Saddam had parts for missile system, pre 1991 WMDs unaccounted for, and was a threat
At least, that is one possible headline. But the headline the AP chose to go with is:
7 Responses to “Saddam had parts for missile system, pre 1991 WMDs unaccounted for, and was a threat”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
October 7th, 2004 at 3:49 pm
Gee, could that be because the AP headline is not only accurate, but a better summation? Administration report comes out saying that a major assertion made by the administration was untrue, but a few minor details did turn out to be true. Would you lead off with “minor details are true?”
October 7th, 2004 at 4:01 pm
I would consider the most important part to be that pre 1991 WMDs aren’t accounted for (i.e., can’t be found).
But, hey, i’m wierd like that.
October 7th, 2004 at 6:18 pm
They can’t find the 13 year old WMDs and because they have no documented proof that they were destroyed, this means that its a potential problem.
Now given the fact that Saddam would probably have used them if he had them, I would say that its unlikely that they still exist or like much of the supposed WMDs that were found, probably in no shape to be used anyway.
October 8th, 2004 at 3:52 pm
And the parts of the report that blatantly contradict pretty much everything the administration told us in the lead-up to the war, those are unimportant?
It’s a sad, sad day when Iraq war supporters are left to saying, “Well, we weren’t totally wrong about everything, therefore the war is still justified. Kinda. Sorta.”
Is it really that hard to admit that the administration didn’t have a friggin clue, after all?
October 8th, 2004 at 4:05 pm
You are again forgetting that there was not one reason for the invasion but something like 19. Did the administration goof on the WMDs? Yup, they got bad info. Now, what about the other 18 things.
October 8th, 2004 at 4:51 pm
Iraq War Supporters Get Desperate
In light of recent admissions by Bush himself that *gasp* Saddam Hussein did not have WMDs, the Iraq war supporters…
October 8th, 2004 at 6:50 pm
The official list may have had many reasons, but the two big ones — WMDs and support of al-Qaeda — have both been shown to be false. Without either of those, there’s no way the American people would have supported the war.
Do you honestly think Joe American gives a rats ass that Hussein violated UN Resolution #42c? If it doesn’t directly effect them, then of course they don’t care.
The fact remains, their primary justifications for war — particularly for immediate, pre-emptive war — have been shattered. They totally screwed the pooch on this one.
For the record, I count 16 whereases, half of which involve WMDs, links to terror, or both. Several others are contingent invoke the US right to defend itself (from what?). There are a couple of humanitarian ones, none of which would have sold the war to the people.