"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself riverman wrote:


Hindsight is always 20/20, but the fact remains that at the time the
decision to go to war was made, the available evidence supported the
president's decision.



Foresight not being 20-20 does not forgive errors discovered in hindsight.
If our intelligence was wrong, it was our intelligence's fault. And you
might be the only voice crying out that you still think our intelligence was
right.

Do you still believe that we invaded Iraq because we believed that he had
WMDs?? Even Bush has stopped singing that song, you might as well also. The
new reason is because he was a despot and impediment to Freedom and had to
go for the benefit of his people. If we claim we invaded because we thought
he had WMDs, and discovered that he did not, then it makes it our error,
not his crime. If we invaded because he was a despot and had to go, then
we were justified.

So Bush is being very careful to NO LONGER say that he invaded because he
thought SH had WMDs, but that SDs refusal to demonstrate that he had
destroyed his WMDs was in violation of the UN resolutions, and that left him
exposed to severe consequences. Those are not the same statements, as one
points to SHs culpability, the other to our fallability. The problem is that
nowhere does it say 'having your country invaded, your government overthrown
and your cities hammered is the punishment for violating a UN resolution'.
Especially as, while it was happening, we were acting IN LIEU of the UN,
without its support or its blessing.

--riverman

This whole debate sounds like Spinal Tap to me. "It goes to eleven! Its one
louder, innit?"