On 7/29/06, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There were not many people whose job it was to assess the likelihood of Hussein having WMDs who argued against it.
Still on board with that, are you? Let's see what the Director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet, has said about the analysts' reports in the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of October 2002, the one that "justified" the war. "They never said there was an 'imminent' threat. Rather, they painted an objective assessment for our policymakers of a brutal dictator who was continuing his efforts to deceive and build programs that might constantly surprise us and threaten our interests." Specifically, they said that Iraq had a missile program, but no WMD missiles. They had an Unmanned Aerial Vehicles program, but no Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. They said that Saddam wanted to restart his nuclear program, but didn't have one going. They said that they believed Iraq still had some biological and chemical agents and programs that would be able to develop the means to weaponize and deliver them, but no evidence that they had done so. Their key source said that Iraq was "dabbling" in biological weapons, but "not sufficient to constitute a real weapons program." Furthermore, the Senate report blasted the way that this NIE was prepared... specifically for a failure of peer review, which would have revealed opinions within the intelligence community that could have argued contrasting viewpoints or at least the greater uncertainty that was clearly held by many in the intelligence community. Looking back, in 2004, the CIA reported the following: "*The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions.* Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam. Instead, his lieutenants understood WMD revival was his goal from their long association with Saddam and his infrequent, but firm, verbal comments and directions to them." And then there's Scott Ritter and his team, who were the people in charge of actually determining the facts on the ground. Ritter consistently said there were no WMDs, even after the invasion when the government claimed to have found them! And turned out to be right, of course. Nobody arguing against the likelihood of Saddam having WMDs??? In denial, Dan? The people in a position to know were only convinced that he had programs with a goal build WMDs. Just as nobody ever got rich by planning for gold, a program isn't a weapon. Of course, it is entirely understandable that people would be confused about this if they're getting their information from the White House, Fox News, etc. It is perfectly clear that it was the consensus of the intelligence community, not to mention the reality -- that Iraq posed no immediate, imminent, urgent or mortal (White House words) threat to the United States. Yet we went to war. We have millions and millions of people in this country who still believe that Iraq had WMDs and was ready to use them against us. Here we are, the wealthiest, most power nation on the planet and our leaders seem to be quite happy to allow people to believe this baloney, perpetrated by media spin, because it serves their political purposes. This doesn't mean I don't have compassion for those who cling to their illusions. It is horribly painful to realize that as a people, we invaded and destroyed the infrastructure of another country, killed hundreds of thousands of its citizens along with Wes and 2550-some our our own children, traumatized millions more, propelled the country into civil war and made the world far less safe. I'm sure that some denial in this situation is appropriate. My question is, how do we proceed? It would be cruel to demand that everybody face the facts immediately. The facts are hideous and re-traumatizing people is worse than useless. I think that all we can do is tell our stories as honestly as possible, with faith that healing will result. Trouble is, the media provides such a lousy example of how to tell a story, yet it dominates.
Sure...the poll picked questions for which the facts were more in line with the prejudices of the Democrats than the Republicans. If they only had added a couple of others, like was Hussein in violation of the Security Council Resolutions or did the French ambassador to the UN admit to taking a substantial amount of money from Hussein, I bet that the Republicans' answers would be better in line with the facts.
I don't buy it. The questions were about the stated reasons for going to war, in plain language. I think I've got a test question. Would someone who's still a strong
supporter of the war in Iraq, and still believes that, while it's a hard fight, it's a fight for the freedom of the people of Iraq fell comfortable at the ceremony? I know people who have children in the military that were called into active duty and are still supporters of the war in Iraq. If they lost one of their children, would they feel alienated at the ceremony because of what was said?
I don't know that we need test questions... I already know that it is entirely possible and wonderful to bring people together around what we have in common, despite disagreement about issues. Our hearts are aligned even if our heads aren't. It's just a question of priorities. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
