Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
(a) - 5 years or so must go by. The hunt for WMDs is still ongoing and the fact that small traces have been found leads me to believe greater quantites were or are still there.
|
This makes no sense at all to me. If you've been following this story at all, you know that there were no real WMD, and that Ahmed Chalabi told us what we wanted to hear. What could we possibly find even now that would justify having gone to war to protect ourselves from Iraqi WMD? Give it up.
Quote:
|
(b) - the Administration disputes this, and the few facts that have come out are suspicious. Time will tell.
|
No, they really don't dispute it. From that same NYT article:
- The White House said on Wednesday that it did not see the commission's staff reports as a contradiction of past statements by Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney and that the administration had always been careful not to suggest that it had proof of a tie between Mr. Hussein and Sept. 11.
In other words, they're talking about it in a way that is designed to convey the impression to the general public that there's still something there, while covering their ass from media who know better. They want it both ways.
Quote:
|
(c) - Sudan would be very high on my list, though I don't think we have the capabilities right now.
|
The problem with the post hoc rationalizations for going to war with Iraq that you see from a lot of people is that they're not willing to apply the same standards to where we go from here -- it's only political CYA.
