[CLUE-Talk] The prism of our experience

[Randy Arabie]

On Thursday, 10 July 2003 at 10:52:33 -0600, Jeffery Cann <fabian at jefferycann.com> wrote:
> >From the Boston Globe:
> 
> "The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new 
> evidence of Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass murder," Mr. Rumsfeld testified 
> yesterday before the Senate armed services committee.
>  
> "We acted because we saw the evidence in a dramatic new light, through the 
> prism of our experience on 9/11."
>  
> It was an about-face from a man who confidently proclaimed in January: 
> "There's no doubt in my mind but that they [the Iraqi government] currently 
> have chemical and biological weapons." (He was seconded in March by 
> Vice-President Dick Cheney, who said of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein: 
> "We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.") 
>  
> +http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030710.urums0710/BNStory/International/ 
> 
> All I can say is:  WTF?

Here's my view of the WMD issue.  I still believe the
Hussein regime had an active WMD program well into last
year.  Perhaps if the coalition had been able to act sooner,
rather than give Hussein a 6-month period to hide the evidence,
we would have found them by now.

> The Christian Science Monitor has an interesting commentary on this:
>  + http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0708/p09s01-coop.html
> 
> "Conservatives' lack of interest in the WMD question takes an even more 
> ominous turn when combined with general support for presidential warmaking. 
> Republicans - think President Eisenhower, for instance - once took seriously 
> the requirement that Congress declare war. These days, however, Republican 
> presidents and legislators, backed by conservative intellectuals, routinely 
> argue that the chief executive can unilaterally take America into war."

There was no congressional declaration of war of war for:

 Korea
 Vietnam
 Panama
 Grenada
 Gulf War I
 Bosnia
 Somalia
 Gulf War II

It is NOT a "conservative" or Republican issue.  The
Christian Science Monitor's commentary, in this instance, is
BS.

> "Thus, in their view, once someone is elected president, he or she faces no 
> legal or political constraint. The president doesn't need congressional 
> authority; Washington doesn't need UN authority. Allied support is 
> irrelevant. The president needn't offer the public a justification for going 
> to war that holds up after the conflict ends. The president may not even be 
> questioned about the legitimacy of his professed justification. Accept his 
> word and let him do whatever he wants, irrespective of circumstances."
> --------------
> 
> Any responses from the pro-war folks on the list?
> 
> I'm interested to hear opinions in light of this annoucement that the main 
> reason for going to war (i.e., that Iraq has WMD) cited by Bush, Rumsfeld, 
> Cheney was a BIG FAT LIE.

I don't accept your assertion that it was a lie.  I think
WMD was the main reason.
 
> I am outraged that our so-called leader feels it is necessary to 'act on his 
> conscience' at the expense of several THOUSANDS of lives (5K-7K killed during 
> Iraq ware), several BILLIONS of dollars and at the integrity of the office.  

Whereas your conscience says, since you are a
self-proclaimed pacifist, that war is NEVER an acceptable
course of action...regardless of how many people die as a
result of inaction.
-- 

Allons Rouler!

Randy
http://www.arabie.org/