[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
day.
Lawrence
-----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.
O.K.
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.
Lawrence
____________________________________________________________________________
________
Bored stiff? Loosen up...
Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games.
http://games.yahoo.com/games/front
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
