, still admittedly dangerous at least locally (some having been used as IEDs), are WMDs or not.

Hogeye wrote: You are answering a different question than the warmongers, thereby ducking their claim. And misconstruing what the Defense Department said. The DD did not say there were no WMD's found. It said that the WMDs found were "old and inoperative." I doubt if the White House said either, as you imply, that they were not bone fide WMDs.

DAR
Bush, in his press conference, today:

"Now look, part of the reason we went into Iraq was -- the main reason we went into Iraq, at the time, was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction."

Now he has.

No one is more politically invested in WMD's being found in Iraq than Bush. Perhaps his advisors just forgot to inform him? Or maybe he forgot.
No, it's as I said earlier. This position is based upon an equivocation is so blatant and ridiculous that even Bush won't stoop to using it. That says a lot.

I posted an article on NWAPolitics.com entitled "Bush Admits There Were No WMDs in Iraq." Here's a link to it. That'll no doubt irk the warmongers there.

One guy (Lash) is such an intellectual wimp that he's taken to deleting all my responses in his articles. (Authors of the articles control all comments about their article.) Apparently he can't handle opposing views. ("Apparently" meaning from appearances alone, on the face of it. )

Hogeye wrote: One guy (Lash) is such an intellectual wimp that he's taken to deleting all my responses in his articles.

DAR
I learned that long ago.

Apparently he can't handle opposing views. ("Apparently" meaning from appearances alone, on the face of it. )

DAR
Oops, to late, you stepped in it again. Obviously you meant it is very likely he can't handle opposing views. Which is true.

No; it is likely that he does it because he's angry that I expressed hope that someone would assassinate Asa Hutchinson. But superficially he is doing it because he can't handle opposing views.

Hogeye wrote:No; it is likely that he does it because he's angry that I expressed hope that someone would assassinate Asa Hutchinson. But superficially he is doing it because he can't handle opposing views.

Well, the idea here is that we have gathered a lot of supporting evidence that backs up the claim that many of the NWAPians, especially Ash, simply cannot handle opposing views. If you were around when Doug and Darrel were making mincemeat of virtually every hairbrained argument they'd present, you know what I mean. (If not, you missed some fun. You can go back and look, but Ash and the boys deleted and edited a lot.) When you ask the people here who are familiar with NWAP.com -- Darrel, Doug, Betsy, to some extent me, and now you -- the preponderance of evidence makes it "unmistakable" that Lash cannot handle opposing views.

Definitely unmistakeable that Lash cannot handle opposing views. Before I gave up on that site altogether, I stopped responding to anything Lash posted. He edited and deleted various comments of mine - once he got so slammed by Darrel, Doug, and me all at once he deleted the entire thread - and more than once changed the name and initial post on a thread so the responses no longer referred to the initial post and made it look like no matter what was posted the "liberals" always responded with the same thing (definitely projection on the part of the psycho LVAsh).