You sure sound certainMay 27 2003 at 1:17 PM
|Occhi (no login)|
from IP address 126.96.36.199
Response to Mostly, yes.
For a man who does not have all of the facts yet. That's not like you.
When the facts of the WMD (I prefer NBC) programs are better figured out, or more facts, then I suspect that one of two things will happen:
1. There's gonna be a whupping that will make Watergate look tame. That will be the case if there is ample evidence proof to show that a fraud was committed. Hell hath no fury like someone whose trust has been betrayed. At this point, that is a charge, not a matter of proof. We shall see.
2. Some folks will understand why DA's sometimes put away crooks on circumstantial evidence.
What I am not about to do is jump to conclusions.
How many years has it taken various authors, investigators, and reporters to get to the bottom of a great deal, to include some of the stuff on Viet Nam that took years, decades to clear up, if that term can even be used?
Oh, hell, let's get closer to home, and a simpler crime, the mere shooting of a President of this country, and the Warren Commission.
I can put two and two together. I can draw inferences. I am also willing to let some time pass to see what facts come to light.
Now, come fall and winter, my patience may have expired, as quite a bit of intelligence is perishable, and the sources in this case have motivation to lie. Some evidence is less perishable, or subject to manipulation.
To me, the artillery shells, built for use with chemical munitions, complete with filler nozzles, support equipment. etc, were sufficient to once again show material breech, particularly when tied to a 12 year record of evasion. The circumstantial evidence was sufficient. The guilt is not a matter of question.
The question is 'Did the punishment fit the crime?'
This whole operation may also simply be an example of opportunism. The time and opportunity was right, so a risk was taken, like in the Bay of Pigs, or maybe in the Gulf of Tonkin. Or in Grenada, or Panama. Or Haiti. Of course, if that is the case, 2004 is a foregone conclusion, and two straight Bushes serve one term after 'winning a war.'
Having had the opportunity to be on the sharp end of some 20+ years of ever changing national security policy, you might be surprised at how little value I find in most public debate on the subject. In any case, I am not going to fall into the trap of short attention span theatre, but I am keeping a wary eye out for facts.
Oh, and since you mention it, the issue of the spine and balls of the U.N. is unfortunately too germane to this entire problem. It lies at the root of the entire course of action: which parent gets played off against the other?
If you want to argue policy failure, go from mid-late Clinton to early Bush, the younger, and their Congresses, and it is not all that hard to show where the inability to build collective resolve, both at home and within the Security Council, amounted to giving Hussein a free pass, among other issues.
Something about SELF INTEREST keeps cropping up. The fingers point across both sides of the Atlantic.
The truth is the first casualty in any political operation, of which war is a subset. A man I know very well was nearly relieved in late 1995 for simply stating the truth:
"Oh, yeah, we'll be in Bosnia more than a year, have you seen what the conditions on the ground are?"
No sh!t, we are still there. And in 7 years time, I suspect we may still have folks in Iraq. If that prospect does not bother decision makers, it should.
- We're not taking hiding a pistol - Pete on May 27, 1:41 PM
- I disagree . . . - Occhi on May 27, 2:26 PM
- Time will tell about the attention span and the value of spin. - Pete on May 27, 5:55 PM
- It has begun - Occhi on Jun 4, 1:40 PM
- We'll see if there's a "Teflon" effect - Pete on Jun 4, 1:55 PM
- No William Calley's here - Occhi on Jun 4, 2:30 PM