THIS IS NOT A TROLL

[kisc]

Bush told the truth: The weapons existed

What do you all think of this? It is the opinion section of whatever this website is, where it belongs, but it seems to make a good point.

Not that I know what I'm talking about, which is why I hope someone smarter than me will have something to say.

....

Also, can you say deja vu[edit

Comments

[kisc]

And the point I keep forgetting to make is that a bunch of tinpot dictators are not the same as Saddam Hussein, no matter where you go with the comparison.

I'm still not convinced that Hussein was a clear and present danger, not after Desert Storm, but that is why I initiated this discussion, in order to get people to tell me where I can get more information.

This may disprove my statement about Libya -

There was speculation that Qadhafi had blinked after the recent events in Iraq. But it is now revealed that American and British officials were holding high-level secret talks with Libyan officials before the war in Iraq started. In recent years, Qadhafi has been trying to change his image. He announced his disenchantment with fellow Arab leaders, preferring to focus his considerable energies on sub-Saharan Africa. Qadhafi was one of the prime movers behind the African Union, the revamped version of the Organisation of African Unity (OAU), which held its first summit two years ago. There are reports that one of the factors that influenced Qadhafi to shift gears was the growing threat from homegrown militants who are disillusioned by more than three decades of personalised rule.

[hemlock_martini]

In my opinion, he did not represent the same clear and present danger that, say, Kim Jong Il--who posesses the potential ability to nuke Los Angeles--represents. If Saddam was REALLY a threat, they would have been able to prove it to the UN.

[kisc]

Er, you didn't read Howard's link, did you? Because it is fascinating.

Also, I don't think If Saddam was REALLY a threat, they would have been able to prove it to the UN. is a fair statement. There is plenty of stuff that you can't prove which is true, when it comes to governments and whatnot. For instance, from Howard's link:

The March 2005 report of the equally bipartisan Robb-Silberman commission, which investigated intelligence failures on Iraq, reached the same conclusion, finding

no evidence of political pressure to influence the intelligence community’s pre-war assessments of Iraq’s weapons programs. . . . [A]nalysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments.

"In no instance did political pressure cause them to skew ... judgements." Why would they even put that in there if they could document proof that it didn't happen? All they have is a bunch of eye witnesses. In Law and Order, a bunch of eyewitnesses and $0.50 will buy you a cup of coffee. Silly example, but I love to say "X and $0.50 will buy you a cup of coffee."

And Powell's former chief of staff, Lawrence Wilkerson, had this to say, in attacking GWB:

I can’t tell you why the French, the Germans, the Brits, and us thought that most of the material, if not all of it, that we presented at the UN on 5 February 2003 was the truth. I can’t. I’ve wrestled with it. [But] when you see a satellite photograph of all the signs of the chemical-weapons ASP-Ammunition Supply Point-with chemical weapons, and you match all those signs with your matrix on what should show a chemical ASP, and they’re there, you have to conclude that it’s a chemical ASP, especially when you see the next satellite photograph which shows the UN inspectors wheeling in their white vehicles with black markings on them to that same ASP, and everything is changed, everything is clean. . . . But George [Tenet] was convinced, John McLaughlin [Tenet’s deputy] was convinced, that what we were presented [for Powell’s UN speech] was accurate.

I've never been able to figure out why everyone is so opposed to the idea that the Iraqi government could have gone to a lot of trouble to hide a lot of things.

[hemlock_martini]

There is a lot of back-and-forth on this, and everything I've heard from either side contradicts everything the other side says. I am not a pundit. I don't have the time or mental resources to pull up quotes and links and articles that prove or disprove. Other people do that easily. Everything I've heard from the anti-war side points to biased intelligence, everything from the pro-war side points to a lack of bias. What this says to me is that both sides are picking and choosing the facts that they want to use.

I did read the article, yes it was interesting; but really all I came away with was the thought that "politicians lie and also say things that seem politically expedient in order to insure their job." After September 11th, it would not have been politically expedient to be against war. I love how everybody throws out Kerry's name as if to say "look, your candidate, your HEATHEN LIBERAL GOD wanted this war, obviously you have to be mistaken!" Please. Kerry's a politician, like the rest. I don't doubt for a second that he said what he said to garner possible votes. Nobody wants a pro-peace wuss president after a major terrorist attack, not even pro-peace wusses.

It still stands that the international community did not agree with the evidence presented for the war in Iraq. It was not strong enough. The inspectors should have been given more time and backing.

[kisc]

Howling Mad, thank you for your contributions to this discussion. Between your comments and Chucks, I've decided that I've been wasting everyone's time trying to play catchup on a topic that left me as far behind as most of the jokes on Sealab 2021.

There is, as always in the world theatre, too much going on for me to be able to get a handle on it. I'm convinced at this point that Bush (or his handlers or someone) made a decision, and that some people think it was the right one for some reasons, and that other people think it was the wrong decision for pretty much the same reasons.

Madness.

And I hereby give up trying to figure out what's really going on.

XOXO

[ruthanolis]

$0.50? You guys get cheap coffee over there ...
It's $1.50 a cup minimum over here.

=P