They didn't even read the reports from Hans Blix of the UN, who was kicked out of Iraq by Bush. Bush had 8,000 pages of Blix's report redacted!
He read the now famous forgery, which he knew was a forgery, and blew off Wilson's report regarding the war, leaking his wifes name!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZTLmOoPzjs&mode=related&search=
Talk about not knowing what you are doing!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNtIHrq13ic&mode=related&search=
2007-09-02 12:46:37
·
answer #1
·
answered by cantcu 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Just one: Lonely Planet's Guide to Iraq!
However, it seemed enough to guide a whole bunch of both dems and cons into this war. I think that this war has made it absolutely clear how badly are new presidential libraries needed.
On a serious note, I think the key question remains: how could the leaders of US get it so wrong? In the end, Saddam had nothing to do with terorism, there were no WMD that threatened USA, Americans and other allies are not only dying on a daily basis, but there seems little hope for the conflict settling down any time soon. This is surely the biggest military and foreign policy flop in the US history.
2007-09-02 12:46:13
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
There are plenty that i'd opt to study, yet in reality i will probable basically study a small factor of them: on the Prowl - short memories Patricia Briggs, Karen threat, and so on Cry Wolf - Patricia Briggs Raven's Shadow - Patricia Briggs No human beings in touch - Kelley Armstrong very own Demon - Kelley Armstrong residing with the lifeless - Kelley Armstrong The Harlequin - Laurell ok Hamilton Blood Noir - Laurell ok Hamilton A Lick of Frost - Laurell ok Hamilton Swallowing Darkness - Laurell ok Hamilton Kitty is going to Washington - Carrie Vaughn Kitty Takes a trip - Carrie Vaughn Kitty and the Silver Bullet - Carrie Vaughn lost Souls - Poppy Z Brite The Lake - Richard Laymon The devil's Labyrinth - John Saul Wow, i did not understand there have been such lots of! those are basically those that are already sitting on my bookshelf waiting for me. yet staring on the checklist, i would be taken aback if i'm getting midway via it! perhaps by the top of next 3 hundred and sixty 5 days i will end them.
2016-12-16 09:44:22
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
They went no further than to read the doctrine of their master, who has been a liar from the beginning, and will be a liar until the end. They listened to the Devil which leads them, who most people only think of as a failed leader.
This party can be forgiven for their sins, but not their hypocrisy. Bush stated that "God told him to invade Iraq", but by his actions, he does crucify Christ every day. God did not wish this carnage on the world, this was brought to you through the deceit of one man.
There is much hope for the future when the Crimson Tide is forever rolled back and the Blue Sky is seen by all as the salvation of humanity.
2007-09-02 12:44:51
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
they did not read T.E. Lawrence ( seven pillars of wisdom that is for sure.
Writing of the Arab resistance to Turkish occupation in the 1914-18 war, he asks of the insurgents (in Iraq and elsewhere): "... suppose they were an influence, a thing invulnerable, intangible, without front or back, drifting about like a gas? Armies were like plants, immobile as a whole, firm-rooted, nourished through long stems to the head. The Arabs might be a vapour..."
How typical of Lawrence to use the horror of gas warfare as a metaphor for insurgency. To control the land they occupied, he continued, the Turks "would have need of a fortified post every four square miles, and a post could not be less than 20 men. The Turks would need 600,000 men to meet the combined ill wills of all the local Arab people. They had 100,000 men available."
Now who does that remind you of? The "fortified post every four square miles" is the ghostly future echo of George W Bush's absurd "surge". The Americans need 600,000 men to meet the combined ill will of the Iraqi people, and they have only 150,000 available. Donald Rumsfeld, the architect of "war lite" is responsible for that. Yet still these rascals get away with it.
2007-09-02 12:36:10
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
Neoconservatives never planned the war, learn what a neoconservative is before you start saying they planned the war. I would say that we had some good Intel on Iraq myself, but you wouldn't understand all that, that's above your level.
2007-09-02 12:41:25
·
answer #6
·
answered by Rocman 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
Bush does not read any thing. But it's not his fault. He was raised that way.
One of (Senior) Bush's neighbors relates that when their children were young, George's sister came over to ask if she could look up a word in their dictionary!
My family was living from hand to mouth when I was a boy in the 1930's, but my father had a large library with a set of encycopedia and several dictionaries in about three languages. Obviously, my father had the wrong idea.
2007-09-02 13:32:08
·
answer #7
·
answered by marvinsussman@sbcglobal.net 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
I don't know, how many did Carter read before he planned a failed op that established the legitimacy of a terrorist government in Iran. How many did Clinton read before he withdrew 20,000 marines then sent in Delta Force and the Rangers in a half hearted attempt to capture Aidid without consulting with any of our allies or get us mired in a pointless peacekeeping operation in Kosovo.
2007-09-02 12:44:06
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Sorry, I guess all that Bush read before planning the war was "Daredevil", he's certainly shown to be as blind but definitely senseless!
2007-09-02 12:50:16
·
answer #9
·
answered by Tweet 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
Neocons can READ? Even comic books? <> Who knew? What grade level? First? The "Dick and Jane" books?
2007-09-02 12:42:22
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