"Dan White" wrote in
news
"Nate Perkins" wrote in message
. 125.201...

What's astounding to me is the total lack of skepticism towards the
administration. It's almost like people desperately want to believe
the convenient party line. But when they positively claim evidence
of WMD and all they can turn up is yellow cake, aluminum tubes, and
bogus mobile weapons labs doesn't it cause you to wonder? And when
they claim Iraqi support of terrorism in the wake of 9/11, but all
that can be proven are links to anti-Israeli terrorist groups,
doesn't it begin to strain the credibility?

It seems clear that the policy to invade Iraq was set first, and the
justification was adapted later to suit the circumstances.


There's your problem in a nutshell. You are accusing the admin of
some secret motivation in Iraq that you can't really explain without
sounding like a Michael Moore kook. So what was the real story, Nate?
Can you answer without using the terms "Bush's father," or the "Saudi
connection," or "Halliburton"?

"The real story?" OK, here's the real story. The American people were
told that Iraq represented a "grave and gathering threat" that might
next manifest itself in terms of "a mushroom cloud."

Now we know there are no WMDs. There was no collaborative relationship
with Al Qaeda. The "evidence" for mobile weapons labs, aluminum tubes,
drones, etc etc all turned out to be bulls**t.

So now the administration says that our real reason to go into Iraq was
to "spread freedom and democracy." Right. As if the country or
Congress would have supported going to war for that reason alone.

And of course you guys want to claim that anyone who recognizes or
questions this shifting rationale for war is "a Michael Moore kook."


For somebody who is so intent on investigating and picking apart all
details of the Iraq situation, I'd like to see you put the same effort
into telling us all the REAL reason we went there, AND provide the
same good, solid evidence you are demanding of the rest of us.

Who knows? The effort would be pure speculation and a waste of time.
Perhaps you are looking for some kind of conspiracy theory? DAGS -- you
can probably find one to suit your taste.

Or maybe you want me to say it's all about oil (well, ok, I do believe
that if Iraq had no oil we probably wouldn't care).

Personally I think that what we are seeing is the probable outcome when
the group in power sees everything in black and white rather than in
shades of gray. Add to that the apparent desire to make a bold mark on
history, and an apparent inability to distinguish good counsel (Colin
Powell and Richard Clarke) from bad counsel (Doug Feith and Ahmed
Chalabi), and you get a pretty reckless mix.