<what do you think they are finding in those new sites >
I have no idea, since no evidence has been presented. Just promises, to add to the pile of past promises. This is where the disconnect happens. You present that article, and then expect the Peace crowd to take this guy's words at face value. You want us to assume honesty and straight talk, from people with a track record (as we see it) of dishonesty and broken promises.
This guy is a salesman. Salesman don't ever tell the press they don't expect to meet their sales targets. That's a poor career move.
Here is what we will believe:
1. not statements. I've read about the "torture-lite" that happens to people in U.S. custody, and posted it in great detail. They tie people up, naked, hooded, in a standing position, for days. Interrogate them without rest, endlessly, in shifts, for days at a time. Sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation, it's a refined art. Do that long enough, and eventually you can get anyone to say anything. And sometimes the torture isn't so "lite", as with those prisoners who were beaten to death at Bagram.
2. not documents. Since the Administration has a track record of presenting "crude forgeries" as truth, I will assume any documents they come up with, could be (more professionally-done) forgeries.
3. not evidence of "programs of WMD". If it were just programs, and the Iraqis didn't have any actual WMD, then there was time to let UN inspections work, and there was no threat requiring war now.
4. not evidence Iraq had WMD in 1995 or 1988, or any other year except 2002 and 2003. No one disputes they had chemical weapons many years ago. That was not the claim, before the war. The claim was WMD now, today.
5. Not any evidence that isn't inspected and verified by neutral parties, like the UN, or maybe the Canadians or Mexicans or Japanese. The US and UK governments have every incentive to fake evidence. I wouldn't put it past them, to plant some anthrax, chemical weapons, maybe even a nuke or two, out in the desert, and then "discover" it.
6. So, this is what I will accept: WMD (the real thing, the actual functioning hardware), inspected and verified by the UN or other neutral honest parties, in existence in 2002 or 2003. Anything else will be met with disbelief. |
