--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What is complex about this question, to pick one major example -- > should the > US have gone to war with > Iraq if US intelligence had concluded that Iraq was not making WMD > or providing support to al Qaeda? > > Is that too complex for ordinary people to answer yes or no? Do > we need to > fund a think tank to analyze its nuanced meaning?
For one thing, does Iraq not producing WMD also mean that Iraq had no stockpiles of WMD? Does it also mean that Iraq was not retaining to capacity to restart WMD programs as soon as sanctions were lifted? Yes, Nick, it is complex. > > As a second example, if the poll had asked "did Saddam Hussein > > comply with the Chapter VII UN Security Resolutions requiring > > Iraq's > > disarmament of WMD's" do you think that more Republicans or more > > Democrats would answer correctly? I'll bet dollars to donuts on > > the Republicans. > > And... what's the correct answer to your question? As far as I > know, it is yes, as our intelligence agencies had concluded. > Yet our leaders would have > had us believe that it was no. In reality, Iraq's lack of > cooperation had > to do with inspections, not WMDs. Ah Nick, thank you for adding one data point to my theorem that in fact Republicans have a more accurate understanding of the conditions leading up to the Iraq war than Democrats. The answer, of course, is "No." The UN Security Council required Iraq to engage in a verifiable disarmament of its weapons programs. Even if it surreptitiously ended its WMD programs, not doing so publicly (and thus creating uncertainty about whether or not it had disarmed) was a clear violation of binding Chapter VII UNSC resolutions. JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
