judd@wadsworth.org wrote:
> Allowing the inspectors to continue, as most of the world wanted to
> do. Possibly augmenting them with CIA or FBI agents (IRAQ said that
> they would allow this).
Tell me, how many chances does a dictator and thug like Saddam get before
"and this time, we mean it!" really means just that? Wasn't he going on two
dozen UN resolutions all referencing back to the first which authorized
military use spanning about 16 years? Sorry, his "one more chance" was used
up a looooong time ago.
> Accepting Hussein's offer to leave the country with his two sons
> (delivered through back channels to Richard Perle in late 2002).
Er, he was given that chance and refused.
> And let's not forget that the Bush administration was cherry
> picking data, distorting, and outright lying to portray Iraq as a threat
> to the US.
And remember that many Congressional Democrats were a part of that Bush
Administration. They saw the exact same reports. The /exact/ /same/
/reports/. As far as I have seen there is not one iota of evidence that
President Bush somehow slipped different reports onto Congressional desks
during that time. And "Cherry Picking"? Please. Everyone "Cherry Picks"
their information, even we on this list do that based on the information we
have and from whom it is coming. At a national level when national defense is
on the line one tends to be a tad more paranoid than the average joe asking
his waiter about what's the best cut of meat that night.
> And to be fair, let's not forget that the right does plenty of
> revision, also.
Psh, not as much as the left. I only have to ask why we have had months
of Scooter Libby coverage and maybe, what, a week tops of Sandy Berger? Which
do you think is a tad more relevant, someone who lied to an investigator about
a supposed "leak" of one supposed "undercover" agent. Nevermind the
investigation didn't indite anyone. Nevermind that the undercover agent
wasn't undercover at all so there was no chance of a leak to begin with.
Nevermind that her husband was talking about her weeks before all of the
hullibaloo. It's a complete non-issue.
Contrast that with Sandy Berger who went into the National Archives,
pulled out some top secret documents, /shoved them down his pants and walked
out the door./ They were never recovered. So what exactly was on those
documents? Don't you think that that's a tad more interesting thatn the
non-issue over what Scooter Libby did or didn't know? I mean obviously SB
knew something and is obviously hiding it!
--
Steve C. Lamb | But who decides what they dream?
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | And dream I do...
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature