Quote:Officials inside government and advisers outside told ABCNEWS the administration emphasized the danger of Saddam's weapons to gain the legal justification for war from the United Nations and to stress the danger at home to Americans.
"We were not lying," said one official. "But it was just a matter of emphasis."
Full story.
So why didn't the administration tell the American people it was overemphasizing the danger from the weapons they claimed represented an imminent threat -- in order to gain support for committing mass slaughter in their name and sending their loved ones to their deaths?
Quote:Officials now say they may not find hundreds of tons of mustard and nerve agents and maybe not thousands of liters of anthrax and other toxins.
So why didn't Bush tell the American people we "might not find" the weapons he claimed represented the reason for committing mass slaughter in their name and sending their loved ones to their deaths?
Quote:Beyond that, the Bush administration decided it must flex muscle to show it would fight terrorism, not just here at home and not just in Afghanistan against the Taliban, but in the Middle East, where it was thriving.
So why didn't the Bush administration
tell the American people it would be committing mass slaughter in their name and sending their loved ones to their deaths to "flex US muscle" in the Middle East -- and not in response to an imminent threat?
Quote:The Bush administration wanted to make a statement about its determination to fight terrorism.
So why didn't the Bush administartion
tell the American people it would be committing mass slaughter in their name and sending their loved ones to their deaths in order to "make a statement" -- and not in response to an imminent threat?
Quote:And officials acknowledge that Saddam had all the requirements to make him, from their standpoint, the perfect target.
So why didn't the Bush administration
tell the American people it would be committing mass slaughter in their name and sending their loved ones to their deaths to target an individual that made a "perfect" symbol -- and not in response to an imminent threat?
Quote:One official said that in the end, history and the American people will judge the United States not by whether U.S. officials find canisters of poison gas or vials of some biological agent.
History will judge the United States, the official said, by whether this war marked the beginning of the end for the terrorists who hate America.
So why didn't Bush
tell the American people THE TRUTH--that it would be committing mass slaughter in their name and sending their loved ones to their deaths
as a gamble--and not in response to an imminent threat?
Could it be that the warmongerers knew the American people
would not allow the slaughter of thousands of Iraqi civilians, the slaughter of 135 US servicemen, and the destruction of a country in their name -- on the basis of a muddled collection of
unsupported hunches, gambles, and lies?
Could it be the unelected, illegitimate election thief and his cabal hold the American people in contempt, and believe that the people, whose loved ones would be ordered to their deaths, cannot be trusted to award the regime the power and support to which it is entitled? Just as they couldn't be trusted to have given the regime sufficient votes to which it was entitled?
Could it be that the Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and Perle and all the rest
knew the risk was just too high? That the American people would see through even the flimsy justification of rolling the dice blindly and hoping "history shows" a positive outcome at some point -- right through to the more obvious motives of profit and political gain?
Flashback to January, 2003:
Quote:MR. FLEISCHER: I think if you take a look at all the public surveys on this issue, there's a lot of Americans who believe that Saddam Hussein does, indeed, pose a threat. And they believe --
Q They'll give their brothers, their husbands, their children?
MR. FLEISCHER: -- and they believe that if the President, knowing what he knows, makes the determination that the best way to protect the American people from the risks that we have seen our nation is vulnerable to --
Q So he believes people want to go to war?
MR. FLEISCHER: -- is to disarm Saddam Hussein from having weapons of mass destruction, the President will make a case --
Q We have weapons of mass destruction. Eight other countries have them.
MR. FLEISCHER: And how many resolutions has the United Nations passed urging us to not have the weapons that we have that have successfully kept the peace for 50 years?
Q How many other nations have defied U.N. resolutions and gotten away with it?
MR. FLEISCHER: None like Saddam Hussein on a measure that has been this unequivocal...
Transcript
This editorial once agains come courtesy of
The Horse.
Still, I'm sure Bush and Rumsfeld can claim it poses a deadly threat to America - providing the media are too dumb to notice. 
