Bush (and 50% of this country) has lost its mind!

[The_Tracker]

So the Bush fools run around calling Kerry a flip/flopper on certain issues.

I nearly had a stroke the other day when watching an interview with Bush by Matt Lauer. Yes, you know the one.

The one where Bush, after basing his whole campaign on his ability to win the war on terrorism, sits across from Matt while "attempting" a conversation and says that he doesn't think the war on terrorism can be won. WTF?

The man really puts his foot in his mouth alot when he doesn't have a teleprompter in front of him.

Well thanks George. After all of your cowboy speeches about how we will defeat the world, and will defeat this and that, and we should reelect him because Kerry is "soft" on war, we get his true feelings coming through.

This comment alone is proof that the Bush regime has no exit stratgey for the Iraq war, and no real plan of defeating global terrorism. Bush was actually speaking the truth for once. We are in an unending, unwinnable war. And attacking a soverign muslim nation is the same as fighting a terrorism fire by throwing gasoline on it. Real smart.

Good to see the truth slip out for once. Of course now they are trying to backtrack and cover up another one of his screw ups.

Can't let the American people hear truth.

[GWB]

Have we won the war against the mafia?

Have we won the war against drugs?

Have we won the war against sexual predators?

War means different things when you are talking about fighting a country, and when you are fighting a loose conglomeration of people.

The war on terrorism is like the war against cockroaches or rats. Minimizing their negative impact on you is the best you can hope for.

Distorting my words on this issue is silly and meaningless.

We do have an Iraq exit strategy, turning police enforcement duties over to the new Iraqi government as we are doing. The war on terror is worldwide (the Iraq theatre was only one part of it).

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v54/thebuzz/Friends.gif

[The_Tracker]

[ QUOTE ]

Have we won the war against the mafia?

Have we won the war against drugs?

Have we won the war against sexual predators?

War means different things when you are talking about fighting a country, and when you are fighting a loose conglomeration of people.

The war on terrorism is like the war against cockroaches or rats. Minimizing their negative impact on you is the best you can hope for.

Distorting my words on this issue is silly and meaningless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well as far as I know, I have never heard of the "war on the mafia or sexual predators."

However, the "war on drugs" has been a ridiculous, losing concept for over 20 years. Started I believe by some other bozo Republican. Maybe that's one of the things Arnold should have mentioned about being Republican. Starting pointless, endless war. "Then you know you ah a Republican." (Arnold accent)

Maybe we should stop declaring war on things that are not winnable, grow a brain and try to solve the worlds problems by thinking a little more.

Thinking is not Bushes style though. He appeals to the inbreed, nascar watching, trailer park types. So what better idea than to put an action hero "actor" up to speak for you, and then your two pretty daughters to get all the beer belching dad votes. Some people see through things. Some people need to clean their glasses.

2 more months (Hopefully)

[vulturesrow]

Lauer: “You said to me a second ago, one of the things you'll lay out in your vision for the next four years is how to go about winning the war on terror. That phrase strikes me a little bit. Do you really think we can win this war on terror in the next four years?”

President Bush: “I have never said we can win it in four years.”

Lauer: “So I’m just saying can we win it? Do you see that?”

President Bush: “I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world –- let's put it that way. I have a two pronged strategy. On the one hand is to find them before they hurt us, and that's necessary. I’m telling you it's necessary. The country must never yield, must never show weakness [and] must continue to lead. To find al-Qaida affiliates who are hiding around the world and … harm us and bring ‘em to justice –- we're doing a good job of it. I mean we are dismantling the al-Qaida as we knew it. The long-term strategy is to spread freedom and liberty, and that's really kind of an interesting debate. You know there's some who say well, ‘You know certain people can't self govern and accept, you know, a former democracy.’ I just strongly disagree with that. I believe that democracy can take hold in parts of the world that are now non-democratic and I think it's necessary in order to defeat the ideologies of hate. History has shown that it can work, that spreading liberty does work. After all, Japan is our close ally and my dad fought against the Japanese. Prime Minister Koizumi, is one of the closest collaborators I have in working to make the world a more peaceful place.”

