Well, if you think it's right to invade and colonise any country with unpleasant dictators and nukes... why not China, Russia - or indeed Israel and Pakistan, after all the last two have both broken UN resolutions. And we *know* they've both got WMD, missiles, etc... what's the difference? If it's right, it's right...
Seriously, there was nothing new in the dossier, as far as I could read. Saddam's way off getting anything dangerous, still less making it into a usable form.
Plus he's not bothered with terrorism before to any great extent - less than most anyone else in the ME, anyhow (not saying much).
Plus he's surely rational enough not to even think about using a WMD when he knows the whole country would receive immediate nuclear disinfection - unless he's facing death anyhow...
Basically if that's the best that intel could come up with, huh. But given these guys missed the collapse of the Soviet Union when they were actually looking for it, not to mention the original invasion of Kuwait, I don't expect much. If they are good, then there's nothing to find: if not, we shouldn't rely on them.
And whatever, some dossier shouldn't be used as a specious excuse.
Cheney, Rumsfeld & Wolfowitz have unfinished business and no other ideas. Bush hasn't a clue on the economy and thinks a quick victory (even in a completely irrelevant, unnecessary and future-imperilling war) will boost GOP votes. Plus his oil buddies like the idea of all those reserves.
What of the 'War on terrorism' - remember that? "they can't hide, they won't escape"... LOL. Wrong. Fixed Afghanistan? - I don't think so. Opium production up 1400%, warlords rule and the Kabul puppet is seen as a sick joke. So, why this new war?
That this path is the epitome of the most blatant imperialism, a la Nazi - invade with blitzkrieg, massacring the population, steal the minerals and f*ck the consequences - doesn't seem to occur to them.
TB seems to be fairly busy impregnating Cherie, BTW... she miscarried (at ?47) earlier this year after an unexpected baby last year. I think he's too pious to put it about much.
Honorable? personally yes, but he turns a lot of blind eyes in exchange for co-operation from some very sleazy business types.
Competent? undoubtedly a very skilled politician, but not a visionary. A manager, not a leader. Considerable personal charm, apparently.
Strong? no - vacillates far too much. With the biggest majority in a generation he's accomplished nothing of note, and he's far too influenced by newspaper opinions, especially if they're critical. |
