Mudcat Café message #1651679 The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #73264   Message #1651679
Posted By: Arne
19-Jan-06 - 05:57 PM
Thread Name: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
BeardedBruce:

Arne,

[Arne]:"That Dubya out-and-out lied when he said: "He [Saddam] wouldn't let them [the weapons inspectors] in" and that is why Dubya decided to invade."

Yep. Not only is that not the truth, but it's not even close. I've tried to look at how it could be charitably interpretetd as a twisting of the truth, a somewhat dishonest and misleading slant on the truth, or a reasonable mistake. No matter how I look at it, t's none of those things, Bruce, and it's time you displayed some honesty and fessed up to it. Or you can explain why Saddam letting the inspectors in (an obvious and established fact) is "Saddam not letting them in".

David S. Broder " The first -- and to my mind weakest -- instance is the claim that Bush took the nation to war on the basis of false intelligence about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. But there is no clear evidence as yet that Bush willfully concocted or knowingly distorted the intelligence he received about Saddam Hussein's military programs. Interpretations of that intelligence varied within the government, but the Clinton administration, of which Gore was an important part, came to the same conclusions that Bush did -- and so did other governments in the Western alliance."

Hogwash, and more importantly, irrelevant to my quote.

We have gone around about the weapons inspectors- And the UN report says that Saddam was in "substantial non-compliance" at the time of the deadline.

Oh, nonsense. And as I said, disagreeing with your misinterpretation and selective cut'n'paste of the facts hardly constitutes personal attack on you. What "deadline"? What "report"? What does that have to do with the state on the ground in March of 2003? And more importantly, isn't it up to the United Nations to decide what action to take in the face of any "substantial non-compliance"?

IF Saddam decided to let inspectors in AFTER Bush had mobilized troops on his borders, that hardly supports YOUR contention of why Bush invaded.

Huh???? You sound very confused here (or confusing). Once again, I'll see if I can divine your "point" from this sentence, but don't fault me if I'm guessing wrong in the face of your incomprehensibility. Are you saying that the invasion was one and the same as massing troops on the border? Why do you suggest that I am thinking that the timing of Saddam's letting the inspectors in is supportive of my (alleged; to be honest I don't think I've actually stated a theory as to why Dubya invaded) theory as to why Dubya invaded? I'll agree with you that this timing does no such thing. What does seem to put to the lie one "theory" as to why Dubya invaded is the fact that Saddam did let the inspectors in albeit after Dubya had started mobilizing troops. Great. The fust0shaking worked. Saddam gave in. Now does that mean that Dubya's got to get 2200+ U.S. soldiers killed when the "mission is already accomplished". That last bit is the silly ... and the horrific ... part of Dubya's little speech. The plain facts (that Saddam did let the inspectors in) make that war unnecessary!!! So, the facts as we know them make those deaths in vain ... if we're to believe that Dubya was honest when he made that statement. No wonder you cling to it so grimly ... the alternative would make Lady Macbeth's insomnia seem like a walk in the park compared to you and your cheerleading.

Cheers,