[CLUE-Talk] Iraq Stuph

[Sean LeBlanc]

On 04-21 21:37, Jeffery Cann wrote:
> 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.

I don't think that this war was properly justified by the administration,
either. Yes, Saddam is (was?) evil, but can we run around liberating every
nation living under a dictator? I won't pretend that this war was not
questionable, and that at least *some* anti-war folks have valid points, but
I will point out that no matter what happened as events unfolded, there
would have been articles like this crowing about how "right" the anti-war
movement was. If it turned into a bloodbath for Americans, they would have
said they were right. If Saddam let loose WMD on his people and/or our
troops, there would have been op-ed pieces like this. If the Iraqi people
rose up against the Marines, they would have said they were right. That's
the reason I piped up without reading the whole thing - that, and using the
word "unilateral" was particularly interesting. I guess that, to the author,
"unilateral" means without the UN. 

> > 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.

I do, too. But I haven't found Salon to be terribly balanced in the past. I
didn't say I *wouldn't* read it, just that, based on my experience in the
past from reading Salon, I have a good idea of what to expect. If, as some
have said on here, that Fox is one step away from Rush Limbaugh territory, I
think it's fair to say that Salon is one step away from Pravda territory. :) 

-- 
Sean LeBlanc:seanleblanc at americanisp.net  
http://users.americanisp.net/~seanleblanc/
Get MLAC at: http://sourceforge.net/projects/mlac/