At this point the build-up of evidence is hard to deny. Why is the refrain from the left and the media still 'Bush lied'?
Documents of the former Iraqi government released by the US Government include unexpected revelations about events in Iraq prior to the US-led invasion. These documents are addressed in an ABC News report released this week.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments76 - Jet in Columbus
Was Bush Right About Iraq, Al Qaeda and WMDs?
Yes
...but of course that's only my opinion
77 - Jet in Columbus
Now, see how easy it is to make a point without a 1000 word essay???? (see above)
78 - Baronius
Dave, thanks for writing all those words, even if it left some of us tired and cranky. I would have read about it in the paper, but I still can't find it.
Why would Saddam not use WMD's if he had them? Well, he had been trying to walk a line, looking like he had weapons while saying he didn't. There wouldn't be much of an international opposition to the invasion if the US found weapons. More importantly to Saddam, the absence of weapons encouraged the domestic resistance.
Other reasons: obviously, if the weapons weren't ready, he couldn't use them. It wouldn't have been easy to develop, test, or deploy them inconspicuously. And you don't use a few WMD's: you have to kill either 0% or 100% of your enemies.
Also, this is the guy who sent much of his Air Force to his hated enemy, Iran, during Desert Storm in order to retrieve them later. Sending weapon-making equipment to Syria is completely in character.
79 - Mo
On January 19, 2003, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said that exile for Saddam Hussein and other members of the Iraqi leadership would be a "fair trade" to avoid a military conflict. At the time Saddam's net-worth in Swiss Bank accounts was estimated anywhere from $2.5 billion to over $5 billion.
So, what are we to believe about why wily Saddam took a poison pill?
Could it be that Saddam thought he could win the war or could it be that he didn’t trust Rumsfeld?
80 - JP
Dave, I do have a bigger question--let's assume these documents prove contact had been made between the two organizations and there was the potential for a joint effort. Is this not too late?
Are we, as a citizenry, not entitled to concrete evidence explaining why we're headed into a military conflict before our soldiers touch ground? Other than the Niger allegations, why weren't we provided more specifics about the contact that was supposedly made between Saddam and Al Qaeda, rather than just Bush administration assurances?
If you're arguing this somehow vindicates the administration, are you suggesting that we should therefore--by our upcoming votes--deem this acceptable? Suppose we are cleared to read even more concrete proof this October, should we show that we accept being kept in doubt and kept in the dark for so long?
Clearly the reason for withholding this will be "national security," the typical defense for withholding information. I don't think we can accept being sent into battle without being told why, for our own security; the only way releasing this info would damage our national security is by showing how flimsy the support for the administration's position really was.
81 - Jet in Columbus
Same old story-the ends justify the means. Bush gambled he'd find the proof later, and thumb his nose at nay-sayers like us.
Easy and effective. His supporters will believe anything he says, his detractors are labeled unpatriotic, perverted, narrow-minded and of course unchristian.
or or worse... (gasp) L L L Liberals
EEEEEEEEEEEK!!!!!
...of course that's only my opinion
82 - Mo
Are we, as a citizenry entitled to concrete evidence explaining why we're headed into a military conflict before our soldiers touch ground?
Of course.
The result of not providing this concrete evidence is made obvious by the latest polls.
You can fool some of the people…
I’m sure you know the rest.
83 - Jet in Columbus
But Mo, you haven't been paying attention, they say they've already explained it, to anyone with any amount of sense and intellect.
Shirley you not implying that they're uh they'd uh you know... Fib!
[explitive deleted] No!!!
I know don't call you shirley
... of course that's not really my opinion
84 - Dave Nalle
Are we, as a citizenry, not entitled to concrete evidence explaining why we're headed into a military conflict before our soldiers touch ground? Other than the Niger allegations, why weren't we provided more specifics about the contact that was supposedly made between Saddam and Al Qaeda, rather than just Bush administration assurances?
Before we invaded Germany in WW2 we had no physical evidence of the existence of death camps, just some second hand reports which were largely discounted by the media and the public. Does that mean that our knowledge that Hitler was a psycho of the sort who had the capacity for evil on the scale of death camps was insufficient to invade Germany?
If you're arguing this somehow vindicates the administration, are you suggesting that we should therefore--by our upcoming votes--deem this acceptable?
