Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonlich
=========================
Now, this thread started with Strange Famous saying:
I think that I can safely assume Strange was way out of line when he claims to have "absolute certainty" about Blair lying. He simply cannot have this certainty, as has been shown.
Regardless of the further direction of this thread, and regardless of how you feel about the whole war, can we at least agree that the initial post was false? Hell, if that was posted in an existing thread, I'd probably consider it trolling. 
|
Yeah, we can agree to that, especially since I qualified my statement to not be that expansive. I merely claimed that we only knew their information wasn't reliable--it was this post you started responding to. Now it seems we are talking in circles.
Let me lay out my reasons for why I made the claim:
The first claim by my administration was that Saddam had nuclear weapons and that he could launch them within 45 minutes. We knew where they were and needed to rush in and stop this mad man before he obliterated NYC or LA. That was the original claim.
"Weapons of Mass Destruction" then entered the public lexicon and started to mean everything from nuclear weapons (the original claim to strike fear into every freedom lovin' American) to Saddam laying a huge, greasy fart in the wind (WMD related, & etc.).
I don't understand how you can continue to construe that original claim as even plausible when my administration already has admitted that the evidence that Saddam was trying to purchase enriched uranium was flat out wrong and the only thing they've found in regards to production was a box of pieces buried under some scientist's rose bush--hardly placing such a weapon anywhere near a 45 minute launch window!
Along with that claim came was that Iraq would be a "cakewalk" because, not only would the people love and greet us happily, the informants would pour into our midst once Saddam was gone and tell us where everything was hidden.
Quite the opposite really, the scientists have poured into our midst to explain that whatever evidence they had was actually wrong--they didn't have any nuclear weapons, were decades away from making one, and even the more vague term of WMD wasn't of much value since the stuff they did have was the industrialized world's decades old cast-off shit--not too much of a threat since it was either rotting away, could easily be circumvented by donning a gas mask or walking away, or consisted of the shit Americans and English prolly sprinkle on their eggs each morning for seasoning.
Whatever the case, their was nothing resembling a weapon that could have leveled NYC or LA. Now your (and Bush's) only retort is that the military hasn't searched every last inch of Iraq. Of course, they'll never be able to do that and, even if they magically could, they couldn't possibly exhaust all the places such weapons could have been carted off to (the second fallback response).
Of course, those of us back in reality (as opposed to neo-con fantasy land) realize that the evidence Bush and Blaire were using to make their claims was, at best, unreliable.
Given what I know about human behavior I'm more inclined to believe that they used the evidence, despite what I consider to be good reasoning, because it confirmed their suspicions rather than they blatantly lied. I'd like to know exactly what they knew and the process they went through to determine what they knew so that we can take steps to either punish the people who acted inappropriately (if they did) or create safeguards to minimize the chances of it occurring, which is why I'd like an independent probe into the matter.
I've posted my thoughts on this matter as well as the resaons I feel this way. I'm not going to gain any satisfaction by browbeating you into agreeing with me--so you needn't waste time trying to counter my position.