I do agree that Bush had better come up with something soon, or else he’ll start loosing credibility with his supporters. Although having said that, I feel that, even if it turns out that there weren’t any weapons of mass distruction, I still think we did a good thing. I mean, I for one could not, for example, go to Iraq, look the children who were being held prisoner in they eyes http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,6119,2-10-1460_1344832,00.html
and tell them that we made a mistake, and that they should still be in prison.
Don’t worry, hijacks happen in threads all the time. And anyway, I have no problem with people who voted for #3 explaining why they think that bush lied.
We would have to be either psychic or have a signed confession to be convinced of 3. My instinct coupled with circumstantial evidence tends toward 3. But clearly Fearless Misleader indulged his prejudices by lending credence to one set of unverifiable claims, while dismissing another. If he did not know, he certainly had every opportunity to know.
the post from Gr8Kat was actually from me. I was using AOL directly to post, but that last one I brought up Netscape Navigator, and her name was cookied in that one. So I had to log out and re-log in as me.
Bush was mistaken because he is incapable of incorporating facts that threaten his worldview. He had access to truth, or at last a closer approximation of truth, but he rejected it in favor of his faith in the ‘evilness’ of Saddam.
Then he presented that faith to us as if it were facts.
It’s common for people to use the word lie only for statements known by the speaker to be false. But what do you call statements that the speaker would have known were false if they were capable of rational though?
I think that lie fits better than mistaken, but neither word is truely accurate.
That I think #1 the most likely explanation, but that I think there is a possibility that #2 is true. Actually think the #4 option is very plausible, also.
Prior to the war there was little debate among anyone that SH had said WMD’s; the only question was how many, what kind, and how developed they were. And yet I doubt we will see any “Chirac lied!” threads.
Moreover, the UN and everyone else also was entirely convinced that he had such weapons and programs during the 1990s; there was documented evidence of such. As Hitchens points out, to believe that Saddam had no weapons or programs is to believe that he stonewalled the U.N. inspectors in 1998 in order to further his dream of unilaterally disarming Iraq. Possible, I suppose, but unlikely.
Three.
And now they’re lying about the lie: the cover-up has begun. More than likely he’s learned enough from Clinton/Nixon to make the cover-up good enough to keep him out of trouble.
The lessons that should be learned can’t be repeated enough:
1 - Commander-in-chief was never meant to allow the Prez sole discretion over the use of the military. As long as he de facto has this, we are in danger of a repeat of this dangerous bufoonery.
2 - The power to legally declare war resides with the Congress, and only if that power is explicitly used should a war like Iraq be fought.
3 - The military needs to be reduced/reconfigured for defense only, (you know, so the next time a fighter jet might actually be on time to shoot down an enemy plane when a surprise attack occurs) and troops stationed abroad need to be brought home as circumstances permit.
Occams razor is not intended to provide proof, it is a useful tool for sorting out this kind of multi-layered argument.
Take the most logical answer, (Bush and his buddies can make a load of cash by invading Iraq and taking control of the oil) check all of the evidence to the contrary, (I don’t see a whole lot) draw conclusion.
It is not scientific, but is does bolster my already slanted view.
I get it, I get it.