Hi Hawkmoon; Re: "You continue to harp about missing WMDs, claiming that Bush "lied" about them, when EVERY FRIGGIN' INTELLIGENCE SERVICE PROVIDING EVIDENCE TO THE UN ASSERTED THAT THEY PROBABLY EXISTED. EVERY ONE OF THEM pal. Every one."
Cool rant! But you're, at the very least, avoiding the issue. The problem is not that Bush said that "Iraq probably has WMDs", the problem is that Bush said that "Iraq has WMDs". There's a hell of a lot of difference between those statements.
Re: "Otherwise, there would have been NO CAUSE to justify a 15-0 UNANIMOUS vote to declare Iraq in material breach via UNSC 1441."
The votes were unanimous due to (a) a lot of US pressure, and (b) a promise by the President of the United States, that he had secret evidence that proved that Iraq had WMDs. So the vote is not evidence that everyone thought that Iraq had WMDs, it's evidence that Bush's lies were effective.
Hey, if Bush hadn't been able to start a war based on flimsy evidence that he sold as solid, we wouldn't be having this argument. Instead, you'd still be sitting there smug as a bug in a UN office rug, completely certain that Iraq still has WMDs. (And that the locals will welcome us, our Allies will come around, the neighboring nations will send troops and police, that the UN will stick it out, and, most recently, that the UN will come in and save our bacon.)
And the President would probably have reelect numbers that were considerably more positive.
-- Carl |