Lauer: “Your daughters are how old now?”

President Bush: “Twenty-two.”

Lauer: “Twenty-two years old. They’re approaching the age, President Bush, [when] they're going to have their own children. And when their kids are teenagers are they going to those kids – your grandchildren – be reading about al-Qaida in the newspaper every day?”

President Bush: “I know if steadfast, strong and resolute — and I say those words very seriously — it's less likely that your kids are going to live under the threat of al-Qaida for a long period of time. I can't tell you. I don't have any … definite end. But I tell you this, when we succeed in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's the beginning of the end for these extremists. Because freedom is going to have a powerful influence to make sure your kids can grow up in a peaceful world. If we believe, for example, that you can't win, and the alternative is to retreat … I think that would be a disaster for your children. I'll tell you why. If al-Qaida and their ideologues were able to secure a nuclear arsenal, then your children would grow up under the threat of nuclear blackmail. I think you would look back and say, ‘Why did George Bush not hold the line?’ We cannot show weakness in this world today, because the enemy will exploit that weakness. It will embolden them and make the world a more dangerous place.”




Why dont we let everyone see the context of the statement. Its a little different than what it has been portrayed as

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Why dont we let everyone see the context of the statement. Its a little different than what it has been portrayed as

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree, I hadn't heard the whole thing either.

[The_Tracker]

I don't need to read it, I saw the interview.

So Bushes strategy to defeat terrorism is to spread freedom and liberty. And we spread freedom and peace by attacking other countries.

This is all starting to make about as much sense as the war on drugs. Attack others to spread freedom and peace. Lock up drug users in prison as opposed to treatment to get them off drugs.

Twenty years later, haven't made a dent in drug usage.
Twenty years from now, will we still be hearing about terrorism and Al Queda?

I don't know about you, but I am sick of both wars.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't need to read it, I saw the interview.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasnt referring specifically to you. I just wanted people to read it and decide for themselves instead presenting a biased opinion/intrepretation of what Bush said.

[ QUOTE ]
So Bushes strategy to defeat terrorism is to spread freedom and liberty. And we spread freedom and peace by attacking other countries.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well Iraq is free now isnt it? And Afghanistan is no longer the haven for terrorists that it once was. The funny thing is people think they have seen everything that has been done to combat terrorism. I guarantee the average American has seen very little of the total effort. They act like the Administration said that these two military campaigns would wipe out terrorism forever.

[MaxPower]

That is the most cogent statement that I've heard from Bush.

I cannot disagree with the long term strategy of spreading freedom and liberty, but I don't think this pre-emptive war with Iraq was the way to aceive this goal. Bush tried to justify the War in Iraq based on WMD. If the real reason was to spread freedom and liberty, then why didn't he make that case (probably because it wouldn't work). He betrayed the American people by predicating this war on a false premise.

Political change will not take place in the Middle East until the Palestian statehood issue is resolved. That should have been his first priority.

You cannot compare Japan and Iraq. Japan was a homogeneous country that had surrendered to us. Iraq is very divided nation along ethnic and religious lines. It also has the oil reserves that all of those groups would like to claim. Any expert on Iraq could have told Bush what was going to happen post-war, but he conveiniently didn't consult any of them. I hope I am wrong about this, but I don't think the new Iraqi government will survive once the US withdraws its troops.

I agree with his goals, by the means that he has chosen to acheive them are bad and only serve to undermine our efforts.

Yes, his words are being taken out of context and twisted unfairly. Its a good thing this never happens to John Kerry /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[cjromero]

"Thinking is not Bushes style though. He appeals to the inbreed, nascar watching, trailer park types."


This is a ridiculous statement, and is a perfect example of the kind of overreaching, sweeping statements that should cause everyone to question your credibility on any of these issues. It is like saying that Kerry only appeals to African-Americans, union members, and unwed teenage mothers. Just asanine.

There are plenty of intelligent people who agree with many parts of the Republican platform, just as there are many intelligent people who agree with many parts of the Democratic platform. And there are Americans of all economic means and "social status" on both sides of the aisle.