Deem what acceptable? The administration didn't lie to us, they just presented a hastily assembled case as attractively as they could. Do you blame a shampoo company because your hair isn't as naturally wavy and thick as the model they use in their commercials? It's marketing. The shampoo still gets your hair clean, which is its primary function.
Suppose we are cleared to read even more concrete proof this October, should we show that we accept being kept in doubt and kept in the dark for so long?
We elect these guys to make decisions for them. When we vote we delegate authority to them. We may have buyers remorse after the fact, but that doesn't change the chocie we made as a nation when we elected them.
Clearly the reason for withholding this will be "national security," the typical defense for withholding information.
What has been withheld? These documents were acquired after the invasion and are in the process of being translated and released. If there are security issues, it only makes sense to not release the documents where such issues exist.
I don't think we can accept being sent into battle without being told why, for our own security; the only way releasing this info would damage our national security is by showing how flimsy the support for the administration's position really was.
The documents which have already been released and translated are pretty significant in their own right. A bunch more have been released but are only in arabic. I don't see any indication that anything major is being held back, and it's to the advantage of the administration to release everything that's significant, so if some are being set aside I'd guess there are some pretty damned good reasons.
Dave
85 - Jet in Columbus
Dave?????????? We entered World War II officially when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor-an attack on American soil. Now, Unofficially before that we were only supporting our British allies with material, and only entered that fray when the german u-boats began torpedoed our supply ships in the atlantic.
Can history books vary that much????????
sheesh!
86 - Dave Nalle
You're missing the point, Jet. I realize WW2 started for a lot more reasons. The point is that sometimes you know things are the way they are before you have all the hard proof you'd like. Does that mean you should allow crimes to continue?
DAve
87 - Jet in Columbus
Of course I missted the point Dave! That's what I do best!
...but that's only my opinion
88 - Dave Nalle
My bad. I forgot to use my rhetorical club.
Dave
89 - Jet in Columbus
Well thank God for that, the gun would've gotten smoke all over my screen.
90 - Bliffle
Dave: "Before we invaded Germany in WW2 we had no physical evidence of the existence of death camps, just some second hand reports which were largely discounted by the media and the public. Does that mean that our knowledge that Hitler was a psycho of the sort who had the capacity for evil on the scale of death camps was insufficient to invade Germany?"
Huh? We invaded Germany because we were at war with them, not because of 'death camps'. What was the point of your statement?
91 - Dave Nalle
I refer you to #86 bliff.
Dave
92 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
"Before we invaded Germany in WW2 we had no physical evidence of the existence of death camps, just some second hand reports which were largely discounted by the media and the public. Does that mean that our knowledge that Hitler was a psycho of the sort who had the capacity for evil on the scale of death camps was insufficient to invade Germany?"
Dave, you really blew it there.
Your country didn't give two shits about the death camps of the Germans. If all the Jews, Gypsies and other "subhuman trash" the Nazis were murdering off had all been killed, your government, and the Reform Jews in the States, BTW, would have all the happier. The fact that Hitler "missed a few" was a royal pain in the ass for your government. You were at war with Germany because Hitler was stupid enough to declare war on you, and because the Germans were at war with your ally Britain. Americans did not bomb the death camps or the railways leading to them even once, though they very well knew where they were.
Don't screw your analogies up that way, man.
93 - Dave Nalle
Your country didn't give two shits about the death camps of the Germans.
Ruvy, I did say "largely discounted by the media and the public"
Which is a nice way of saying 'didn't give two shits'. But you know, if Roosevelt had proof of the death camps in '40 he could have used them as a justification instead of Pearl Harbor and would have.
This reminds me never to use anything even vaguely related to Hitler as an analogy because people ignore the point and start talking about their favorite war instead.
Dave
94 - JP
Ha, Dave I won't get into a complicated analysis of the rationale for WW2 here, just as I won't compare the misadventure in Vietnam to this conflict as many do, but it will require touching on. Your question, using Germany as an example, was "Does that mean that our knowledge that .... had the capacity for evil ... was insufficient to invade Germany?"
Given that the reasoning was much more complex, as it is with Iraq, I'd say it's fortunate that our entry into WW2 was not based solely upon what you suggest was an incomplete case for death camps. We were brought into the war because of Pearl Harbor, whether or not some of the conspiracists are correct in suggesting there was foreknowledge of the Japanese attack or not; had Pearl Harbor not occurred, we'd have had to actively choose whether or not to become involved in the conflict in the role of what I call "World Police" - again, is it our duty to correct all the wrong in the world, particularly when we ignore that of our allies?
