82Rigger
02-03-2004, 08:40 PM
I'm not as politically knowledgeable as a lot of you folks here.
I'm educated and well read, but my opinions are formed on a combination of good ole American values and what I call "horse sense".
It seems to me that the crux of the whole problem in the Iraq business is the presence or lack of evidence of WMD in Iraq.
To me, EVIDENCE is an indication BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT that a situation happened or exists.
If someone comes to me and says there are vehicles in Iraq OF THE SAME TYPE that are used to transport WMD, that's not evidence of the existence of WMD in Iraq. That's intelligence that calls for further intelligence gathering.
The fact that Saddam Hussein used WMD against the Kurds is evidence of WMD in Iraq in 1990...not in 2003.
If someone takes action on the basis of circumstantial evidence, then that person runs the risk of being wrong.
If a person CHOOSES to act on such evidence, and is wrong, then that person is responsible for the consequences of that act.
At ANY TIME during the preparations to move against Iraq, the President could have demanded that solid evidence be obtained.
Our surveillance capabilities are such that we can photograph a pack of cigarettes from 200 miles in space.
Before the war, our "intelligence" agencies published a list of WMD that they said Iraq possessed that totaled over 700,000 gallons of various biological and chemical agents. That's enough to fill THIRTY FIVE railroad tank cars.
Hussein moved all of that stuff around without us knowing about it? Bullshit!!
The President is fully aware of our intelligence capability.
The intelligence agencies are, and have been fully aware of what was or was not happening in Iraq.
Nobody was duped about anything.
This whole business stinks to high heaven.
My two cents.
I'm educated and well read, but my opinions are formed on a combination of good ole American values and what I call "horse sense".
It seems to me that the crux of the whole problem in the Iraq business is the presence or lack of evidence of WMD in Iraq.
To me, EVIDENCE is an indication BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT that a situation happened or exists.
If someone comes to me and says there are vehicles in Iraq OF THE SAME TYPE that are used to transport WMD, that's not evidence of the existence of WMD in Iraq. That's intelligence that calls for further intelligence gathering.
The fact that Saddam Hussein used WMD against the Kurds is evidence of WMD in Iraq in 1990...not in 2003.
If someone takes action on the basis of circumstantial evidence, then that person runs the risk of being wrong.
If a person CHOOSES to act on such evidence, and is wrong, then that person is responsible for the consequences of that act.
At ANY TIME during the preparations to move against Iraq, the President could have demanded that solid evidence be obtained.
Our surveillance capabilities are such that we can photograph a pack of cigarettes from 200 miles in space.
Before the war, our "intelligence" agencies published a list of WMD that they said Iraq possessed that totaled over 700,000 gallons of various biological and chemical agents. That's enough to fill THIRTY FIVE railroad tank cars.
Hussein moved all of that stuff around without us knowing about it? Bullshit!!
The President is fully aware of our intelligence capability.
The intelligence agencies are, and have been fully aware of what was or was not happening in Iraq.
Nobody was duped about anything.
This whole business stinks to high heaven.
My two cents.