[wacki]

vulturesrow, it's always a pleasure to read your posts.

GWB, despite your name and logo putting you in an obviously biased group, you make alot of sense. But I would be careful on related the war on terror to the war on drugs. The_Tracker is right, but probably not for reasons he knows. The war on drugs is a sham. Read Michael Levines books "The Big white lie" (its a bit nasty to the DEA suits and the CIA) and "Deep Cover" to find out more. Michael Levine was described as "Americas Top Cop" by 60 minutes.

If I was going to relate the war on terror to other wars, I would say is it possible to win the War on Drugs? The answer is no, it has no end, but you can get to a pretty good spot. Anyone with a decent brain should be able to see that.

As far as The_Tracker's "Thinking is not Bushes style though. He appeals to the inbreed, nascar watching, trailer park types." comment. I really have to wonder about your education. Let alone your ability to question. Both couldn't be worse.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
That is the most cogent statement that I've heard from Bush.

I cannot disagree with the long term strategy of spreading freedom and liberty, but I don't think this pre-emptive war with Iraq was the way to aceive this goal. Bush tried to justify the War in Iraq based on WMD. If the real reason was to spread freedom and liberty, then why didn't he make that case (probably because it wouldn't work). He betrayed the American people by predicating this war on a false premise.

Political change will not take place in the Middle East until the Palestian statehood issue is resolved. That should have been his first priority.

You cannot compare Japan and Iraq. Japan was a homogeneous country that had surrendered to us. Iraq is very divided nation along ethnic and religious lines. It also has the oil reserves that all of those groups would like to claim. Any expert on Iraq could have told Bush what was going to happen post-war, but he conveiniently didn't consult any of them. I hope I am wrong about this, but I don't think the new Iraqi government will survive once the US withdraws its troops.

I agree with his goals, by the means that he has chosen to acheive them are bad and only serve to undermine our efforts.

Yes, his words are being taken out of context and twisted unfairly. Its a good thing this never happens to John Kerry /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

The Bush's war on WMD's was a legit one. Clinton (http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20040623.htm), Gore and the rest of his administration even tried to do the same thing Bush did even before 9/11! Considering all that Clinton said and did, if you add 9/11 and Putin telling you to expect more attacks, then what would you do?

We were wrong. There was no massive stockpiles, or any stockpiles for that matter. There were factories ready to go though. And he has a history of using them on his own people of all things.

I will agree with you that Bush's gamble on WMD's wasn't the best selling method. Considering the prewar intel, I can't blame him, but I didn't agree with it then, and I don't know. Combined with Saddam's history, Clinton, 9/11, Putin, and almost every intel community on the planet, it was a legit reason, but not the reason I would of sold it on.

[The_Tracker]

[ QUOTE ]
The Bush's war on WMD's was a legit one. Clinton (http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20040623.htm), Gore and the rest of his administration even tried to do the same thing Bush did even before 9/11!

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, I am sorry. I must have been sleeping when Clinton sent 200,000 US ground troops to invade Iraq. How could I have missed that.

And seriously, you are posting a link from the PNAC about Clinton. LOL. You obviously don't know anything about the PNAC, its intentions, or its founders.

[MaxPower]

I am not trying to claim that Saddam Hussein's regime was benign. Many were sceptical about the WMD, but I believe that the Bush administration were very selective the information they gathered and presented.

I have seen a number of video clips of Condileeza Rice and others saying that Iraq had no WMD programs and was no threat to us (pre 9/11), so I doubt the Intelligence was that definative.

The UN weapons inspectors seemed to be doing a thorough job and had not turned up anything. Surely that intelligence was worth taking seriously.

I was on the fence about it until Colin Powell's speech the UN. It turns out now that most of the evidence he presented was considered shaky even when Powell presented it. I think it shows contempt for other nations to present something like that to the UN.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Bush's war on WMD's was a legit one. Clinton (http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20040623.htm), Gore and the rest of his administration even tried to do the same thing Bush did even before 9/11!

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, I am sorry. I must have been sleeping when Clinton sent 200,000 US ground troops to invade Iraq. How could I have missed that.