"Deem what acceptable?" I'm suggesting that even if we buy the newly released documents as "proof" of the case that there was some rudimentary connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda, that at the voting booth we are being asked to accept that going into war based upon a clearly incomplete case was the right choice. We were not scared into supporting a war effort based upon the complicated geostrategic and geopolitical case Eric made in his article; we were scared shi*less into supporting war with Terror Alert Levels and suggestions that Iraq would somehow spearhead a "mushroom cloud".
In my opinion, giving the public only part of the reason is not enough. It's also not enough to make broad allegations when you don't have concrete evidence to prove them; it's especially deficient when your own intelligence experts are openly doubting many of the evidence you're citing. That the doubt of our intelligence folks was withheld is misleading at BEST.
Therefore, I cannot bring myself to vote for the party--particulary trying to hold onto the executive branch in 2008--which brought that overinflated case to the public in an attempt to obtain support for war. It's ludicrous to ask for support NOW after having failed to be forthcoming from the beginning, if you ask me.
95 - troll
Mo - concerning #75
I figure that once the US is boxed in protecting the oil infrastucture and off the 'street' the Shia will be 'free' to align with Persia - the Sunnis will be 'free' to align with Arabia - and the Kurds will be 'free' to pursue their (bloody) dream of a greater Kurdistan
troll
96 - David Ben-Ariel
President Bush rewards terrorism by aiding and abetting the "Palestinians," they're weapons of mass destruction, and he rewards terrorism by his confused support for the treacherous Israeli party (politicians of mass destruction) who would DIVIDE JERUSALEM: the Kadima cult of death.
May all who love our Jewish brethren and pray for the peace of Jerusalem, pray that the Israeli party of hardened criminals, Kadima, is defeated in the Israeli elections.
Sharon: From Zionist to Traitor
Kadima train to Auschwitz borders: Don't get on board!
97 - Jet in Columbus
Someone needs to explain to me again, as to why if Iraq has the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world, and we actually won the still unnamed war, why our gas prices are so high?
If Iran does cut off our oil supply from their country, why can't our Iraqi pals/conquered masses/best friends in the middle east, bring up the slack???
I warn you Dave I'll probably be too naive to understand your answer, but give it a shot anyway.
98 - Dave Nalle
Therefore, I cannot bring myself to vote for the party--particulary trying to hold onto the executive branch in 2008--which brought that overinflated case to the public in an attempt to obtain support for war. It's ludicrous to ask for support NOW after having failed to be forthcoming from the beginning, if you ask me.
Well, the Bush administration isn't running for reelection. And both parties were equally involved in making the actual decision to launch the war. So I take it you're voting Libertarian? Good choice!
Dave
99 - Dave Nalle
Someone needs to explain to me again, as to why if Iraq has the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world, and we actually won the still unnamed war, why our gas prices are so high?
Because we aren't pumping any more oil out of Iraq than was being pumped when Saddam was in charge. There's a bottleneck in the lack of processing facilities and the number of wells. Efforts are being made to increase production, but that's a slow process.
Plus, this thing about Iraq having the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world is debatable. They may have the 2nd largest in the middle east, but given the enormous oil reserves of the US, Mexico and Russia I don't see how they can be any higher than 4th or 5th on the list.
If Iran does cut off our oil supply from their country, why can't our Iraqi pals/conquered masses/best friends in the middle east, bring up the slack???
I think that's the eventual idea, but it still won't help. The real problem isn't oil production, it's oil consumption. Oil use in China is increasing at a geometric rate. Within 20 years China will be using as much oil as the rest of the world put together. In the face of that it's impossible to keep prices down or to pump enough oil in the long run to fill demand. We're going to have to move away from oil as our main source of fuel just because there won't be enough available at a reasonable price.
Dave
100 - troll
well said Dave
troll
101 - Mo
Can you spell F-U-N-G-I-B-L-E?
Oil is a fungible product.
102 - Dave Nalle
That is indeed a lovely word. Need to remember it next time I explain why it makes no difference if oil we end up drilling in ANWR goes direct to China instead of to US consumers.
