[lit-ideas] Re: comments the DEMs must defend

  • From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 18:34:25 -0800

No one cared whether he had them in large quantities that I recall - just
that he had them or that he was close to having them and only had chemical
and biologidal WMDs.


As to quantities, you may recall there was a strong belief that Al Quaeda
acquired had two suitcase nukes after 9/11.  That is what precipitated the
State Department into such places as Pakistan to threaten and cajole until
the it felt confident that no one's nukes were floating around loose.  


I don't recall that any reports were "ignored."  I do recall that a number
of reports were looked at and the ones most credited supported the idea that
he had bio and chemical weapons and was pursuing nukes. 


I don't think there was anything unusual about the Democrats' comments from
the YouTupe video - they were consistent with the conventional wisdom of the




-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Omar Kusturica
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 6:10 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: comments the DEMs must defend


Is this a poem, Lawrence ? Certainly it doesn't look

like reasoned argument. A lot of people thought prior

to the war that Saddam would probably have some WMDs

somewhere, but not a lot of people thought that he had

them in large quantities or of a high quality which

would justify presenting him as a serious threat. This

was something that was beefed up by the intelligence

reports and political speeches. Bush made specific

claims about the kinds and quantities of the WMDs

Saddam was supposed to have prior to the war (the

State of the Union speech) and we now know that these

claims were not supported by evidence. There were also

the IAEA reports which suggested that Saddam might not

have any WMDs at all and these claims were ignored.


Personally, I thought that the Democrats, i.e. the

leadership of the Democrat Party, need to defend the

charges of supporting the war or not opposing it

strenuously when such opposition was badly needed.







I suppose it makes Leftists feel good


To lyingly cry "lie," but 'tis a lie anyone 


Who has kept up with 


Knows and decries.  


Not being anti-intellectual, 


I read about Saddam and his Iraq.  


All our Iraqi assets were over here 




Or a long way from knowing 


Anything worthwhile.  Even 


His generals thought he had WMDs; 


So lie me no more lies 


Lest thee be seen for a Lying 


Leftist - unless 'tis a thing thou 


Wishest in which case carry on - 




I suppose - our being unlike 


The tyranny we deposed.  But 


Not being willing to pass on actions


The way we do such words 


As "lie," we lie here listening


For the tick of a nuclear disaster


Coming soon in theaters near you.














Bored stiff? Loosen up... 

Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games.



To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,

digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: