Although I have been banned from the "Politics for Pros" thread, I continue to be PM'd about my views there. The following is my latest reply to one of these and refers to a piece in the current "Economist," a conservative journal that supported intervention in Iraq:
It's on page 36 of the current (November 19-25) issue. I have the print edition , as do most libraries, or you can glance at it on a newsstand.
I would grateful if you would not revise what I say to fit your prejudices. What I said was this:
"I think everyone, including George Bush, now agrees that Iraq was not in the business of producing nuclear weapons, long-range missiles, chemical weapons in large quantity, or biological weapons. None have been found. Also, there was no connection between the Iraqi government and Al Quaida at that time."
I have not joined those who claim that Bush knew otherwise. I do say that he now knows otherwise, as does "The Economist":
"Mr. Bush may not have consciously lied, but, egged on by Mr. Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, he made dreadful miscalculations. The WMD never materialised."
and:
"The Senate Intelligence Committee report suggest that the White House made repeated, if unsuccessful, attempts to persuade the CIA to find links between Saddam and al-Quaeda." |
