Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I concede that Bush did not care about the details about whether Iraq was trying to acquire yellowcake from Niger -- actually, a damning point -- but he certainly is responsible for the fact that the people who wrote the State of the Union speech were more interested in saying whatever they could to scare people than they were in making sure they had things right.
|
Sorry, I have to go now.
Kidding, kidding, . . .
First - "a damning point"? Damning to which viewpoint? My impression from what I was able to see was that Wilson essentially found that Iraq WAS trying to buy yellowcake from Niger. Or, goats. I guess it could have been goats.
And, British intelligence still stands by the info it gave to Bush, to this day, about that subject.
And, yeah, I'm sure you can find individuals who told Bush "no WMD's". I can find people who believe in global warming, and others who don't. Franks fell into one camp on the WMD subject, and was pretty consistent all throughout the inspection era, and the war-planning era. But there were quite a few others who thought otherwise. Bush had to weigh the differing viewpoints that were presented to him, and choose. The only dangers of a wrong decision were nuclear (sorry - nucular) detonation here, or stopping the new Holocaust with a predictable small loss on our side. (Yes, I'm actually saying that 900+ American military deaths is a small loss. Resist the urge to start calling me a murderer, or whatever. To take over a hostile country with 900 deaths so far is quite small. To take out a murderer responsible for - what did National Geographic estimate - seven million dead Kurds alone? with only 900 casualties is, on balance, a good trade for humanity.) I think he chose the safer option, for all concerned. Well, except for Saddam. I bet he's still pissed.
Threaded Mode