tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8919009.post110073218692042598..comments2023-07-30T03:57:10.387-04:00Comments on PezKat's Becoming less Empty Blog: Who lied?PezKathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05049442779467922544noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8919009.post-1103223415006499382004-12-16T13:56:00.000-05:002004-12-16T13:56:00.000-05:00Never responded to this; sorry! Most of your post...Never responded to this; sorry! Most of your post concerns things about which, to be honest, I haven't done enough research to comment. My point was simply to address the multitudinous claims I've seen and heard from Democrats that President Bush lied, and their following conclusion that he cannot be trusted to lead. Period. Thus, given these quotes, by their own arguments, neither can any of *their* people. That's all I wanted to say: the claims that "Bush lied" are merely a screen to avoid getting into the more complicated issues. They've been great sound bites but have no validity, at least when presented as if in contrast to those on their own side of the underlying issues.PezKathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05049442779467922544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8919009.post-1101319273470774792004-11-24T13:01:00.000-05:002004-11-24T13:01:00.000-05:00so... the fact that Democrats were wrong makes Bus...so... the fact that Democrats were wrong makes Bush right? Ummm...no. My concern is with the alleged pressure that was placed on the intelligence staff who presented the evidence being commented on in these quotes. And the strategy of not allowing more time for another resolution from the U.N and for the weapons inspectors to do more inspection. Aren't you concerned that the combination of these allegations of pressure on the C.I.A and the apparent rush to war (why was it so important to not allow the inspectors more time- when they were asking for it and to not allow for greater unity in the U.N?) make it look like Bush wanted to go to war and was worried that the inspectors might reach the same conclusion that has now been reached? I agree that there were other reasons to get rid of Saddam- but couldn't Bush and Blair make the case for that? It feels like the consensus on wmd generated by faulty intelligence was used as a way to circumvent political challenge. This isn't about Republican/Democrat, Labour/Tory; it's about whether we were mislead over the reasons for the war. Perhaps it was RIGHT that we were mislead. Perhaps it is right to protect oil supplies from the willfulness of a dictator and the case for this could not have been made strongly enough to the American people to initiate the war. The wmd argument had to be brought in to make the perfect storm blow just a little harder. But, perhaps also, there would have been strong arguments for a different strategy to get rid of Saddam and we were denied the opportunity to hear these because of the way that the process was manipulated. The moral weight of any attempt to remove Saddam from power is undermined by previous support for him, in any case.RichardKShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02801710201372002047noreply@blogger.com