|
|
|
|
On 4 Mar 2005 18:28:41 -0800, wrote:
Let's make this real simple, John.
The volumes of material that Iraq supplied in compliance with the UN
deadline essentially said, "We ain't got no stinkin' WMD."
Bush, on the other hand, said "That claim is a lie. All 17 volumes are
lies."
Ok. Based on the premise that the denial was "all lies" and the pointed
suggestion during the SOTU speech that Iraq was on the verge of
developing nuclear weapons capable of attacking the United States, all
the Republican faithful began beating the war drums until Congress was
pressured to OK the Iraq attack.
Funny thing happened on the way into (and out of) Baghdad......the
claim of the 17 volumes, that there were not WMD in Iraq, was proven to
be essentially true. Our invasion proved Bush to be the (I'll be kind
here) "mistaken" one on the WMD issue, so, of course, he immediately
changed his story about why he had asked us to go to war in the first
place. Typical.
No matter how you spin the contents, those basic facts always come out
the same.
It's simple. You place your trust and confidence in Saddam. I'd rather place
mine with UNMOVIC (whom I don't trust too much anyway) and the Bush
administration.
I don't believe your quote. Please show me. I refer to, "That claim is a lie.
All 17 volumes are lies." I say this because I don't believe the material in the
'17 volumes' was all lies. I believe it was a pile of old, redundant, worthless
documentation to show the television crews in the hopes someone out there would
be gullible enough to believe Saddam was 'baring all'.
As to the 'truth' of the WMD issue, you need to see some of the posts Jim H and
NYOB have made regarding revelations of the shipment and storage of Iraq's WMD.
I fear that if (or when) the truck loads of materials are found, in the Bekaa
Valley or wherever, your house of cards will have lost its last wall.
John H
"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."
|