Are you sure you want to delete this post?
He's obviated his "expert advice" dodge by relying on biased experts. By selecting experts of a particular bias, he's
ensured a selected outcome. Which therefore means that there was really no choice being made at all! Alternative
opinions were not examined or refuted, but rejected out of hand, for partisan, emotional, biased and/or poltical reasons.
Meaning that no real examination of the alternatives was engaged.
For example when Wilson came back from Africa to deliver a report on the yellow cake matter, not only was
his report ignored/refused/rejected or not recieved, but he was attacked via the outing of his wife. All of which
means that any attempt by the Bush adm., to claim that it was following the best advice it had or could get,
is false, and any claims that it was receiving unbiased reports is a sham. The decision to invade, whether
legally or illegally, with or without UN authority had been made before hand. That decision was not to be
altered by any argument or any reports, contrary material or facts.
Thus, either the laws that have been approved, decided and passed, must now either be enforced or
be consigned to meaninglessness. Which will make the arts of legislating worthless fools errands.