![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Just a quick note before I forget...
Jun. 5th, 2003 03:56 pmSo far, they've found two trucks that are being used as evidence that Saddam Hussein had biological or chemial weapons.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2083760/
does a rundown on this.
The best, the absolute *best* spin you can put on this is that, if we find the companion trucks, *THEN* we'll have evidence that he was engaged in the ongoing production of biological or chemical weapons.
It's annoying the blazes out of me that they are being pointed to as if they were proof.
Please note: regardless of your feelings about the war, and/or the propriety of ousting SH by force, I think that this is an important issue. My opinion is that the reaction should be "Well, at least we *DID* oust a brutal dictator, and that counts for something", not "see? see? He really did have something that could be used for biological or chemical weapons, so that proves he had them and might have given them to terrorists!"
What bothers me about this overall is the feeling that, if there was evidence presented as "proof" to Bush, the intelligence services need a *VERY* thorough housecleaning, and you can't have that happen too quietly, so a huge intelligence lapse is going uninvestigated. If there wasn't, well... it certainly wouldn't be the first time a President told bold faced lies to people; I reckon another GW (George Washington) likely started the tradition.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2083760/
does a rundown on this.
The best, the absolute *best* spin you can put on this is that, if we find the companion trucks, *THEN* we'll have evidence that he was engaged in the ongoing production of biological or chemical weapons.
It's annoying the blazes out of me that they are being pointed to as if they were proof.
Please note: regardless of your feelings about the war, and/or the propriety of ousting SH by force, I think that this is an important issue. My opinion is that the reaction should be "Well, at least we *DID* oust a brutal dictator, and that counts for something", not "see? see? He really did have something that could be used for biological or chemical weapons, so that proves he had them and might have given them to terrorists!"
What bothers me about this overall is the feeling that, if there was evidence presented as "proof" to Bush, the intelligence services need a *VERY* thorough housecleaning, and you can't have that happen too quietly, so a huge intelligence lapse is going uninvestigated. If there wasn't, well... it certainly wouldn't be the first time a President told bold faced lies to people; I reckon another GW (George Washington) likely started the tradition.
