Boo Radley
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 37,066
- Reaction score
- 7,028
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Yes - mostly directed to you, but I wanted to point out that some folks are reading the links. And seriously, thanks for the links. It helps for a better quality debate.
Please look again at the quotes. Notice that Jaques Chirac says, "Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." This suggests he believed in a continuing arms program. NOT a halted program. Notice also that he says this in 2002, WELL AFTER "Clintion's people bombed Iraq."
Notice also that Al Gore's comment also happens in 2002, while Bush was gearing up to invade in 2003.
There are many comments there and MOST of them occur between 1998 and 2003, the time during which Inspectors were denied entry, and four long years during which nuclear, biological, and chemical production facilities could easily have been dismantled or converted.
If the police turn their backs to give a criminal the chance to throw away a smoking gun, they can hardly be surprised when they turn around and see the smoking gun is gone.
Chirac later says we didn't have the evidence. But, suggests isn't really enough. Continued armament progams is also not the same. If he's speaking of some convential weapons, which I think he is, he would be correct. However, we were largely talking about chemical weapons at the time. We were more concerned with Sarin gas for example and other such weapons. This Saddam did not have. He was largely contained and not the tyope of threat to justify the cost of removing him. It has to do with claims matching the intel.
Before we had left, we documented a large amount of distruction. There was likeihood that some were left over, but again, that was the claim. When we got to the intel, Bush's people ahd to reach beyond what we had. They used doubted intel to do that. They reach in and pulled out al Libi, a person who was tortured and told us what the CIA doubted he could even know. In made it into Bush argument for war. We used Curveball, who I linked was doubted. We also used Chalibi and his heros in error, someone who betrayed us once before. Remove this intel, and we had nothing.
Bush spoke as if we had the goods. He ignored doubts, from the tubes to moble labs to links to al Qaeda. He started with the answer, and tried to produce something to match his claim. He failed, so he just went with the doubt stuff.
We needed not what people thought, but what evidence they had. Despite what Chirc said he thought, he concluded we did not have the evidence to support such thinking. Shouldn't evidence be the critieria?