Dave
103 - Mo
Good point.
104 - JP
Dave,
"Well, the Bush administration isn't running for reelection. And both parties were equally involved in making the actual decision to launch the war. So I take it you're voting Libertarian? Good choice!"
Hahaha! The Republican Party hopes to retain power in 2008; sorry to confuse you.
I dispute strongly the idea that both parties were "equally involved" - remember the "White House Iraq Group"? I believe they maintained control of the flow of information.
If you're trying to filter out the information-gathering in order to focus on the yes-or-no vote on the authorization for Bush to move forward, by the words "...the actual decision...", I'm not falling for it. (If the decision maker doesn't have all the facts, he's not making an educated choice.. if he's prevented from having all the facts, he's making an influenced choice)
Rhetoric won't work here.
105 - Dave Nalle
If you're trying to filter out the information-gathering in order to focus on the yes-or-no vote on the authorization for Bush to move forward, by the words "...the actual decision...", I'm not falling for it. (If the decision maker doesn't have all the facts, he's not making an educated choice.. if he's prevented from having all the facts, he's making an influenced choice)
Well then, all the more reason to vote the Democrats out for allowing themselves to be duped so thoroughly.
Basically, your entire argument is a crock. The House Intelligence Committee had full access to the intelligence services and the information and could have asked any questions and requested any added information they needed. Govem their postions they ought to have had the experience to ask the right questions.
And of course, what you don't even take into consideration is that the administration's fault was an excess of eagerness rather than a deliberate intent to deceve. But keep on believing the disinformation and the hate if they make you feel better.
Dave
106 - Mo
"The House Intelligence Committee had full access to the intelligence services and the information and could have asked any questions and requested any added information they needed."
Evidently, the Committee didn't ask for a secret memo of the Blair-Bush deal before the Iraq war started.
Shame on them for not knowing there was a secret memo.
"A memo of a two-hour meeting between the two leaders at the White House on January 31 2003 - nearly two months before the invasion - reveals that Mr Bush made it clear the US intended to invade whether or not there was a second UN resolution and even if UN inspectors found no evidence of a banned Iraqi weapons program."
Check it out
here.
107 - Dave Nalle
Well thank god for the Brits and their bottomless supply of 'secret memos'. As with most of these memos and the Guardian's slanted coverage of them, we're looking at much ado about nothing. Another example of a brainstorming session where people were throwing out hypotheticals being built up into some sort of conspiracy. I've seen it before.
Dave
108 - JP
"Basically, your entire argument is a crock. The House Intelligence Committee had full access to the intelligence services and the information and could have asked any questions and requested any added information they needed. Govem their postions they ought to have had the experience to ask the right questions."
I'm pretty sure the Congress was Republican controlled in both houses as of the 2002 election. Hard to have subpoena power if you're not in control of any committees, now isn't it? Plus, in 2002 if anyone had questioned the Bush admin warnings, they'd have been lynched or arrested for treason. And you know it.
Excess of eagerness doesn't explain the comments by Rumsfeld, etc. guiding the team to dig up any links to Saddam, comments that were made before all the dust had settled from the Twin Towers. That's not eagerness, that's opportunistic linking of a pre-existing goal to a current event.
But keep believing the conventional wisdom if it makes you feel better.
109 - Dave Nalle
JP, what's wrong with the administration wanting to take out Saddam and wanting to assemble the best case for doing it that they could. Yes, it's not the same as going directly after Al Qaeda, but incase you didn't notice Al Qaeda doesn't have a door you can knock on and deliver an arrest warrant. There's no question Iraq was a nation which supported terrorism, and of the pro-terror nations available it was the weakest and easiest to attack after Afghanistan. You've got to start somewhere.
Dave
110 - Mo
“Al Qaeda doesn't have a door you can knock on and deliver an arrest warrant. There's no question Iraq was a nation which supported terrorism, and of the pro-terror nations available it was the weakest and easiest to attack after Afghanistan. You've got to start somewhere.”
Al Qaeda did have a door to knock on after it drove the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan. But the neocons wanted to start somewhere else. All they had to do was wait for the weakest and easiest president and con him into getting an arrest warrant.
111 - JP
Dave, it was so easy they didn't even finish the job in Afghanistan (getting Osama "dead or alive") before moving into Iraq, then?
