sirs:
<<Well, to folks with a grasp of what Bush was saying, especially as it relates to why we went into Iraq, his comments are perfectly in line with that reality. >>
"THAT REALITY" was that Saddam had no WMD.
What Bush was saying was: <<we have arrived at an important moment in confronting the threat posed to our nation and to peace by Saddam Hussein and his weapons of terror. . .
Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people, and to all free people.>>
Now how could what Bush was saying possibly be "perfectly in line with reality?" There were no WMD. Furthermore, even if Saddam HAD such weapons, he would never have used them against the U.S.A. Proof? This was a man who hadn't even dared to attack tiny Kuwait without first getting U.S. approval. Further, when U.S. forces arrived, he withdrew from Kuwait without a fight. This was a man who at the height of his power was scared shitless of the U.S.A. and now years later with his armed forces at a fraction of their prior strength, he was going to strike the U.S.A. with WMD? That's bullshit and everybody knows it. The fact is, Bush was lying to your face.
< <Intel said Saddam had WMD. >>
No it did not. Some intel of very dubious quality - - which for some unexplained reason Bush now claims to have sincerely believed in - - although, strangely, with no attempt whatsoever to probe or test it further - - seemed to correspond with what Bush and his Zionist advisers associated with PNAC had long sought to find, namely a reason, however bogus, for invading Iraq and seizing its oil. Had the "intel" been probed further, it would have been found to emanate from one source, the Iraqi National Congress, an Iraqi exile group headed by Ahmad Chalabi, who had lobbied long and hard to get Washington onboard his campaign to overthrow and replace Saddam.
Now you have two choices - - you can believe that Bush, and more significantly, the people around him, were so fucking stupid or lazy that they were unable to discern the phony basis of the "intel" that pointed to WMD (including that it all came from the Iraqi National Congress and that it rested in part on crudely forged documents) OR you can believe that they are NOT that lazy or stupid, probably saw through that "intel" but CHOSE to adopt it as their "reason" for invading Iraq because they needed a reason, any reason, having already decided in accordance with their preconceived plan (PNAC) to invade Iraq for its oil. Personally, while I don't think much of their brain-power, I don't believe they were too dumb to see through such obviously bad intelligence, and so I go with the idea they cherry-picked the intel that suited their nefarious plans, no matter how rotten it was. What they were really looking for was a fig-leaf.
<<Saddam had used WMD.>>
BFD. Who hasn't? But never against America. Only against Iran (with America's blessing and assistance) and the Kurds. Neither of whom had the massive power to wipe Saddam and his country from the face of the earth.
<<Saddam had connections with terrorists . . . >>
Now that is the perfect example of disinformation. A meaningless and vague factoid ("links/connections to "terrorists") is coined which can mean everything or nothing. What kind of connections (how close, how involved?) and with which "terrorists?" But as soon as the meaningless factoid rolls off the bullshit factory's production lines, it is taken up by the brainless robots who parrot the administration line, understanding not a word of it, as if it were some sacred mantra.
The real tragedy here is an entire generation of Americans completely untrained in any kind of critical thought, ready to parrot whatever meaningless garbage their government hands out to them without even once pausing to ponder its meaning. "Links to terrorists. AWWK. Links to terrorists." Solves all arguments. "Links to terrorists" means you can invade them. "Links to terrorists" means you can torture them, jail them indefinitely without charges or trials, etc.
<< . . . which included the same group that orchestrated 911.>>
That would be Al Qaeda, a group of religious fanatics totally at odds with the socialist and secular government of Iraq's Ba"ath Arab Socialist Party.
<<Ergo, Saddam's WMD in the hands of such terrorists, indeed was "a direct threat to this country, to our people, and to all free people">>
Ergo. Ergo non-existent weapons somehow passing from Saddam's hands and now (according to Bush) "in the hands" of a group of terrorists that happen to hate Saddam's guts (but who seem to have some mysterious and irrestistible claim on his arsenal of WMD) are indeed "a direct threat to [the people of the USA.] Yes, Bush SINCERELY BELIEVED that Saddam's WMD were likely handed over for reasons unstated by Saddam to a group of religious fanatics who hated his Westernized socialist and secular party and everything he and it stood for; moreover, who could easily cause Saddam and his entire nation to be anihilated either by turning the weapons on Iraq themselves, or using them on the USA, which would then turn on Iraq in revenge when it inevitably discovered where the WMD had come from in the first place.
Not only would Saddam have to be nuts to DO that, but Bush would have to be nuts to BELIEVE that Saddam would do that.
Now you can believe (if you are stupid enough) that Bush sincerely believed in all that shit. Which in my opinion is quite a stretch. Or you can believe, as is much more likely, that Bush believed no such thing, was lying like a trooper and lied for one reason only - - to build public support for an invasion of Iraq which had been planned for years, for reasons totally unconnected to the cock-and-bull WMD story, for the only reason that would in fact make sense for invading Iraq, which is: for the oil.