And seriously, you are posting a link from the PNAC about Clinton. LOL. You obviously don't know anything about the PNAC, its intentions, or its founders.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read the article, particularly CLINTONS AND GORES OWN WORDS!
Check the 47 sourced quotes, then get back to me.

The PNAC's intentions are printed on the front page of the website. After reading Machiavelli, Harris, Friedman, and studying world history, I agree.

About it's founders, your right, I don't know. But after checking the 47 sources, that article is legit, and that's all I care about.

Considering you said "Thinking is not Bushes style though. He appeals to the inbreed, nascar watching, trailer park types. ". I suggest you read it very carefully.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]

I am not trying to claim that Saddam Hussein's regime was benign. Many were sceptical about the WMD, but I believe that the Bush administration were very selective the information they gathered and presented.

I have seen a number of video clips of Condileeza Rice and others saying that Iraq had no WMD programs and was no threat to us (pre 9/11), so I doubt the Intelligence was that definative.

The UN weapons inspectors seemed to be doing a thorough job and had not turned up anything. Surely that intelligence was worth taking seriously.

I was on the fence about it until Colin Powell's speech the UN. It turns out now that most of the evidence he presented was considered shaky even when Powell presented it. I think it shows contempt for other nations to present something like that to the UN.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would like to see these clips. Do you have any?

I understand your points about the info. It's hard to tell what really happened, and I don't agree with the way it occured. As for the administration selecting the facts, if you have proof, from a reputable source, I would like to see it.

[BeerMoney]

[ QUOTE ]


Thinking is not Bushes style though. He appeals to the inbreed, nascar watching, trailer park types.


[/ QUOTE ]

What are you, an [censored]?

Your point is actually quite flawed..

We HAVE to fight the war on terrorism. Whether its a beatable opponent isn't obvious, but the comparison to the war on drugs isn't parallel. We have to fight terrorism, we don't have to have so many resources to deter drug use by force.

[The_Tracker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Thinking is not Bushes style though. He appeals to the inbreed, nascar watching, trailer park types.


[/ QUOTE ]

What are you, an [censored]?

Your point is actually quite flawed..

We HAVE to fight the war on terrorism. Whether its a beatable opponent isn't obvious, but the comparison to the war on drugs isn't parallel. We have to fight terrorism, we don't have to have so many resources to deter drug use by force.

[/ QUOTE ]

No reason to take offense to this statement. Unless, you fit the profile. (Which I am not saying you do.)

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Thinking is not Bushes style though. He appeals to the inbreed, nascar watching, trailer park types.


[/ QUOTE ]

What are you, an [censored]?

Your point is actually quite flawed..

We HAVE to fight the war on terrorism. Whether its a beatable opponent isn't obvious, but the comparison to the war on drugs isn't parallel. We have to fight terrorism, we don't have to have so many resources to deter drug use by force.

[/ QUOTE ]

No reason to take offense to this statement. Unless, you fit the profile. (Which I am not saying you do.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Or you simply can't stand bigots.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
No reason to take offense to this statement. Unless, you fit the profile. (Which I am not saying you do.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Most black people are criminals.

No need to take offense as long you dont fit the profile.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No reason to take offense to this statement. Unless, you fit the profile. (Which I am not saying you do.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Most black people are criminals.

No need to take offense as long you dont fit the profile.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. Would not of gone there if you paid me.

I know most criminals are black despite the small % of the country that is black, but is your statement really true? Or did you just word it wrong?

[MaxPower]

I know you will probably not like this answer, but those clips were in Farenheit 911. I think I have seen them elsewhere as well.

I don't have any proof that the administration was selective about their information gathering.

There was a very interesting article in the Los Angeles Times. Although many questionable items were removed from Powell's UN speech, he did present some that were labelled "highly questionable" and "not credible" by the State Department. This from the Senate report on intelligence failures.

