No WMD's? Strike 1. No Saddam/Qaeda connection? Strike 2

Sez the Gray Lady today (snicker if you must):

Many of us thought that was an exaggeration or near-total fabrication too at the time Powell asserted it as true to the UN, but nothing? What incentive would these AQ guys have to make this claim?
“Do not let facts get in the way of Truth!” - Don Quixote

Uh… maybe they are simply telling the truth. Considering that the US has ways of making you talk, I doubtful that the statement could be false. Keep in mind that we do condemn torture too, but interrogation is fine. :wink:

I said somewhere that this war was stupid and crazy, but I should have said that it was wicked. Bush and company pursued this war from more and more indications now for the oil and the hegemony in the Middle East.
Susma Rio Sep

Can we list “Haliburton gets non-bidding open-ended Iraqi reconstruction contract” as strike 3? Sounds like a major conflict of interest there, don’cha know…

Well, I was just trying to list the most consequential proven Bush/Cheney/Powell lies about the most important thing a President can do, not acts of more venal corruption, but whatever floats your boat.

It’s the venal corruption that explains the lies, though.

It also explains the continued willingness of some folks to deny the astounding dishonesty of Bush’s administration. George W. Bush sent American soldiers to die so he and his friends could make money. Not an easy thing to even consider.

I just got this off of AP:

Does Bush think people won’t notice if he starts saying “weapons Program” instead of WMD? Christ on a pogo stick, just about every country in the world has a weapons program. What’s so damning about that.

Even though disgusted at the governmental leadership, and there is conflict of interest, to be fair Halliburton is one of a handful C&E firms with middle east experience. They are qualified to do the work. Whether said the award of that work was done in a clear and transparent manner is another question.

I think Strike 3 is going to occur once some hearings start on the Hill. Somewhere along the line, the Administration is going to try very hard to keep some of the folks from the intelligence community from testifying truthfully about what went on before the invasion. Bingo! Perjury, obstruction of justice, etc.

Yes, yes he does. And, you know what, sadly he is probably right. Expect december to begin advancing this argument (weapons programs=act. NBCs) in about 2 weeks when the pundits pick it up.

You’re about twelve hours too late with that prediction.

Oh bother, how can one keep up?

Talking to Bush apologists is like shouting into a bucket. Why is anyone debating the minutae of the war when the current administration’s advisers clearly telegraphed their cynical intentions three bloody years ago? To whit:

Rebuilding America’s Defenses, Project for the New American Century, September 2000.

I took note of Bush’s use last week of the phrase “weapons of mass murder” rather than weapons of mass destruction. Clearly he is trying to spin his way out of the mess. Slick Georgie.

>George W. Bush sent American soldiers to die so he and his friends could make money.



To be honest, even I wouldn’t suggest that Halliburton contracts were the primary reason for the war (see my quote above). Just a nice juicy side-benefit for the toadies and cronies.

I also noted the slip towards “program” spin. Motive? They are sending a new team of searchers in, the old team wasn’t up to the job. Notice they are going to emphasize searching for documentation.

Documents are a hell of a lot easier to fabricate than a warehouse full of VX and Scuds.

Yes and no. From a standpoint of intelligence failure and/or executive deception, I will be unsatisfied unless actual WMDs are located. We were told there were WMDs. If there were no WMDs, then we were misinformed, and I want to know why. If Bush was deliberately lying, then he deserves some sort of punishment. If the intelligence community screwed up, we need to improve our intelligence agencies.

As a casus belli, a WMD program would suffice. From a legal POV, a program would violate Iraq’s agreements, UN resolutions, etc. From a realpolitik POV, a program means a threat of future use of WMDs. It might have beem better to wait until Iraq’s program actually produced stocks of WMDs. However, the coalition didn’t have the ability to start war on demand. It took a lot of politicial, diplomatic, and military, preparation. Ending the threat from an Iraqi WMD program is a lot more important than the precise timing.

Finally, if we do find WMDs (or find that there were WMDs, which were moved or stolen or destroyed), then Bush’s current critics will deserve punishment. They will likely receive from the voters in 2004.

So long as you don’t get Brit spooks to fake them up for you with the same skill as they applied to the Niger uranium ones. And no cite, just an educated guess giving their provenance and the fact Blair is alone in not disowning them.

I won’t believe any find of any nature until it has been fully and independently verified.

December, a program? a program? Yalta probably has a weapons program. My three year old has a weapons program if you smell her britches on occaision. The war was sold on massive amounts of WMD that were ready to go on a moments notice and threaten the US if not the entire world.

Granted Iraq is the size of Cali, but if you can find cannibis growers in the trinity alps, the greatest military machine in the world ought to be able to find at least a few hundred pounds of the tons of WMD that were ready to go any second.