There, I hope that clarified my position on the issue of this war

There, I hope that clarified my position on the issue of this war

I would be more than happy to address specific issues, as I have in the past, but ultimately, I reject those claims that in order to be against the war, I somehow have to either love Saddam Hussein, or believe that the country is free of any legal or moral guilt related to its international obligations.

Therefore, allow me to make the following claims, since for some reason I am obligated to make them: Saddam Hussein was a dictatorial tyrant whom the Iraqi people and indeed the world, are far better off without. He violated the UN agreements that he made in the wake of the Gulf War and there is very little that he would not do if he believed it furthered his interest.

Allow me to address some of those specifics that you bring up in your post: 1) “Speaking of not analyzing WMD fairly, let’s consider the sarin shell.”

Let’s. What does that mean, finding the Sarin? That everything Bush said about the massive stockpiles that can threaten the United States was right? It means nothing to me, since I never believed that Iraq was totally free of WMD and even I was amazed at our inability to find practically anything before the Sarin shell. All the Sarin shell proves to me is that Iraq had some chemical weapons, in violation of the UN agreement. As I have said above, I did not begin disputing the WMD claims until after the war, when they turned out to be (thus far) false.

This sentence is simply petty and ignorant. The UN never said that such weapons did not exist, merely that there was insufficient evidence for them, similar to how you maintain that it is likely Iraq was connected to 9/11 even though Bush said that there is no evidence of it.

I found this on line, and I am not sure if it is what you are referring to: If so, it sounds like any other interview the leader of an unfriendly state would say to an American Ambassador. I am not sure what the point you were trying to make in bringing it up, other than to prove (as if it needed proving) that Saddam was capable of using common hostile rhetoric against a perceived threat.

I find this piece of information useless

4) “And there is no mention of Putin’s own intel, delivered to Bush, that Hussein was going to employ terrorists to attack the US.”

We do not know what the intelligence was, how credible it was, what the rationale for giving it to us was, or why Russia still opposed our war even with that knowledge. All I know is that the administration never cited it as evidence for why Iraq is a danger to us. Beyond that, if you have any other information on the subject, I look forward to reading it.

Forgive me; I simply assumed that you were familiar with what I have been talking about. Allow me to inform you what Bush did say, and I quote: «We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11»

Richard Henry Morgan – 6/

I can’t find that purported statement by hop over to this site Bush anywhere. I do remember (because I actually saw him make the statement on TV) him saying that his administration had never claimed a link between Iraq and 9/11. That seems responsible, to me. The evidence is not dispositive. That is distinct from there being no evidence at all. Tenet said the CIA could neither confirm, nor disconfirm the Czech report of an meeting in Prague. That too is distinct from saying there is no evidence of a meeting — the Czech report is evidence, it just hasn’t been confirmed by other evidence, nor disconfirmed by other evidence. Cheney makes clear, in his statements, that there is the Czech report, but that it isn’t possible to know on that basis alone. That too strikes me as responsible. And that too is distinct from no evidence at all, as the Czech report is evidence.

Leave Comment