[ QUOTE ]
Flaws Cited in Powell's U.N. Speech on Iraq
State Department analysts saw errors in early drafts, prompting revisions, report says.

by Greg Miller

WASHINGTON — Days before Secretary of State Colin L. Powell was to present the case for war with Iraq to the United Nations, State Department analysts found dozens of factual problems in drafts of his speech, according to new documents contained in the Senate report on intelligence failures released last week.

Two memos included with the Senate report listed objections that State Department experts lodged as they reviewed successive drafts of the Powell speech. Although many of the claims considered inflated or unsupported were removed through painstaking debate by Powell and intelligence officials, the speech he ultimately presented contained material that was in dispute among State Department experts.

Powell's Feb. 5, 2003, speech to the U.N. Security Council was crafted by the CIA at the behest of the White House. Intended to be the Bush administration's most compelling case by one of its most credible spokesmen that a confrontation with Saddam Hussein was necessary, the speech has become a central moment in the lead-up to war.

The speech also has become a point of reference in the failure of U.S. intelligence. Although Powell has said he struggled to ensure that all of his arguments were sound and backed by intelligence from several sources, it nonetheless became a key example of how the administration advanced false claims to justify war.

Powell has expressed disappointment that, after working to remove dubious claims, the intelligence backing the remaining points of his U.N. speech has turned out to be flawed.

"It turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong, and in some cases deliberately misleading, and for that I am disappointed and I regret it," Powell said in May. A State Department spokesman said late Wednesday, however, that the United States made the right decision "to go into Iraq, and the world today is safer because we did."

Offering the first detailed look at claims that were stripped from the case for war advanced by Powell, a Jan. 31, 2003, memo cataloged 38 claims to which State Department analysts objected. In response, 28 were either removed from the draft or altered, according to the Senate report, which was released Friday and included scathing criticism of the CIA and other U.S. intelligence services.

The analysts, describing many of the claims as "weak" and assigning grades to arguments on a 5-star scale, warned Powell against making an array of allegations they deemed implausible. They also warned against including Iraqi communications intercepts they deemed ambiguous and against speculating that terrorists might "come through Baghdad and pick-up biological weapons" as if they were stocked on store shelves.

The documents underscore the extent to which administration and intelligence officials were culling a vast collection of thinly sourced claims as they sought to assemble the case for war. But the origin and full scope of some errors remain unclear because Senate investigators were denied access to a number of relevant documents, according to aides involved in the probe.

The CIA rejected requests for initial versions of what became the Powell presentation on the grounds that they were internal working documents and not finished products. And the Republican-controlled committee did not seek access to a 40-plus-page document that was prepared by Vice President Dick Cheney's office and submitted to State Department speechwriters detailing the case the administration wanted Powell to make.

According to the Senate report, the idea for the speech originated in December 2002, when the National Security Council instructed the CIA to prepare a public response to Iraq's widely criticized 12,000-page declaration claiming that it had no banned weapons. It wasn't until late January 2003 that intelligence officials learned their work would form the basis for a speech Powell would give to the United Nations.

Powell and several of his aides then spent several days at CIA headquarters working on drafts of the speech, in what participants have described as sessions marked by heated arguments over what to include.

When Powell appeared before the U.N., he made a series of sweeping assertions that have crumbled under postwar scrutiny — including claims that Iraq had chemical weapons stockpiles, was pursuing nuclear weapons and that "there can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more."

But the documents in the Senate report show that earlier drafts of the speech contained dozens of additional, disputed claims; they provide the most detailed glimpse to date into the last-minute scramble to strike those claims from the text.

Several of the dubious statements in the early drafts had to do with alleged Iraqi efforts to thwart weapons inspections that had been restarted by the U.N.

One allegation was that Iraq was trying to keep incriminating weapons files from falling into the hands of inspectors by having operatives carry the sensitive documents around in cars. The State Department reviewers called the claim "highly questionable" and warned that it would invite scorn from critics and U.N. inspection officials.

Another claim was that Iraq was having members of its intelligence services pose as weapons scientists to dupe U.N. inspectors. But the State Department noted that such a ruse was "not credible" because of the level of sophistication it would require.

"Interviews typically involve such topics as nuclear physics, microbiology, rocket science and the like," the State Department reviewers wrote, indicating that even a well-rehearsed intelligence operative would be hard-pressed to pull off such a charade.