112 - Michael J. West
There's one additional party, other than the left and the media, who has pushed forward the notion that Iraq did not have WMDs.
"Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there."
--George W. Bush
October 7, 2004
Clearly, nothing has been reported or uncovered in the time since he made that statement that has convinced the President that Iraq did, indeed, possess the weapons. Otherwise, one assumes that he would have made a statement to that effect--seeing as how he has more staked on those weapons and more reason to trumpet their existence than anyone else on Planet Earth.
If the evidence we're talking about hasn't convinced Bush that there were WMDs in Iraq, why should it convince me?
113 - Dave Nalle
Michael, you believe everything Bush tells you?
JP, it's clear that the idea was much better than the execution. That seems to be the hallmark of this administration.
In general, what you see going on here is a lot of good intentions and relatively well conceived objectives with very poor follow through and confused presentation of the rationales for administration actions.
As for the possession of WMDs, as always Bush goes for the simple answer. Technically Iraq had no active WMDs. They had a WMD program ready to turn out full-fledged WMDs on demand in a matter of weeks, but no stockpiles. So he's right when he says what he does, and he sticks with that because explaining the reality would be too complex a message for him to attempt to convey to the public - I'm not sure whether this constant talking down is a function of his own limitations or his perception of the limited capacity of his audience.
Dave
114 - Michael J. West
I'm sorry, Dave, I just don't believe that. As I said, if the evidence that Iraq had WMDs was genuinely solid and unimpeachable, Bush would have far more to gain from throwing it in our faces than he would to just take the path of least resistance for the sake of his audience's limitations. I can't imagine that, even if it were his own limitations that kept him from doing so, Cheney, Rove, Rice, Rumsfeld wouldn't make it a point to do it for him.
115 - Mo
George‘s Adventures in Wonderland.
The rabbit-hole [Iraq] went straight on like a tunnel for some way, and then dipped suddenly down, so suddenly that George had not a moment to think about stopping himself before he found himself falling down what seemed to be a very deep well.
Either the well was very deep, or he fell very slowly, for he had plenty of time [over three years] as he went down to look about, and to wonder what was going to happen next. First, he tried to look down and make out what was coming, but it was too dark to see anything: then he looked at the sides of the well, and noticed that they were filled with IED’s and RPG’s: here and there he saw headless people hung upon pegs.
"Well!" thought George to himself, "After such a fall as this, I shall think nothing of starting a war with Iran! How brave they'll all think me at home! Why, I wouldn't say anything about it, even if I lost control of the Republican party!” (which was very likely true.)
Down, down, down. Would the fall never come to an end? "I wonder how many miles I've fallen by this time?" he said aloud. "I must be getting somewhere near the WMD’s.”
[fast forward]
`Wake up, George!' said someone; `Why, what a long sleep you've had!' ‘Oh, I've had such a curious dream!' said George, and he told everyone as well as he could remember them, all these strange Adventures of his that you have just been reading about;
116 - JP
Dave,
Two points.. "In general, what you see going on here is a lot of good intentions and relatively well conceived objectives with very poor follow through and confused presentation of the rationales for administration actions." - So is the focus on WMD as rationale simply poor presentation, or deliberately selective as its favorable impact could easily be predicted (fear)? I'm not sure we can make a firm conclusion here because the question has to do with motive. Some of the 'Downing Street' memos shed light on motive, but we don't know for sure.
As for "Technically Iraq had no active WMDs. They had a WMD program ready to turn out full-fledged WMDs on demand in a matter of weeks, but no stockpiles." Not sure where you get this conclusion. Even the administration admits the latest batch of prewar documents isn't a 'smoking gun':
117 - Dave Nalle
Michael, I think the operating principle here is 'once burned, twice shy', which suggests that Bush didn't lie, but rather was the victim of bad information and doesn't want to take any risk of that again.
And JP, as I said the main factor here seems to be a combination of enthusiasm and poor presentation, which could easily be mistaken for other motivations. And the fact that Negroponte and others are taking a very conservative position on the mounting evidence about materials being moved to Syria doesn't change the information one bit.
Dave
118 - troll
with 48,000 boxes of goodies I wonder where They will put the Saddam Hussein Dictatorial Library
troll
119 - troll
[Mo - about #101:
'oil' becomes a fungible at the well head when it enters the distribution system
'oil' in exploration and extraction are different critters altogether
the saying - 'a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush' - holds true for the oil industry
troll]
120 - Dave Nalle
Just so long as they don't put it in my garage - it's already too full of useless papers.
