Subj : FAILURE
To   : Frank Reid
From : Deuce
Date : Mon Oct 03 2005 03:13 pm

  Re: FAILURE
  By: Frank Reid to Deuce on Mon Oct 03 2005 08:18 am

 >  > I'm not even saying he fabricated the evidence (except for the yellowcake
 >  > thing, and HE didn't fabricate it) I'm saying he KNEW there was insuffici
 >  > evidence.  The CIA though it was possible but unlikely, the UN was fairly
 >  > certain they wern't there.  Everyone knew it was possible, but there was
 >  > absolutely no convincing evidence at any point.  About this, GWB *did* li
 >  > said there was convincing evidence... he was one of the few who was convi
 >  > The people who COLLECED the evidence wern't convinced.
 > 
 > BTW, while it's fair to say there wasn't universal agreement on the
 > interpretation of the intelligence, it would be inaccurate to say there wasn
 > compelling evidence indicating Iraq did have WMD and was actively working on
 > the apparatus to deliver that.  Just wanted to lay that as a baseline... to 
 > he "lied" about the evidence is inaccurate, although it may be accurate to s
 > he provided his evidence with a degree of certainty.  I guess I would expect
 > that, as opposed to "some people have interpreted this evidence differently,
 > but I think..."

There was insufficient evidence.  Bush said there was solid evidence.  That's
not due to a misunderstanding as all the reports said that though it was
possible, it was unlikely.  The people who collected the evidence (and one
would think then knew it best) were not convinced by it.  There is a huge moral
difference between saying "There may be WMDs, so we're invading Iraq to
overthrow its leadership" and "There are WMDS, so we're invading.".

Also, of course, one needs to take into account the OTHER countries which have
WMDs, dictators, and a bad history with the US that the US has NOT invaded
(North Korea leaps nimbly to mind) and you can't help but feel that the WMDs
are not the reason for the war.

So then you look at other reasons suggested... a safe haven to terrorists. 
Again you discover that the evidence was "misrepresented" (ie: lied about).

At this point you can't help but feel that there must be some reason to
misrepresent both groups of evidence.  Something obviously made him decide to
overstate the evidence.  Was it the need to be seen as "doing something"?  Was
it some weird and unsupportable "we need to take over the oil reserves"?  We
won't ever know.  (Though I lean towards the "We need to DO something!"  "Oh,
this is something, lets do it!" argument).

---
 þ Synchronet þ My Brand-New BBS (All the cool SysOps run STOCK!)

.