[Vision2020] Bush, et al. before a Grand Jury

[Tony]

Oh Andreas, you are so cynical.  Do you really think that the president was 
just beside himself to start a war?  Even as his father, who he admires 
deeply, fought in a prolonged conflict and surely would have advised against 
war if at all possible?  I think you have this silly view of Bush Jr. as 
some kind of starry-eyed sophomore, with no realistic grasp of the adult 
world.  It seems to me that such a picture more accurately describes the 
president's critics.

The record clearly shows to fair minded people that the consensus prior to 
our invasion was that Iraq posed a grave threat to the U.S.  This assessment 
was shared by BOTH sides of the isle, your revisionist efforts 
notwithstanding.  You blithely assert that "no one" thought Iraq had either 
nuclear capability OR links to Al Qaeda.  Andreas, are you given to such 
categorical assertions, or are you just having a bad day?  To say that not 
even ONE American had such concerns is ludicrous my friend -- sheer 
revisionist fantasy.

Apparently on a roll, you then blurt that the administration "knew" the Iraq 
intel was cooked all along.  Unfortunately for your credibility, you fail to 
provide even a single scrap of evidence in support of what thus stands as a 
gratuitous assertion.  You are obviously a bright guy, so I trust you will 
be more thorough in your next missive.

After wading through your thicket of false premises, I am instructed that I 
must conclude that this war was entirely unjustified.  But for reasons which 
I have pointed out, I remain unconvinced.   Do try again though.

Best wishes,    -T
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andreas Schou" <ophite at gmail.com>
To: "Tony" <tonytime at clearwire.net>
Cc: "Pat Kraut" <pkraut at moscow.com>; <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 11:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Bush, et al. before a Grand Jury


> On 11/30/06, Tony <tonytime at clearwire.net> wrote:
>> Precisely Pat.  The left conveniently ignores the inconvenient truth that
>> they were just as convinced as anyone regarding the question of WMDs.  I
>> watched a documentary last night that quoted Hillary, Kerry and Ted 
>> Kennedy
>> ALL saying Hussein's-WMDs were a grave threat and something needed to be
>> done to stop him.  Now they are clammoring for his head as punishment for
>> doing what THEY SAID he should do.
>
> Tony --
>
> Everybody believed that Iraq had chemical weapons, which they had used
> against Iran during the Iran/Iraq war. Chemical weapons are, frankly,
> no more destructive than, say, a fertilizser bomb. Some people
> believed that Iraq had biological weapons. These can kill a lot of
> people, but end up often killing the wrong people. Nobody believed
> that Iraq had, or was anywhere near having, a nuclear weapon. Oh, and
> no one believed that they had links to al-Qaida, either -- Zarqawi was
> in the Kurdish autonomous zone with Ansar al-Islam, not anywhere where
> Saddam had access to him.
>
> This includes the Bush administration. They knew the information they
> were spreading about Iraq's nuclear weapons program was cooked, and
> they chose to tell everyone anyway. Saying that "everyone believed
> they had WMDs" is obfuscation, because everyone, including me,
> actually believed that they did. The question of whether they had WMDs
> which were an imminent danger to the United States had a clear answer:
> no, they didn't. The question of whether sanctions worked to end an
> active WMD program is clear: yes, they did. And the question of
> whether they would let inspectors back in when pressure was applied is
> clear: yes, they would.
>
> Given those conditions, Tony, there's no reason we should've gone to
> war. Except that Bush wanted a war, so he pressured the intelligence
> community to make shit up so he could have one. That's the problem we
> have.
>
> -- ACS
>
>