Hi Hawkmoon; Re: "Oh great. Big deal. Like a stopped clock, he's right twice a day. And all he has to do to gain YOUR trust is to make a complete reversal of his assertions ..."
If Ritter were "like a stopped clock" he wouldn't have changed his analysis. You're the one that's the stopped clock.
Re: "... his assertions that Iraq was definitely non-compliant ..."
It's well known that, at one time, Iraq was "definitely non-compliant". So it's hardly surprising that Ritter would, at one time, accuse them of this. But since Ritter is not a "stopped clock", he was capable of changing his view, in that Iraq, in late 2002, invited inspectors back into the country, filled out the paperwork, and (under threat of invasion) brought themselves into compliance.
Re: "... suddenly claim that Iraq NOW has no WMDs based upon NO SUBSEQUENT INSPECTIONS or EVIDENCE ..."
You have changed the subject. The first part of your argument was about whether or not Iraq was in "compliance". Now, you're switching to the question of whether or not Iraq had WMDs. You fail to recognize that it was entirely possible for Iraq to have no WMDs, but to be out of compliance with the requirements that they demonstrate what happened to their WMD programs. This is what would happen if Iraq destroyed their WMDs without keeping enough records, and this appears to be what happened.
Ritter never said that Iraq had WMDs. What he said was that they were out of compliance. Later, he did not say that they did not have WMDs. What he said was that no one had any evidence that they did have WMDs. Here's a quote from the guy from back in 2002:
Q. In 1998, you said Saddam had "not nearly disarmed." Now you say he doesn't have weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Why did you change your mind?
A. I have never given Iraq a clean bill of health! Never! Never! I've said that no one has backed up any allegations that Iraq has reconstituted WMD capability with anything that remotely resembles substantive fact. To say that Saddam's doing it is in total disregard to the fact that if he gets caught he's a dead man and he knows it.
This is substantially in agreement with my analysis, which was that Saddam would agree to disarm in order to remove any American justification for invading Iraq. Bush invaded anyway, he started a war based on a lie.
Re: "So you might have some kind of urgent desire to exonerate the UNSC from responsibility for issuing "lies" and false perceptions, focusing all the responsibility upon Bush, but I am not."
The UN is exonerated to the extent that the absence of Iraqi WMDs as indicated by their inspectors has been proven in the field by an extensive US search. But my point was not about exonerating the UN. My point is that the US cannot be supported by lies. What the UN did or didn't do is irrelevant. Like the sinner in the Bible, you point to a (nonexistant) mote in the UN's eye, while ignoring the 2x4 in your own.
Like the kid caught stealing, all you can do is point to others and say that they do it too. Well you're right. Lying is universal in the human species. It's not my point to claim that organizations other than the United States lie or tell the truth, but only to note that to support the United States, we must adhere to the truth. You avoid this.
It surprises me that the only defense to my suggestion that the US cannot be supported by lies is to change the subject to other topics. Do you admit that Bush lied about his knowledge of the definite existence of Iraqi WMDs? If you admit this, I'll ignore your other accusations, they don't matter.
Re: "... focusing all the responsibility upon Bush ..."
Bush is not the only liar who got us into this mess. His whole administration is stuffed with them, as is Blair's. Clinton was a consummate liar and his administration was filled with the same type. Lying is universal human behavior, it cannot be avoided.
And there are times when lying is fairly innocuous. But lying to get us into a losing war is idiocy, which is my real complaint about Bush.
Look back at what you've written. You've given up trying to claim that Bush did not lie. Your complaint is not that I accuse Bush of lying, but instead that I am focusing "all" the responsibility on him, LOL. Okay. How much of the responsibility are you willing to admit Bush is responsible for? And if it wasn't Bush (who trumped up the "non-compliance" of Iraq into the definite existence of massive stockpiles of dangerous WMDs) that is responsible, would you like to name who was?
-- Carl |
