--- Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The article is certainly slanted against the Admin's
> position, but many of the points/questions are valid.
But their is no way of proving that Bush was wrong at the time he made those
statements (taken out of context as they are).
The question still remains, what if we had done nothing?
Iraqis would still be under a ruthless dictator. Is that what you want?
We resumed, and ended the war, not becouse we knew they had WMDs, but becouse
they had broken the agreements they made to ensure a sesation of hostilities.
It was always about this. In adition to this was the threat that if they were
not following one set of agreements, and they had the means to produce WMD,
then the risk was too high. Even if we were not going to keep our word about
91, we had to do something becouse the threat, (the worse case scinario based
on intelegence and probabilities and facts) was to greate not to.
Taken out of context the factoids and sound bites can be spun however you
want to spin them. I think those on this list have the intelegence to see the
diffence.
Was thier a "spin" to sell the war? Of course their was. That's how things
work in the US. Every product you buy, (even sci-fi books) are marketed as
best as possible. Some of these products are good products, some are not, but
they are all "sold" with a "spin". It was exagerated however by the media.
Who's fault is that, Bush? Wolfowitz? Powel? They are at fault for the
American mode of consensus? You want to blame them for the manner that ideas
are expressed in the US?
Of course the left never "sells" or "spins" do they? And the libritarians are
not imune. Who the hell is Ann Rand after all?
All this where are the WMDs talk is just another spin, I prefer to deal with
the facts and make a decision based on that. Those were provided -along with
the spin-.
Iraq didn't keep it's agreements which we required to seace hostilities.
We made repeted requests and atempted to resolve the issue though ambasidors
and inspecors.
They kept cheeting.
We did exactly what we said we would do if they didn't follow the original
agreement.
WMD was an additional spin that the media focused on becouse it was the one
that would sell the most comercials. Sure it was a Bush spin, but it was also
a major concern, given that they were not following other parts of the
agreement, and the intelegence was pointing to a program, -their was a
program- even if they were not producing large enough quantities, their was a
program.
The media is where all the hype was. I remember ex generals on FOX, and
interviews with working officials who stated over and over and over and over
again that WMD was not the main reason, Husain as not the main target. At one
point Powel said specificaly that we may not find WMDs, and that was long
before the first troops moved in.
On many channels every other word was, WMD, WMD. If you were watching left
leaning media, then you got the story from the perspective the left wanted
you to have. You don't think they didn't have stratagy meetings on post war
programming? You think they didn't focus on the most benificial message based
on their political leanings?
And some just fall right into their stratagy. Step back, wake up.
Yes Bush spun the WMD thing.
Yes the left exagerated it.
No it wasn't the main reason for the war.
No you were not lied to (on this point) by your President.
sheesh!
=====
_________________________________________________
Jan William Coffey
_________________________________________________
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
