Re: Reply Pt II
Tom:
You said: "For those who doubt that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction they are in effect disputing what the USA government is stating. If the USA is wrong, which is what those that doubt Iraq has WMD's are saying in effect, either the USA is involved in a massive disinformation campaign designed to dupe the world community or the USA government is demonstrating total imcompetance in interpreting their data and in drawing their conclusions. Personally regarding Iraq I believe that the chances of either being true are very small."
Here you are using a pejorative to describe an obvious process of manufacturing consent as evidence that no such process exists. The US is trying to sell a policy of war. It will use whatever facts and propaganda work. As citizens, we have the responsibility to review and evaluate the evidence. It is manifestly irresponsible for us to assume that government spin and disinformation is unlikely, and that we should support the war therefore.
“The accusations are the Iraq has provided a safe haven to many mid east terrorist groups.”
But the only fact to back those accusations (that Powell made before the UN) are that one associate of bin Laden, Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi, received medical treatment in Baghdad. Powell asserted that Zarqawi met with associates in Baghdad, but offered no evidence that Zarqawi met with or received assistance from was supported by any Iraqi official or planned or conducted any terrorist operations from Iraq.
This is what Powell claimed: “Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network, headed by Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi, an associate and collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda lieutenants.”
In addition to the medical treatmen Zarqawi received, this is Powell's evidence:
“Last year, an Al Qaeda associate bragged that the situation in Iraq was "good," that Baghdad could be transited quickly.”
“We asked a friendly security service to approach Baghdad about extraditing Zarqawi and providing information about him and his close associates. This service contacted Iraqi officials twice, and we passed details that should have made it easy to find Zarqawi. The network remains in Baghdad; Zarqawi still remains at large to come and go.”
Do you sreiously find this persuasive evidence that Iraq is responsible for Al Queda?
Powell isn’t even alleging that Zarqawi remains in Baghdad. In other words, the US doesn’t know where Zarqawi is, but possesses secret information that at one point “should” have made him “easy to find” if Iraq were inclined to capture him. So the evidence that Iraq is inclined to funnell anthrax and other WMD to its traditional enemies in Al Qaeda turns out to be a vague allegation from secret evidence that Iraq is not doing all it can to arrest Al Qaeda members. Isn’t it obvious that there are many other countries to which this applies, remembering in particular the failure of the Saudis to cooperate with the FBI after the truck bombing at the Abdul Aziz airbase, or the widely-reported support of those in our Gulf State clients for Hamas? You cannot reconcile our continued support for these countries with a sudden need for regime change in Iraq when the same facts apply.
In short, Powell’s evidence continues to fit the pattern: unpleasant facts that one could easily apply to U.S. allies and the U.S. itself, surrounded with a lot of scary rhetoric and hyperbole. Such is the proof that will cost thousands of innocent people their lives and plunge the U.S. into God-knows-what. When we apply the evidence to a basic test for justifying war – whether the case is so compelling that we should risk the lives of our children and compatriots – then the answer, IMO, is clear: everyone should do whatever they can within reason to oppose it.
|