Another Guess Who Said This
I have three quotes from three different people. Here's a hint. They are all womyn.
Quote #1 (in 1998):
"Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face. "
Quote #2 (in 1998):
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons-of-mass-destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Quote #2 (in 2002):
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical- and biological-weapons stock, his missile-delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members."
posted by Underground Logician @ 10:26 AM
3 comments
3 Comments:
What? No takers? Okay.
Quote #1: Madeline Albreight
Quote #2: Nancy Pelosi
Quote #3: Hillary Clinton
There you have it, friends. A friendly UL reminder of what liberals want you to forget.
intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical- and biological-weapons stock, his missile-delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members."
But you fail to understand that none of these people invaded Iraq. It was George Bush who used this discredited intelligence to take this country to war.
Not. Hilary, not Madeline, not Nancy.
Your quotes prove nothing. Only that those people were getting the same intelligence that the Bush administration used to go to war.
This is Bush's war.
The intel is discredited only if Saddam never had the WMD's in the first place. It doesn't follow that if none are found, he never had them. Not finding them is not proof that he never had them. He used them! So, at one point he had them to use. Our not finding them leaves us with several options:
1. Saddam had hidden them in Iraq.
2. Saddam had shipped them to another country who is hiding them.
3. He secretly destroyed them but didn't care to tell the world community nor did he keep records of destroying them and didn't tell inspectors that he destroyed them(really, really stupid; great way to get invaded).
4. He never had them but made us think he had them (again, really, really stupid; dittos above).
5. Or a biggie, they were found but there's a great conspiracy in the military to keep the WMD stockpiles secret and say they didn't find any in order to discredit Bush.
6. Another biggie, they were found but we lost them.
7. Still another biggie, they were found but we forgot to tell the world we found them.
8. Or the granddaddy of them all, CIA mislead the past three administrations, all of Europe, with the U.N. into thinking Saddam had them so as to foment a war to destroy Saddam for political, economic or personal gains.
My point is that Bush didn't lie. The fact that Bush acted on the intel and discovering to our surprise that they couldn't find the WMD's should not be reason to say he led us into a war falsely. To make such a conclusion is a fallacy of false causes, which has been droned into our brains by the media all along, Isabella. And as you well know, fallacies do not prove something true.
As to where oh where are the WMD's? I still want to know, don't you? I will not be so naive as to say they don't exist. I'm assuming they do exist and probably in Syria. I would hate to have them end up in the wrong hands.
It's because of this possibility that I get so agitated, as you suffered from me (sorry), when Bush is categorically mocked and slandered fallaciously.
I think there are good reasons to be irked with Bush. This is not one of them.
Post a Comment
<< Home