[geeks] Religion and the Presidency

[hike]

On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 7:52 AM, Phil Stracchino <alaric at metrocast.net>
wrote:

> Lionel Peterson wrote:
>
>> He said there were WMDs in Iraq because he believed it to be true, as did
>> almost every elected official that saw the top secret breifings.
>>
>
> Well, yeah, but that's because that's what they wanted the briefings to
> show.  Every time someone tried to present some evidence that the claims of
> WMDs in Iraq were false, the entire administration stuck their fingers in
> their ears and shouted "LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"
>
>  That there weren't WMDs doesn't make his decision a mistake or wrong - it
>> makes the info he and others in gov't got wrong... There is a difference.
>>
>
> It does if the whole WMD story was a deliberate fabrication, which is what
> all the available evidence suggests.  They weren't looking for a *reason* to
> invade Iraq; they were looking for an *excuse*.
>
>
> --
>  Phil Stracchino, CDK#2     DoD#299792458     ICBM: 43.5607, -71.355
>  alaric at caerllewys.net   alaric at metrocast.net   phil at co.ordinate.org
>         Renaissance Man, Unix ronin, Perl hacker, Free Stater
>                 It's not the years, it's the mileage.
> _______________________________________________
> GEEKS:  http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/geeks
>


There have been several news reports lately that Saddam continued to promote
the idea that Iraq had WMD to keep Iran at bay.  These reports were part of
the evidence that Bush, et al, considered.

When your enemy says he has <insert_your_most_terrifying_weapon_her>, you
have to take this into consideration when planning your next move.

Saddam overplayed his hand and brought about his own overthrow and death.
This was Saddam's fault.  It was not the fault of the USA government that he
was believed.  Saddam could have informed the USA government what the real
story was but he did not.

Bush considered this as evidence in making his decision.

One must also recognize that the US News Media nor Democrat politicians
define the term "WMD".  The UN is the official holder of the term from my
understanding.  Both US groups have succeeded in changing the definition of
the USA commoners in an effort to bash Bush.

Saddam continued to keep weapons that were included in the UN's definition
of WMD.  He used them in Desert Storm II.  The Scud missile that was fired
into Kuwait (and landed beside a strip shopping center according to the
released photo) was a WMD.  Don't laugh--that is, unless you want to laugh
at the UN, et al.  Rocket shells were found in Iraq that were primarily for
the dispersal of toxic material against an enemy.  It was illegal under that
agreement for Iraq to have the capability to deliver toxic materials and
such weaponry were deemed WMD.

In a whole of Democrats, accountants, attorneys, and bureaucrats, one must
consider the actual definition of WMD  before making the statements that the
USA media and Democrats make.  It appears to me to be a convenient
forgetting since I learned about this through USA news media reports  after
Desert Storm I.

HTH
Have fun!