Harold Pinter acknowledgement speech

[Occhidiangela]

But the people in charge, they knew exactly what was going on.

They did not have to base their opinion on biased media reports, they had real intelligence. In other words unlike you, they were sure there was no evidence for WMDs.

So that means they took a gamble to go to war. The main question is now, why did they do that, what was their goal.

So maybe that is a nice starting point for a discussion now. Which is extra interesting because we know we cannot believe any media source. This is gonnan be great. Let's see how pays the beers in the 2009 Lurkerlounge reunion party. :D
[right][snapback]97501[/snapback][/right]

I don't think they knew, I think they believed and therefore chose to believe those bits of evidence that confirmed a preconceived notion.

Yes, it was a huge risk.

It doesn't help that Feith, Wolfowitz, Perle, Kristol, Rumsfeld and Cheney tried to browbeat General Franks into using just over two brigades to fight the whole war, or that the diligent staff effort by the Army on troop levels was over ruled as "we may not be military experts, but we know that can't be right."

Why they did it? Isn't that the question? You saw my theory: they believed the 2004 election would be lost. Had Ohio been won by the Democrats, we'd be discussing President Kerry today, which would probably provide a lot of sport. :whistling: The leadership decided that the time to act was now, and take a massive risk. I may or may not be right.

I have seen a lot of other theories that I won't waste your time with here.

As to the 2009 reunioin, how about we do it in Malaga, Spain? It's a lovely place. Lovely people. Good food. Good wine. And there are enough British expats around to ensure a plentiful supply of Guinness. :D

Occhi