In any case, I see you have not answered anything else I have said. That is disappointing. I thought we could have an interesting conversation, but it now seems that your interest was only in seeing whether you could get me to think that one president's words were those of the other.
Disappointing? It would seem that you're more than willing to pull up the past when it's convenient to your argument, but when someone else SPECIFICALLY LINKS the intelligence that Bush relied up (as provided by US/UK and other intelligence analysts) turns out to be little different than what the previous President relied upon to justify HIS military actions against Iraq, somehow you can't figure out "the point"..
The point is, my dear Zonder, that for approx 5 years (1998-2003), there were NO UN INSPECTIONS in Iraq.
Thus, the "recent invasion" relied upon the last available intelligence reports, the same ones that Clinton and the rest of the world apparently relied upon...
And at the heart of those reports was the fact that 6,000 WMD warheads, claimed to have been expended against Iran during that war, were not properly accounted for. AND THEY STILL HAVE NOT BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR (although we now possess the documents, the confiscation of which by the Iraqis was the reason the UNSCOM inspections terminated).
There are 6,000 warheads out there that need to be accounted for by more than some whimsical desire on your part to declare they didn't exist, or it was merely some typographical error by the Iraqis.
Do you know where they are?
Hawk |
