American Intelligence?

Stephen A. Frye s.frye at VERIZON.NET
Tue Jul 1 20:45:55 MDT 2003


>
>You can possibly be one of those people that thinks the entire UN, Hans
>Blix and his inspection teams, Scott Ritter and his inspection team, the
>entire house of representatives and the entire senate were all lying. Prior
>to the invasion of Iraq, the existence of WMDs was indisputable and
>unarguable. The UN couldn't find them in 12 years, now some think because
>we can find them in 12 weeks it must mean they never existed? I guess by
>that logic we were also lied to about some fictional character named Saddam
>Hussein being in charge of Iraq. After all, we haven't found him either so
>he must never have existed. Sheesh. You of all people I would have not
>expected to swallow, hook, line and sinker, that Bush-bashing line of illogic.

I'm not swallowing anything - not the party line, either.  And I never
swallowed Bush's spoken reason for invading Iraq.

I believe Saddam had weapons of mass destruction - I never argued
otherwise.  I did for a long while (though I changed my mind) argue the
wisdom of invading Iraq.  And even more than the wisdom of same, I
questioned the given motive.  I did not believe then, and I do not believe
now that George Bush invaded Iraq because of the threat of weapons of mass
destruction.

Saddam was an evil tyrant.  I'm glad he is out of power.  I hope he is gone
forever.  On that grounds, the invasion was a success.  However, that does
not absolve George Bush and the Administration for acting under false
pretenses.

Am I a Bush basher?  I don't think so.  I voted for him.  But my biggest
reason for voting for him was to get rid of Clinton and to keep Gore from
power.  Gore as president would be a disaster for which I have no
description.  I never believed that Mr. Bush was ever really qualified to
hold the office.  I still don't.  But I still don't think that makes me a
Bush basher.  I even sometimes find myself defending the guy - and that is
quite often very difficult.

I also never stated that there are/were no weapons of mass destruction.  If
you're going to blast me, at least be accurate.  What I did, was question
the accuracy of information supposedly provided by our Intelligence
agencies.  Even during the invasion itself, they reported that
chemical/biological weapons attacks on our troops were imminent.  That
proved (thankfully) to be inaccurate.  So where did they get that
information?  Was it real, or was it hype?  I hope for the former.  I
believe the latter.  You yourself, in the build up to the invasion, cited
American Intelligence as having far more accurate information than the
previous inspectors and the UN.  I don't see where they had anything other
than what you cite here that we already knew!  Maybe that will
change.  Maybe we'll find this huge stash of weapons, and then Mr. Bush can
parade down Fifth Ave shouting "I told you so!"

You also cited that after September 11, intelligence revealed that Saddam
was far more likely now to use these weapons than he was before.  In fact,
that was the party line for buying into his plan.  Where did they get that
information?  My point is that Mr. Bush spoke to invading Iraq based on all
of this intelligence that we had about these weapons, but it appears we had
nothing more than what we already knew.  Again, just to be clear, I am not
questioning that the weapons exist, I question only the reports of
intelligence and the pretense on which we invaded.

I am torn on this one as to whether or not the end justifies the means.  I
really hope he was honest with us.



More information about the Rushtalk mailing list