Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:My favorite thing about that canard is that you could have talked to about anybody and all believed that Iraq had WMD's up to and including the Clinton administration.native wrote:
Please read carefully what I said and what I did not say, kleanie. There is nothing extraordinary, beyond the pale, or untruthful in my words. I am not denying that oil played a part in Bush's geostrategic calculations. In fact, I am joining you lefties in excoriating the Bush team for poor pre-combat planning and post-combat execution of nation building tasks in Iraq. I neither support nor oppose his decision to go into Iraq. In hindsight, I can see both sides.
Like it or not, here's where you guys usually go way off the tracks:
1. Oil alone may not be a sufficient reason for geostrategic decisions, but it is certainly a valid component of any geostrategic calculation.
2. Haliburton may have made some mistakes and should be held to account, but Haliburton is not nearly as inexcusably corrupt and evil as, say, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, or the GM/Chrysler bailout deal, or for that matter the healthcare deal.
3. The leftie complaints about WMD are a canard. Everybody important besides GWB thought they were there, the Chinese, Russians, French and Germans were caught red-handed breaking the UN oil embargo in exchange for providing non-humanitarian technical support for various weapons programs, and some of it was there and ready to be used, as evidenced by the large stocks of captured atropine.
I tell you, Brother Bear, when they discovered that stockpile of atropine it sent shivers up and down my spine. Saddam knew that the U.S. did not use the kind of chemical agents for which atropine is the antidote. Only the Republican Guard used thatr kind of atropine. The atropine was there to innoculate Iraqi troops against their own offensive use of chemical agents.
