1 - 7
I am a messenger, not a policy maker. As such, I am not asserting anything. I am simply reporting what Mr. Chaney and Mr. Blair are now telling us. It does not matter in the least how you or I define WMD. However, it does matter how they define it, and they now say that they did not exist. As for recent the reports, if they were were verified, then Mr Chaney and Mr. Blair would trample each other over in an effort to once again change their story. If they have done so and I have missed it, please post a link.
Mr Elder can write whatever he wishes, but the fact remains, that Mr. Blair and Mr. Chaney state otherwise. Mr. Elder can take it up with them.
Correct, but the principle one was WMDs and it was wrong..
Perhaps so, but it can not be proven. Therefore, I do not state it as a fact.
It is not a question of hindsight being 20-20. They chose to suspend disbelief and that is extremely dangerous. Intel is never ever a slam dunk and believing that it was in this case betrays both a most frightening hubris as well as a closed mind. While I will not state that they lied, it is quite possible that they subconsciously interpreted the data in such a way as to justify their desired course of action. I have little doubt that at the very least, they chose to ignore counter-intel, in the sense that it was some form of cognitive dissonance, and that is entirely their fault. That is not the way for leaders to lead.
I am not suggesting or implying that these leaders lied. As I cannot read their minds, and therefore have no way of knowing what they knew and when, I give them the benefit of the doubt that they did not in fact lie, but rather erred due to faulty intel, and that they made the decision in good faith. Either way, the point is that the principle casus belli was wrong, for the intel was anything but a slam dunk, and that had the American people known the truth, 70% of them would not have supported the war!
The only reason why 70% of the American people supported the war is because they were informed that the intel on Saddam’s Weapons of Mass Destruction was a “slam dunk.” Those who still wish to justify the war can continue to hint until kingdom come that these weapons existed, but in the last week or so, both Prime Minister Tony Blair and Vice President Richard Chaney have admitted that Hussein did not in fact have these supposed WMDs, but only the knowledge to build them in the future. So, the principle casus belli of the war was a fiction. If those who made the decision to go to war based upon the WMD claim now admit that they were wrong, why do we still argue the point? One can only hope that future American leaders will never again use the phrase “slam dunk” when deciding whether or not to go to war.
1 - 7