[CLUE-Talk] Iraq Stuph

[Jeffery Cann]

On Monday 21 April 2003 08:22 pm, Sean LeBlanc wrote:

> Well, I can't read the whole article...only the first page

Sorry - didn't realize I gave a subscription link.  I can send you the entire 
article if you wish.  (DMCA be damned)

The point of her op-ed was to point out that because Saddam's regime had 
practically no resistance to our invasion that it wasn't the threat that the 
Bush administration claimed.

She didn't touch on lack of WMD (biological, chemical, and "intent" for 
nuclear) that at this point have not been found in Iraq.  Yet, the 
administration claimed this as the #1 reason for going to war.  Here's what 
they claimed:  The USA was threatened by Saddam because he is friendly to 
terrorists.  Saddam has WMD.  Because his is friendly to terrorists and has 
WMD, he would give WMD to terrorists.

I don't claim that WMD will not be found.  I hope for the sake of our 
government's credibility that they will be found in Iraq.  If so, then I 
think it will help some of us believe the Bush administration's claims.  To 
this point, everything they claimed has not checked out - other than Iraqi's 
are happy to be out from under Saddam.

> Forgive me if this article somehow addresses these issues, but knowing what
> I do about Salon, I doubt it will.

Nothing like an open mind, eh Sean?  :-)  Seriously, I like to read more than 
one point of view, even better when I disagree since it may challenge my 
assumptions.

FWIW - I posted this in opposition to David's post.

Jeff
-- 
Life is a tie. In the end, no one wins. 
 -- Oswald Neimo