No, that would be your little drooly friend. Not me, that's for sure.
I explained my reasons for predicting a Canadian catastrophe, and you can continue to hide from those reasons, until the shoe drops. Afterwards, you might have something to say of worth about the matter.
Keep pretending Bush lied about wmd, for instance, and therefore try to feel correct and superior about your government's craven betrayal of her strongest ally. That's your choice, and I know you won't let go of it, no matter how many times the facts are placed directly in front of you, and your eyelids are pinned open so you have no choice but to read them...but you retain the ability to turn off your brain! Foiled again...but we never quit trying, either.
Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski, during a press conference last week, said "Many months before (the) Iraqi action, I met (the) predecessor of (chief U.N. weapons inspector) Hans Blix in Warsaw. . . . He told me (a) very important thing: that Saddam had these weapons or is ready to produce these weapons. Because to have such (an) impression that he has mass destruction weapons is a part of his doctrine, to keep . . . power in Iraq and to be strong in the region. So I think it's very difficult today to judge how it was when he . . . decided to continue this project of mass destruction weapons. . . . Absolutely, Iraq is ready to produce if it's necessary to keep the power of and dictatorship of Saddam and to play such (an) important role in the region."
-- In October 2003, months after the Iraq war began, former President Bill Clinton visited Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso. Durao Barroso said, "When Clinton was here recently he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime."
-- French President Jacques Chirac, in February 2003, spoke about "the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq," noting "the international community is right . . . in having decided that Iraq should be disarmed."
-- Former Clinton CIA director R. James Woolsey, in a Wall Street Journal article, made several points -- that Saddam possibly intentionally misled the world into thinking he still possessed WMD to keep his status as a power player in the region; that stockpiles of WMD possibly remained only to be destroyed at the last minute; that WMD-related material "probably" entered Syria months before the war; that Iraq admitted making 8,500 liters (8.5 tons) of anthrax, which if reduced to powder, could fill a dozen easily portable suitcases; and that "Iraq's ties with terrorist groups in the '90s are clear," with a decade worth of connections between Iraq and al Qaeda, "including training in poisons, gases, and explosives."
-- Weapons hunter David Kay, testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, said that based on the pre-war intelligence, Saddam Hussein posed "a gathering, serious threat to the world." Hussein's scientists possibly misled the former dictator into believing Iraq possessed WMD, with the scientists possibly misappropriating funds. Kay also said that, based on his investigation, Iraq posed an even greater danger than previously thought.
-- Former President Bill Clinton on Dec. 16, 1998, stated, "Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. . . . I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again. . . . "
-- Former President Clinton, in an appearance on "Larry King Live" on July 22, 2003, said, " . . . (I)t is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons. We might have destroyed them in '98. We tried to, but we sure as heck didn't know it because we never got to go back there."
The pathological, irrational contempt so many hold for President Bush clouds their ability to put themselves in the commander-in-chief's shoes. On Sept. 11, in America, over 3,000 people lost their lives. Meanwhile, Saddam Hussein continued to defy United Nations Security Council resolutions to come clean. What was going on with the Oil-for-food boondoggle, boggles the mind, and points up the laughability of the UN running anything , much less a reconstruction of a devastated former-gulag like Iraq.
Critics quite properly accuse the U.S. intelligence community for failing to connect the dots, and thus prevent 9/11. After the first Gulf War in 1991, the advanced nature of Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program shocked intelligence analysts. Nuclear bomb testing in India and Pakistan came as a surprise, as did the advanced nature of Iran's and Libya's WMD programs. By all means, the U.S. intelligence failures call for serious soul-searching, and possibly housekeeping to improve accuracy. All that is happening, and we can only hope it's not too little, too late.
But, in the case of pre-war Iraq, the president's critics suggest the following: Cross your fingers, hope for the best, and run the risk of another attack on American or Israeli soil, this time possibly with chemical or biological weapons. No, the president acted upon the best available information and properly discharged his responsibility as commander-in-chief.