I figured as much. Now the important question: Will this matter come election season, or will Americans be too busy staring slack-jawed at the latest “scandal” to notice?
You have Dowdified* your quote, elf6c. Your OP quoted USA Today:
However, the actual quote, with the omitted part added back in red was
So, your *USA Today *cite actually says that the Administration was sincere in their beliefs, albeit possibly mistaken
*For an explanation of Dowdification, go here and use the left arrow see the 6/4/2003 cartoon.
So, with december’s correction added, we are left with “they don’t have any, but could have them if they wanted to.” Or, alternatively, they were going to have them very soon.
In the first place, there is hardly a country in the world above goat and mud level that cannot produce such weapons if they choose. If Upper Volta wants nerve gas, they can have it. Hence, the capacity to produce such weapons is meaningless.
The claim of immediate threat can only be made if we presume that as soon as Saddam bin Laden had his bad mojo, he would use it on us or someone dear to us instantly. And yet we remain firmly convinced that he already had such. So why hadn’t he used them already, if he was so determined to commit hara-kiri by way of infuriating a thermo-nuclear power?
That said, I also voice my displeasure at such quote trimming. We don’t need it, we’ve got the facts. Let *them *bullshit.
If they weren’t there, then the Bush administration used the worst reasoning to start a war.
If they were there, then just like thar nuclear facility, the hidden WMDFs are vulnerable to being acquired by the terrorists, making the invasion one of the worst follies in military history.
It would be kinda nice if before they did stuff like invading countries, that they had proof. But I guess I’m funny that way; I even believe they need to have proof when a single person is merely on trial (even if the jury’s gut feel is that the person is guilty), let alone invading a country with the inevitable deaths of innocents.
What’s really funny is Bush is still going on about how there are WMD’s in Iraq and how we will find them eventually given enougth time. If there were WMD’s we would’ve found something by now. Just a couple of days ago (in an article I read) Bush provided some so-called evidence that there were two trailers used to construct illegal bioligical and chemical weapons.
So, in other words, after a war and months of inspections and searches for WMD’s the only evidence we have is two truck trailers that might have been used to create biological and chemical weapons? Yeah, that’s real solid proof there Bush. :rolleyes: It’s pretty obvious that Bush is just grasping at straws at this point.
Producing chemical weapons is about as remarkable an ability as producing shampoo. The following countries could all start producing chemical weapons tomorrow: Canada, Belgium, South Korea, Japan, Brazil, Uruguay, Costa Rica, Ireland, Indonesia, Romania…, you can add 150 more or so. Pretending that “The ability to produce WMDs” is in any way the justification that was used to start this war is a lie. The USA claimed Iraq HAD THEM ALREADY - thousands of them, ready to use almost immediately.
At the very least, Congress should call Rumsfeld to task for misleading the public (and the President?) about intelligence reports lacking hard evidence. And Congress itself has some ‘splainin’ to do about why they abdicated their power on such flimsy evidence.
Yeah, but december’s got the hots for Dowd, doncha know.
He’ll keep repeating that lie about her distorting quotes until he quits breathing, regardless of how trivial the words omitted from some quote by someone somewhere are.
BTW, even goats pass gas. Don’t know if the stuff stinks, though.
Here is more evidence that the intelligence and reasons the U.S. used to justify this war is BS. The list of evidence just keeps getting longer and longer.
“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…”
If you combine this with the piece And that’s the bottom line quoted above where the key bit of evidence is that the two trailers were equipped with fermenters, and add in the fact that my local brew pub is out of beer and has been for the past week, it gets a little bit frightening to be me.
Beer involves fermentation, and brew pubs make their own beer, and Canada could start producing chemical weapons, and my local isn’t making beer right now. It seems obvious, given the quality of intelligence analysis favoured by Bush and his handlers, that my neighbourhood is an iminent threat to the U.S.
Could somebody please inform the administration that the oil reserves hereabouts are much less useful than those to be found in that Alaskan wildlife refuge? Thanks.