In their critique, State Department analysts repeatedly warned that Powell was being put in the position of drawing the most sinister conclusions from satellite images, communications intercepts and human intelligence reports that had alternative, less-incriminating explanations.

In one section that remained in the speech, Powell showed aerial images of a supposed decontamination vehicle circling a suspected chemical weapons site.

"We caution," State Department analysts wrote, "that Iraq has given … what may be a plausible account for this activity — that this was an exercise involving the movement of conventional explosives."

The presence of a water truck "is common in such an event," they concluded.

The experts labeled as "weak" a claim that a photograph of an Iraqi with "marks on his arm" was evidence that Baghdad was conducting biological experiments on humans. The language was struck from the speech, although Powell told the Security Council that Iraq had been conducting such experiments since the 1980s.

State Department analysts also made it clear that they disagreed with CIA and other analysts on the allegation that aluminum tubes imported by Iraq were for use in a nuclear weapons program. "We will work with our [intelligence community] colleagues to fix some of the more egregious errors in the tubes discussion," the memo said.

In the speech, Powell acknowledged disagreement among analysts on the tubes, but included the claim. The Senate report concluded last week that the tubes were for conventional rockets.

In a section on nuclear weapons, the analysts argued against using a communications intercept they described as "taken out of context" and "highly misleading." There is no more information on what was in the intercept, but Powell in his speech referred to intercepted communications that he said showed that "Iraq front companies sought to buy machines that can be used to balance gas centrifuge rotors."

Aside from the two memos, the Senate report refers to other language that was deleted from drafts of Powell's speech, although it is not clear who urged the items to be struck.

In one case, Powell was to say that the aluminum tubes were so unsuitable for use in conventional rockets that if he were to roll one on a table, "the mere pressure of my hand would deform it." Department of Energy engineers said that statement was incorrect.

For all their skepticism, State Department analysts did not challenge some of the fundamental allegations in the Powell speech that have since been proved unfounded. Chief among them is the claim that Iraq had mobile biological weapons laboratories, an accusation based largely on information from an Iraqi defector code-named "Curveball."

What the State Department didn't know at the time was that a CIA representative who had met with Curveball found him to have a drinking problem and to be highly unreliable. The CIA representative's red flags were not relayed to Powell until recently, a State Department official said, when then-CIA Director George J. Tenet contacted Powell to tell him that problems with Curveball would be detailed in the Senate report.

© Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times



[/ QUOTE ]

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
I know you will probably not like this answer, but those clips were in Farenheit 911. I think I have seen them elsewhere as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your right. I don't. I've seen the first half of the movie, but couldn't finish it because of how bad it was.
Might force myself to watch the second half sometime soon.

Moore is an expert at taking quotes out of context. Link on a Rice quote in fahrenheit 911 (http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/fahrenheit911/iraq911.htm) Read "Michael Moore is a big fat stupid white man" for more info. That book has 46 pages of urls and sources in the back so you can fact check everything they say.


[ QUOTE ]

I don't have any proof that the administration was selective about their information gathering.

There was a very interesting article in the Los Angeles Times. Although many questionable items were removed from Powell's UN speech, he did present some that were labelled "highly questionable" and "not credible" by the State Department. This from the Senate report on intelligence failures.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not a big fan of Greg Miller. I will agree there was bad intel, as well as good intel. But considering how hard it is to tell the truth about Bush and Kerry when they are under cameras 24/7, I can't blame them for guessing wrong about Iraq. Majority of the rest of the world said Iraq had WMD's so I can't blame Powell for believing faulty intel.

[vulturesrow]

I was trying to point out the ridiculousness of saying "No need to be offended if the profile doesnt fit you."

Chris

[wacki]

Ya, I understood that. I just didn't know if you mistyped or not.

[MaxPower]

I actually mis-represented the quotes that are in the movie. It was Colin Powell that said that he did not have WMD.

FWIW, I didn't really like Farenheit 911. I thought Moore made a weak case against Bush. It could have been a lot more negative.