Given the horrific rapings that whistleblowers have suffered the past 6 years, even at the Supreme Court, it's no big surprise they won't openly come out.
Posts: 228 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
You're right. This topic already has a home. Mea.
IP: Logged |
Can't you just hear Slickery Willery chuckling as he drafted the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy, laughingly naming it in private for what it is: the old politician's formula: "Ask me no questions and I'll tell you no lies"?
A sterling moment in political mummery disguised as public debate. A prime example of appealing to the lowest cognitive dissonance.
"I don't know what he did with all of the WMD's...but I certainly don't buy into the BS Liberal is saying that there were NO WMD's or that there was NO PROGRAM or NO INTENTIONS as he's trying to pass off here."
Who DOES buy this? Very few liberals, if *any* would swallow the BS you wrote abve, much less allow you to place it in their mouths. Especially the "NO INTENTIONS" portion. A few extremist mouth-foamers at Democratic Underground doth not a representative liberal position make any more than a few fawning Coulterites and Savageistas do not portray a representative conservative position. Extremists are extremists. In the circular dynamic of polarised partisan politics, they meet at the far side of the left/right ying/yang circle, upon which meeting they meld not minds but butts.
"What I do know is this: before the war, we simply did not have any real idea what he did or did not have, nor what he was planning to do in the near future. Now we certainly know for sure that Saddam will never again run a WMD program, nor ever use them again."
Before the war, we had UNSCOM on the ground detailing, in excruciatingly precise terms, exactly how and where and when Saddam was allowing or disallowing inspections, what was discovered when inspections were undertaken, and what scientific analysis could best determine that these events -- inspections and denials of inspections -- meant. Time and again, scientific analysis declared that while Saddam was still the same old SOB he'd always been, his murderous and vainglorious desire to be a regional hegemon via WMD had become only the dried-up stains of the wet dreams of former glory days (particularly those days when superpowers like, for example, the USA tacitly approved and covertly encouraged his forays into WMD-dom).
It's not that we simply had no idea what Saddam did or didn't have; it's that we simply refused to believe the very best real-time hard facts, concerning Saddam/WMD, as interpreted through the clear-eyed forensic rigor of a non-partisan international team of experts (who've since been proven to be oh so right while our partisan administration's claims have been proven oh so wrong despite "the best intelligence available to us at the time" (so long as you conveniently ignore the reigning authority on the matter: UNSCOM).
Incidentally, we do NOT know for sure that Saddam will never run a WMD program again. That he might do so is highlyunlikely but he's still alive as we speak and Iraq's future is an ever-darkening cloud. (By 'darkening' I do not refer to quality of life in Iraq but to the quality of prognostication available to us.)
In the popular debate regarding the future of Viet Nam back in the days of our war over there, the threat agreed upon by the majority American public was Chinese-backed Ho Chi Minh's Viet Cong, not the Chinese-backed Khmer Rouge. My point: one never knows, do one? That is to say that "prediction is difficult, especially about the future", which is why in the matter of this administration and Iraq, I looked not to their predictions (which have mostly failed) but to their history: Team B, Halliburton, oil, a string of 'mispeakings' leading back to the Nixon/Ford era. I then interfaced these with the clear and exact pronunciations of Clever Hans. Try and find a 'mis-spakement' [neologism alert] on *his* part. He may be just a lowly UN hack rather than an exalted elected American president or a cabinet appointed thereby, but he managed to avoid misspakements over roughly a decade of at leat annual reports before the UN and other governmental bodies. Upon comparison, the Hans-led UNSCOM appeared credible to me, while the Bush-led cabinet appeared incredible.
"It's that assurance that we were going for when we went to war. Just because our intelligence may have been wrong or mistaken does not mean that our goal of MAKING CERTAIN was wrong to begin with."
Firstly, a slight quibble: the words "might have been" as applied to "wrong or mistaken" are ingenuous. The single word 'was' would far more accurately suffice. Secondly, a slighter quibble, but one that has repeatedly made the rounds in this "They said what?" discussion far more than the evidence warrants: to be "wrong" is to be "mistaken" is to be wrong. There is no "or" that obtains between them. One CAN say 'wrong AND mistaken' and thereby merely be redundant, but to say "wrong or mistaken" is to be, well, wrong and mistaken.
As far as being in violation of the GWI treaty sanctions: sure they were. This was probably the case on the day of signing said treaty, and has been domonstrated to be true since shortly afterward. Thus Clever Hans and UNSCOM and the work that Scott Ritter detailed so cogently in various public media and fora.
We'd already FORCED compliance on Saddam in this regard. Not in the *spirit* of the law; Saddam, like most psychotics, persisted (and still persists) on refuting reality with his pet delusions. But in the letter of the law, in the actual finding and dismantling of Saddam's WMD and capacity to produce more, we were steadily *winning* that war without invading Iraq at a cost of at least hundreds of billions of dollars and, to date, at least tens of thousands of lives whose blood is on OUR hands either directly or indirectly.
One can then extrapolate forward into now, when the benefits of our invasion seem to be a matter not of consensual reality, i.e., easily discernible phenomena, but rather a matter of myriad smoke and mirrors refracting and reflecting nearly infinite volumes of hot air from Ornery to CNN to Fox to the guy at the gas station last night who asked me out of the blue (although he is someone who formerly voted out of the red): "So, are we ready for a new president or WHAT? I sure am." (thread 'derailment alert to War, who seems to be especially sensitive to the protocols of staying on topic as he interpret's a topic's topic to be)
Clearly we were getting far more bang for our buck from UNSCOM than from GWII, whereas now we are increasingly paying for far more bangs for the far more bucks we are paying for our bangs. (The previous sentence is a literary emulation of a vicious circle formula.)
Posts: 1449 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |