Skip to main content

Reply to "Who watches the Evening News about Iraq?"

Originally posted by Mountain:

And if Bush lied, then Clinton lied, Albright lied, Powell lied, and just about every world leader on the planet within the UN lied since they ALL said saddam was a threat to world security and needed to be dealt with, for almost a decade now. Clinton went as far as to say he "KNOWS" Saddam will obtain and eventually "use" nuclear and wmd's one day", he said this as far back as Dec. 1998. Thats a quote.

The concept of "threat" is a dynamic one. I think part of the problem is that Bush seems to apply standards selectively - which naturally creates questions about motivation and truthfulness.

In Iraq - where it appears that whatever threat that existed was being "managed" via inspections, no fly zones, economic sanctions, etc. - we invade a country/topple a government/sacrifice American lives, etc., etc. Yet in North Korea where the threat would appear to be significantly greater, and more certain, we initiate multi-lateral negotiations. So, Bush asserts that America can pre-emptively wage war to avert threat (i.e. the Bush Doctrine) - and invades and occupies a country based upon that principle, yet chooses to ignore his own policy in a situation where the level of threat is significantly greater and more certain than in Iraq. Doesn't that raise questions about what really is the motivation behind our actions? And when you add on top the fact that nothing that the President said to support our entering the war seems to have been true (imminence, WMDs, tie to 9/11) then how can you not wonder what's up?

And oh, BTW, lets add the fact that Bush's cronies at Halliburton and Bechtel get handed billions of dollars associated with the war, as well as the reality that we know that the American oil industry (of which Bush et al are squarely in the middle) will be rebuilding the Iraqi oil business raises significant questions about our actions and their motivation. When you read that the only building in Baghdad to be protected from looters was the Oil Ministry, etc., etc., etc. - how can one not be perplexed by our actions.

ANd then there is the question about Cheney's top secret oil policy meetings with industry execs. What is Cheney hiding and why? It's interesting to note that what we do know of those meetings is that the topic of Iraq and its oil was absolutely ON the agenda!

You had up to 75% of all americans saying they believed that getting saddam was the right thing to do.

Please! All based upon lies from Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld! Do you think 75% of Americans would now agree with the war with the information that we now know to be true about the country and the threat? Why do most Americans oppose the war now? Why do you think Bush's poll numbers are tanking?

So, your view that saddam had no weapons is to the point of sounding ridiculous.

Do you believe the CIA?

Draft Report Said to Cite No Success in Iraq Arms Hunt

WASHINGTON, Sept. 24 "” An early draft of an interim report by the American leading the hunt for banned weapons in Iraq says his team has not found any of the unconventional weapons cited by the Bush administration as a principal reason for going to war, federal officials with knowledge of the findings said today.

The long-awaited report by David Kay, the former United Nations weapons inspector who has been leading the American search for illicit weapons, will be the first public assessment of progress in that search since President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1.

Mr. Kay's team has spent nearly four months searching suspected sites and interviewing Iraqi scientists believed to have knowledge about the country's nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs.

The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that Mr. Kay and his team had not found illicit weapons.


There is no passion to be found playing small, in settling for a life
that is less than the one you are capable of living. - Mandela

[This message was edited by MBM on September 25, 2003 at 10:25 AM.]