We Didn't Dare Wait

hi craven- I think the problem with her and many of her ilk isn't the ability to read, but what they read. On some thread I saw she cited some extremist rightwing article from Townhall.com!

I skipped it -- not good for the soul. :wink:

0 Replies

Thanks for sharing, Deecups.

0 Replies

Hmm, I wonder if you ladies have read William Raspberry at all. By and large he is squarely in the liberal camp and an advocate for most of the issues you hold dear.

I often disagree with him, but have the deepest respect for him because he is 100% intellectually honest 99% of the time.

0 Replies

Though I can't say that the editorial reveals any new perspective that the right hasn't already been pounding, it certainly is well written, and I agree with much of it.

I would be interested though, exactly what proof did Bush have Foxfyre that hasn't already been shown to be falsified or exatterated greatly. By that I ask, exactly what evidence did we have of WMDs that could be considered by any reasonable person as credible.

The question most liberals pose isn't whether or not we should've have gone in if we were fairly certain that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, but on what basis has Bush declared that Iraq has such weapons. And without such proof, why didn't Bush atleast try to argue in favor of regime change to help the people of Iraq instead, citing the atrocities commited by Saddam as proof.

I honestly think more of the world would have supported us then. By making a claim that this war was over WMDs and failing to present said weapons, the rest of the world now views us at worst as selfish liars interested only in oil and at best as incompetent.

You can certainly bring up the point that many democrats bought into the hype. But when the president of the United States comes out and publicly states that he has conclusive proof that a nation is stockpiling nuclear weapons, most people tend to believe him.

Woodward's book now reveals that even Bush wasn't convinced by the so called "evidence." Yet he went along with it anyways. Why?

0 Replies

Quote:

By that I ask, exactly what evidence did we have of WMDs that could be considered by any reasonable person as credible.

Wow, that's a long long list. Just type WMD Evidence into your browser and I bet you come up with a ton of stuff. The thing is that all industrialized countries and a fair number of others were convinced he had WMD by their own intelligence. The bulk of intelligence was provided by the USA and UK, however. Even David Kay was absolutely certain until he had a chance to get in there to look for them. All members of congress had opportunity to see the stuff put together by U.S. intelligence, pro and con, and the vast majority concluded Saddam had WMD. The Clinton administration did a lot of saber rattling re Iraq's WMD. Maybe the most compelling evidence was that Saddam had used WMD on his own people and he kept stonewalling the U.N. inspectors. I still think he had them and sooner or later we'll know what he did with them. But even if we never know, success in Iraq will reap huge benefits for the USA and the world.

Based on what I heard Woodward saying last night, I don't think Woodward said Bush wasn't convinced. He just said Bush wasn't gung ho to rush to war and approached it much more carefully than some seem to think. Bush saw the pros and cons in the intelligence like everybody else. And I think he concluded, as did almost everybody else, that Saddam had WMD. I just ordered the book. I'm anxious to read it.

0 Replies

Just type WMD Evidence into your browser and I bet you come up with a ton of stuff.

I get it now. The WMD's aren't in Iraq, they're in our browsers! :wink:

0 Replies

Foxfyre, I didn't realise you were playing that far over in right field cause Raspberry definitely plays center field most of the time. Just a small interjection.

0 Replies

Perhaps but he is pro choice, pro gay rights, pro gay marriage, pro affirmative action, pro gun control and several other pros that are identified as clearly liberal agenda items. I am reasonably certain he would describe himself as a liberal.

Is he a president-bashing, conservative-hating, flaming liberal? No way, so you are right that in that sense he is quite moderate. He is also well reasoned and can quite intelligently articulate why he supports the view that he holds.

He can also support a 'conservative' cause when it makes sense to him and he can criticize his side when they get it wrong. I find this refreshing and honest and pretty cool. Smile

0 Replies

Many nations were convinced that Saddam had WMD. And so was the UN, and NATO.

Quote:

Denmark reveals Iraq arms secrets

Denmark has declassified intelligence reports compiled before the Iraq war which show officials thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
In one report, Iraq was thought to have both chemical and biological weapons, as well as an active nuclear programme.

The extracts appear to contradict claims leaked to a newspaper that there was no evidence to back up the theory.

Former intelligence officer Major Frank Soeholm Grevil has been charged with breaching the official information act.

The major told reporters at the Berlingske Tidende newspaper he had sent 10 reports to the prime minister which concluded that the coalition was unlikely to find weapons of mass destruction.

Pressure

The two journalists who published the leaks, Jesper Larsen and Michael Bjerre, have been charged with exploiting information emerging from a crime.

Before the war, Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen supported the US-led invasion and told parliament that he was convinced Iraq was in possession of such weapons.

Denmark sent a submarine and a warship to participate in the campaign.

Since the leaks - and the failure to find any weapons of mass destruction - the prime minister has come under increasing pressure from opposition parties to declassify the reports.

But Danish Defence Intelligence Service (DDIS) chief Rear Admiral Joern Olesen said: "These reports that have been made public document that Iraq, according to the entire DDIS's evaluation, probably had biological and chemical weapons just before the war."

Mr Olesen said the documents were based on information gathered by the United Nations and Nato but the reports warned that "any evaluation is subject to uncertainties".

Mr Fogh Rasmussen said the documents were proof that neither he nor anyone else in government had tried to mislead parliament.

"The released documents remove any insistence of claims that the government could have misused, twisted or suppressed information received from the DDIS," he told reporters.

Investigation

But AP news agency says a Danish intelligence report dated 7 March, 2003, concluded that there was no "certain information that Iraq has operative weapons of mass destruction".

Spokesman for the opposition Social Democrats Jeppe Kofod said that in March the prime minister still insisted he "knew" Iraq had the weapons.

"I don't think we get a complete picture of what the government knew," he said.

He called for more details following the release of the documents and for an independent investigation into whether Mr Fogh Rasmussen deliberately misled MPs.

Link

0 Replies

Agreed Foxy

0 Replies

Mary McGory died today - what a loss. She was a reliable source on the pulse of national politcs and a warm considerte, funny, and intelligent writer for the Post.

0 Replies

We Didn't Dare Wait

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know