Dave
121 - Mo
Troll
Are you saying that a fungible barrel of oil on one tanker heading to market, has a different price than a fungible barrel of oil on any other tanker?
122 - Bliffle
Dave: "Michael, I think the operating principle here is 'once burned, twice shy', which suggests that Bush didn't lie, but rather was the victim of bad information and doesn't want to take any risk of that again."
I don't think Bush was victimized by bad intel, I think he encouraged bad intel to support his pre-disposition to invade Iraq. It's the simplest explanation to fit the available facts. Why search so hard for contrived excuses for bad action? And what happened fits better with Bush's style: he acts first and justifies later. Some call this decisive leadership. For example, he didn't seek anyones approval to expand the scope of NSA warrantless searches and wiretaps, he just did it and only attempted justification when he was caught. Some call this leadership, but I think it's a character flaw. And character counts, as some remind us.
"And JP, as I said the main factor here seems to be a combination of enthusiasm and poor presentation, which could easily be mistaken for other motivations."
Poor things: they're just misunderstood.
"And the fact that Negroponte and others are taking a very conservative position on the mounting evidence about materials being moved to Syria doesn't change the information one bit."
Mounting evidence? All I know of is the gossip of one guy who claims to be more important than he seems to be, presumably for power, fame or money. I suppose we could call this the "Chalabi syndrome".
123 - Jet in Columbus
You know, JUST when I thought it was safe to come back, I see you guys using words like "fungible" and "Chalabi syndromea". Gads guys!!!
To quote Whoopi Goldberg in Jumpin' Jack Flash
"ENGLISH, MICK!!! SPEAK ENGLISH...DAMN!!!
Okay, while I go running for my thesaurus and my dictionary, to make myself APPEAR to have a halfway intelligent reply to all this silliness, I leave this, from one of my other posts, which is just as applicible here...
In Federally funded study 3349 concerning FUNGIBLE Oil reserves, I quote, "With a negative aspect concerning resulting rationales towards percentages of population expansion in those areas, taking into account economic class distinctions, along with affiliated variables, versus the positive anti-reactionary conclusions based on several politically and commercially motivated studies, yielding several unsubstantiated claims, there would appear to be various destinations that the untrained mind could meander without the proper guidance..."
However, in Federally funded study 4547 concerning the CHALABI syndrome I quote, "However, there contain several portions of the study that appear truly contradictory if not unsubstantiated, as opposed to partially substantiated, or completely substantiated. Whenever confirming scientific comparisons can be initiated through both layman and university classroom studies, resulting in not only a quorum on this very complicated subject, but also quite a bit of doubletalk, doublespeak, and of course deranged vocabulary lessons, yielding several radically different yet esoteric but conflicting conclusions.
Bet you didn't miss me at all did you?
...But of course that's only my opinion
124 - Dave Nalle
I don't think Bush was victimized by bad intel, I think he encouraged bad intel to support his pre-disposition to invade Iraq.
Is there a functional difference?
It's the simplest explanation to fit the available facts. Why search so hard for contrived excuses for bad action? And what happened fits better with Bush's style: he acts first and justifies later. Some call this decisive leadership.
In some circumstances this can be a good thing, in others not so good.
For example, he didn't seek anyones approval to expand the scope of NSA warrantless searches and wiretaps, he just did it and only attempted justification when he was caught. Some call this leadership, but I think it's a character flaw. And character counts, as some remind us.
I think it's both. Andrew Jackson had exactly the same problem and some think he was a disaster and others think it was genius.
Mounting evidence? All I know of is the gossip of one guy who claims to be more important than he seems to be, presumably for power, fame or money. I suppose we could call this the "Chalabi syndrome".
So you're just not paying attention, right? Check the article for the confirmation of this from Saddam's own documents, and keep an eye out because as more documents get translated the non-Chalabized facts are becoming very clear.
Dave
125 - Michael J. West
Michael, I think the operating principle here is 'once burned, twice shy', which suggests that Bush didn't lie, but rather was the victim of bad information and doesn't want to take any risk of that again.
But if the evidence is THAT solid, THAT certain, THAT hard to argue with, what's he got to worry about?