Re: [MV] Iraq winning or losing (Modified by Stephen Grammont)

From: Stephen Grammont (islander@midmaine.com)
Date: Fri Jul 01 2005 - 06:50:03 PDT


On Jul 1, 2005, at 9:15 AM, Cliff S wrote:

> if a tree falls in the woods with no one to film it, did it really
> fall...........................

if you conduct interviews with senior Iraqi officials, read 40 million
pages of documents and classified information, have unfettered access
to any suspected sites, and spend millions of Dollars in the process of
forming a 1000 page report to Congress and the President... did Iraq
really have WMD? All experts and politicians, from both sides of the
isle, now say that "no, Iraq did not have WMD". It is an open and shut
case.

The US Gov'ts leadership said Iraq had functioning WMD, functioning WMD
production capabilities, and were actively seeking out more
capabilities and materials. FACT... as many said before the war, these
assertions simply were not true. Even President George W. Bush has
said this, publicly and quite plainly. Anybody who wishes to disagree
with all of this can, if they like, but unless they have FIRST hand
information to prove to the contrary... disagreeing is rather silly (to
be polite about it). This is not an issue of "liberals" or the media
trying to distort the record... it *is* the record. There were no WMD
or active WMD programs. Case closed.

As for Chris' comments about "funky stuff" found, all of this has been
explained as not being WMD. If ANY of it were even remotely related to
the question of WMD, it would have been noted as such. But none of it
was, so none of it is relevant. I saw a presentation by a battalion
commander of the 101st AAD, who was there on the ground for the entire
1st phase of the war in Iraq, and he also noted finding all kinds of
"funky stuff". He even showed us some pictures he snapped of some big
machinery that was stored in a warehouse. As he put it "looked pretty
suspicious to us, but for all I know it made popcorn. Because we
couldn't tell the difference we tagged it and guarded it until someone
came to asses it." (or something like that. A great warrior with a
great sense of humor).

Also, Chris stated:

"I don't want to wait until it meets the standards & definition above,
would you want you kids to wait?"

I agree with this logic, but unfortunately the logical conclusion in
2003 would have been to invaded Iran or North Korea, not Iraq. Unlike
Iraq, these other two countries are controlled buy nuts *and* it is
proven fact that they have WMD. Cripes, Iran looks to have just
"elected" (I use that term loosely) as President one of the guys behind
the embassy hostage crisis. Talk about a big slap in the face. But
our country is now over committed militarily and financially, and we've
pissed off most of the world so there isn't much we can do except saber
rattle. That disturbs me.

Steve



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Oct 28 2005 - 23:22:14 PDT