Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
No worries Tak, even with his shifting of the goal posts his "evidence" undercuts him and puts him in a deeper hole.
When Ricks writes of the terrifying concusion that the white house wasn't listening to the generals warnings he is writing about the generals warnings that invasion lite wouldn't allow for any containment of the inevitable blood letting which would come about due to the ethnic divisions in Iraq.  |
Quote:
“President George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003 ultimately may come to be seen as one of the most profligate actions in the history of American foreign policy,” Mr. Ricks writes. “The consequences of his choice won’t be clear for decades, but it already is abundantly apparent in mid-2006 that the U.S. government went to war in Iraq with scant solid international support and on the basis of incorrect information — about weapons of mass destruction and a supposed nexus between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda’s terrorism — and then occupied the country negligently. Thousands of U.S. troops and an untold number of Iraqis have died. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent, many of them squandered. Democracy may yet come to Iraq and the region, but so too may civil war or a regional conflagration, which in turn could lead to spiraling oil prices and a global economic shock.”
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/25/bo...anted=all&_r=0
"may" is not "obvious".
read the book, you might learn something.
