[QUOTE]
Originally posted by sgtclub
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Club -- I don't think that my post misrepresented the report at all -- no evidence yet found of current CW or BW and only the "most rudimentary" nuclear program. That's the way both the Washington Post and the Washington Times reported it -- although the differing emphases in their headlines were quite striking. The Times trumpeted the evidence of deception, but noted in a sub-headline that "Weapons Continue to Elude the U.S. Team". The Post just started out with "No Evidence of Weapons Found"
Quote:
I think I responded to most of this before the board went down, so I'll wait to see if it is retored. Did you read the actual report or just the Wapo and WT accounts?
|
Actually, my most recent post was responding to your response. I've read excerpts of the reports -- as well as those you posted and lots of news coverage.
As my post suggested, though, the way people view the report and the result is at leaat as important as the reality. For example, the most recent cover of The Economist (for gosh sakes) -- a firm supporter of the war and not really "liberal" at all in the modern sense of the word -- has the following headline over a photo of Bush and Blair -- 'Wielders of mass deception?"
the first Leader in that edition (10/4/03) has the following header and subheader -- "Wielders of mass deception? There was a good case for deposing Saddam Hussein, but Britain and America stretched it."
I'll give you the first few sentences:
"The road to war with Iraq was paved with arguments, good and bad. Among the many good ones were Saddam Hussein's serial invasions of his neighbours, his neglect and disregard for his own people, and his recidivist disregard for the umpteen UN resolutions passed in the hope of domesticating him. But there were some less good arguments advanced by the governments that ousted him. George Bush and Tony Blair, it now appears, exaggerated the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD), This is not just a negligible footnote in the history of Iraq's conquest and reconstruction -- just so much propoganda under the bridge. In the eyes of the world, especially the Arab world, the flimsiness of some of the claims about Mr. Hussein's arsenal has helped to make a legitimate conflict seem otherwise."
This sort of analysis stings, and I think that it will get worse for Bush -- especially if the economy doesn't get lots better in terms of employment fairly soon. At a minimum -- they're playing defense now.
S_A_M
