From: Steve Grammont (islander@midmaine.com)
Date: Mon Sep 13 2004 - 10:04:08 PDT
Hi Ryan,
>Just because a warrant is approved doesn't mean
>it's null and void if they don't find what
>they're looking for.
Very true. But to carry your analogy further... for a warrant to be
lawful it must be based on a certain amount of truth directly relevant to
the charges being made. If, after the execution of the warrant, the
information that lead to it is proven to be falsified, and that the
entity asking for the warrant had reason to believe that it was, the
warrant becomes null and anything that happened after considered null and
void.
The case for war, as presented by the Bush Admin, was largely
circumstantial and based on the premise that there was an "imminent
threat". We, the people, were promised that this weak case (and it was
very weak) was backed up by "solid intelligence" and we were just seeing
the tip of the iceberg. Unfortunately, the critics were correct... the
case for an immediate war against Iraq turned out to be based on lies and
there was NO iceberg at all. Colin Powell's case before the UN was based
on a complete sham and the Bush admin knew it, or at best should have. I
barely followed the details of the case as it unfolded and even I could
see that it was flimsy and riddled with inconsistencies.
The case was based almost exclusively on "evidence" from Chalaby. A man
that neither the Pentagon nor the CIA felt was credible at the time.
They even had evidence to suggest he was an Iranian agent. Yet the Bush
Admin bought everything the guy said hook line and sinker because it was
what they wanted to hear. After all was said and done Chalaby, who stood
behind 1st Lady Bush at last year's State of the Union Speech, was
arrested for being an agent of the Iranian government. Why Bush
supporters don't have a problem with this is beyond me. All the key
"evidence" that he provided to the Bush Admin has already been proven to
be lies. Even the Bush Admin has had to admit this, though grudgingly
and sometimes with conflicting statements.
This also does not excuse the Bush Admin's "Reason de Jour" case building
for going to war right away without delay. The reasons changed
CONSTANTLY in the last few months of 2002 as "trail balloons" were put
out and shot down. First they tried to make the terrorism connection to
9/11 stick, but it didn't because there was none. Then they tried the
general terrorism angle, and that too didn't stick because at best it was
less than the ties between terrorists and Saudia Arabia, Syria, Pakistan,
North Korea, etc. Yet no wars were proposed against those nations. Then
they tried the nuclear angle, and that too was shot down because other
nations were far more advanced (Pakistan, North Korea, etc.) and not one
nuclear expert I can remember thought Iraq had a chance in heck of being
ready for a nuke within the near future (thanks largely to sanctions).
So that angle was largely dropped, though not entirely. The chemical
weapons were a legitimate concern, but Iraq had no proven means of
delivery (some of Powell's "evidence" was designed to provide, but they
were lies from Chalaby). Same with bio weapons. And like other charges,
other nations were much more of a threat in this regards and therefore to
single Iraq out ahead of the rest was questionable at the very least.
Still, the fact that Iraq played so many games with the UN Inspectors
made the concerns of stockpiles legitimate. However, without near term
ability and intent to use them... the rush to war was inadvisable at the
very least.
So... we the people were promised that there was solid evidence that Iraq
was an immediate threat and we were only seeing the tip of the iceberg.
Both have been solidly proven to have been factually incorrect at the
time we the people were told this. Whether the Bush Admin knew that
before taking us to war or not is irrelevant... they should have.
Everybody else appeared to know it was a sham, so too should they.
And none of this excuses the incompetent way the war has been waged and
is being waged. While I support going to war against Iraq in general, I
strongly disapprove of the way we went about it and (more importantly)
the way we continuing it.
Steve
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat May 07 2005 - 20:35:13 PDT