Hi Nadine Carroll; Re: "Carl, even France agreed that Saddam had WMDs ..."
This is a classic statement, in that it includes a perfect example of how you bamboozled yourself. No, France never "agreed that Saddam had WMDs". This is just another exaggeration of such magnitude as to be a lie.
I'm going to guess that the statement by France that led you to this error is that they said that even if Saddam did have WMDs, the inspections regime would keep them under control. From that, you concluded that France said that Saddam had WMDs, a very simple minded error.
As for what France did say, as opposed to what you wished here's an example:
Taking the French at Their Word
...
Rather than increase pressure on Saddam to disarm, French foreign minister Dominique de Villepin focused last Friday on refuting every American claim about the threat posed by Iraq.
...
weeklystandard.com
Re: "Now you use one hole in Bush's arguments - the fact that we did not find piles of WMDs ready to use, just antidotes and protective gear - to try to "prove" all the other arguments wrong by contagion."
There are a hell of a lot more than just one hole in Bush's head. He was wrong about how the Iraqi people would welcome us. He was wrong about whether the Iraqi military would shoot back at us. He was wrong about how world opinion would react to his naked aggression. He was wrong in his belief that the lives of the Iraqi people would be improved by the removal of Saddam (at least so far). He was wrong when he said that the head of Al Qaeda had been chopped off and it was defeated. When he said that major hostilities were over in Iraq he was wrong.
But the other major error in your statement is the suggestion that Iraq's possessing chemical weapons suits implied that they must therefore possess chemical weapons. This is a total amateur error. Every major military force on this planet has chemical weapons suits, whether their country has chemical weapons or not. In Iraq's case, Iran and Syria are well known to possess (legal) chemical weapons, and since these are neighbors of Iraq, it is only natural that Iraq would possess defenses against these weapons.
Re: "It's not going to fly. If you want to make more predictions, you are going to have to find some actual evidence for them if you want to persuade anybody."
It's already flown. That Iraq had no WMDs is already accepted by the vast majority of the world's population. That America's attack was therefore unjustified is almost universally believed. And in the US and UK, the cracks are forming as well.
Your argument that chemical weapons suits imply chemical weapons reminds me of your similar argument that the French admitted to the ownership of chemical weapons. You were just plain wrong, not because the world is a complicated place and you were fooled by overwhelming evidence, but instead because you are a fool and you accepted underwhelming evidence to "prove" what it is that you thought you already knew.
You knew that Iraq had WMDs in your heart, but your heart is black as coal, you have no empathy for others. You knew that Iraq had WMDs in your mind, but your mind is weak and easily fooled, you can't follow through the simplest logic. In many people, these failings where consequences of the attack on the WTC, but in your case your extreme love for Israel blinds you to actions that are disadvantageous to the US (and also Israel).
Well look at Israel now. Your buddy Sharon is surrendering to the Palestinians even as they keep killing Israelis. Do you want me to look up your predictions on when the Palestinians would give up terrorism in the face of Sharon's policy of strength?
The truth is that when Sharon told Bush that Iraq truly did have WMDs he crapped in his mess kit. Bush doesn't like people who lie to him, and Sharon lied. So now Bush isn't so buddy-buddy with Sharon. The Arabs love what Bush is doing to Sharon now. They applaud the President's statements while Sharon's life is threatened in his own country. Some victory for Israel.
-- Carl |
