No, seriously. It's all right here in this link. Here's the pertinent part - though, by all means, read the rest of the story as well. It's a real hoot. Remember when Bush accused Saddam of, I believe it was "crawfishin'"? Isn't Bush himself now "crawfishin'"? At what point does he stop "crawfishin'" and tell the truth?
Well, asking Bush how things are going in Iraq is like asking the monkey what tunes the organ grinder plans to play. He is so totally not in charge, it's Reaganesque. Apparently he listens to Rush Limbaugh in his spare time, and, like most of Rush's listeners, believes every word.
You think Bush is in hot water ... Blair ordered rewrite Cook keeps WMD row on the boil WMD or not, Blair had already made up his mind
I guess this ultimately gets at the issue of what the mobile labs were there to do? Truth - No bio weapons were found in them Truth - No complete process in them So we have two mobile biology labs. Does anyone dispute that these were going to be used or were actually used for WMD research? I think that is a given. So the question to me is, did Sadaam disclose these two labs in his report to the inspectors. I didn't read the report, but I imagine the answer is a resounding no. I think it was clear that he should of disclosed these two labs as at a minimum they are similar to "dual-use" chemical plants etc. Truth - The war was sold to us because of the fear that WMD of Iraq would get in terrorists hands. Saddam said, don't have WMD, not building WMD. Personally, I would rather they find a giant hole in the ground with all the WMD. Obviously that didn't happen. So ultimately are these two labs enough to justify the war on Iraq? Well I was never a big fan of this war. But these labs kind of have one real good purpose (avoiding inspectors). So in my mind, this is enough WMD for Bush to justify the war using his rationale. Personally, I never bought into the WMD in Iraq = sell to terrorists = attack in the U.S. rationale as a reason to go to war. But Bush did and sold it to the US. Sure he really thought they already had some, but if you buy the above rationale, like Bush does, then these labs are more than enough vindication of Iraqi non-compliance with disarmament of WMD programs.
So, what you're saying is that the existence of two mobile labs that may or may not have been in active use for the production of WMD's (that we cannnot find) equate - in and of themselves - to a substantiation of Bush's risible contention that Saddam Hussein's Iraq posed an immediate, grave danger to us, here in the west? Just to big trucks, basically. That = "he coulda done us good, Bush was right!". Tell me ... is this the prevailing level of acquiescence to the Bush Adminstration's "logic" in America?
Sadly, it actually far exceeds the acquiescence level to Bush Administration logic of a pretty good-sized chunk of Americans.
Now CNN is reporting about a military intelligence report that implies that the administration didn't have solid evidence about WMD's. CNN is calling it an "unclassified summary" of a Pentagon report from september 2002 that says: "although we lack any direct information, Iraq probably possesses CW [chemical weapons] agent in chemical munitions, possibly including artillery rockets, artillery shells, aerial bombs and ballistic missile warheads". It makes me nervous to read the words "lack direct information" and also "probably" and "possibly". Of course the Pentagon and the White House jumped all over CNN's report. http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/06/06/sprj.irq.wmd/index.html
Maybe not. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/07/international/worldspecial/07TRAI.html American and British intelligence analysts with direct access to the evidence are disputing claims that the mysterious trailers found in Iraq were for making deadly germs. In interviews over the last week, they said the mobile units were more likely intended for other purposes and charged that the evaluation process had been damaged by a rush to judgment. "Everyone has wanted to find the 'smoking gun' so much that they may have wanted to have reached this conclusion," said one intelligence expert who has seen the trailers and, like some others, spoke on condition that he not be identified. He added, "I am very upset with the process."
No. I am saying, I never thought Iraq was a threat or the possession of WMD or the ability to build WMD = an immediate threat to the US. But Bush clearly did. Assuming these are mobile biology labs, in my mind this is more than ample evidence for Bush to support HIS immeninent threat argument. The problem that all Democrats have on this war is that VERY VERY FEW of them voted against the authorization of force. THEY all thought it was enough of a threat to authorize force. If they try to 180 on this one, it will look very very very bad. Even France was saying before the war that yeah, we think he probably has them, let's inspect more though.
Desm would actually get some credit if they voted fro the war, but then turned on Bush and make the very serious accusation that "I was lied to by the administration". If they had the cajones to call it like that, they'd gain major credibility. They could appear hardline cuz they were for military action - but also point out the fact that we wasted billions of dollars and many young serviceperson's lives for a bogus reason.
I would laugh so hard that various body parts would fall off, if only Trent Lott would be a turn-coat and demand Bush's resignation for lying to and defrauding the USA. I mean, Bush just watched him get ousted by public opinion with not a wisp of support from the White House. Pay back time?
So what you're saying is that Bush is an idiot? As in "two 'mobile labs' (turns out they could have been something else at worst or totally useless in their actual purpose at best)! Hotdamn! Let's roll, that guy gives me the bejeebies and I ain't a-waiting for him to draw furst!". Well, there's some merit in that view. Although the implications for his leadership of the free world are pretty disturbing. Sorry, but two big lorries are emphatically NOT 'ample evidence' of an imminent threat argument. Seriously, that's ridiculous. Well, for a one, that is not relevant to me, I am not a Democrat. Nor did I ever support the war. However, a goodly number of our parliamentary Labour party did and a sizeable number of them are now doing exactly what their conscience demands of them - calling Tony Blair a liar. Which is what he is. They also treated the notion that anything he had was an immediate threat with the disdain such a risible notion deserves. But anyway, who cares about the French, I thought?
I may not be up to speed with the current situation, but isn't it the case that no WMD's have been found yet ?. Add to that the controversy over the intelligence about these and you get what looks like a big muddle that could be embarrassing for both the UK and the USA. This could have been avoided if Dubya said 'Look guys, Saddam is a sh_t who needs to be gotten rid of. He may be a threat with WMDs in the future, but I think he should go now'. Then he would have declared a 'war on nasty dictator types' which would have been slightly more popular, and even the French may join in. But of course that would have meant getting involved in countries like Zimbabwe and Burma, neither of which are sexy or loaded with oil.
That is a given. Washington has tossed around so many types of reasons for war on Baghdad that it could make the rest of the world dizzy. There were Iraqi scientists. WMD, ties to Bin Laden, etc etc etc. The polling of Americans finally had the administration settle on liberating Iraq. Any other reason for attacking would probably not stand up to public scrutiny. Many of the same questions asked pre-invasion are being asked again. Why did we do this? Winning the war does not justify the lies that were told to get us there.