- Joined
- Dec 8, 2005
- Messages
- 9,204
- Reaction score
- 3,228
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Private
Why was "contact" good enough for the "Bush lied" crowd before the war and not good enough now? Why is there a sudden caveat called "Operational relationship"? Why was there no need to distinguish this before?
OK, so we just killed this guy Fred because we thought he had killed someone else named Joe. Immediately after Fred's execution, someone in Fred's family brings forth plenty of evidence to show that Fred had known who Joe was, but was not involved in his murder and that the relationship the two were supposed to have had, according to the prosecution, was a lie. I repeat--they bring forth evidence to show that the prosecution misled the jury and presented false documentation and evidence at Fred's trial in order to secure a conviction and a death sentence. Furthermore, the prosecution makes no credible reply to the evidence at all.
But then three years later, in what is surely a brilliant rejoinder, the prosecution produces evidence that Fred had, in fact, sold Joe a car in 1996 because Fred worked as a car salesman at the dealership where Joe purchased a car.
Now, would anyone seriously think that Fred's family was somehow being disingenous in claiming that Fred didn't really know Joe, had no reason to kill him, had no relationship with him? Would anyone think that the prosecution was being anything less than a bunch of sanctimonious pricks for replying that Fred's family overlooked the (surely relevant and weighty) automobile purchase? Would anyone be mulish, cowardly, and inhuman enough to suggest that in spite of all the evidence the prosecution can't answer about its lies, its bloodlust, its improper procedure, its fabrications in getting Fred killed for Joe's murder, the car-deal somehow dismissed the fact that an innocent man had been killed? Especially if it were brought out that the defense mentioned the car deal at the trial but said that Fred had no other dealings with Joe, what kind of MORON would it take to wait three years and bring up the car deal as justification for killing Fred?
So, let's review:
1) Saddam and Al-Qaeda had had contact but no working relationship. We knew this in early 2003--see links I posted earlier in this thread.
2) At least three memos and some considerable testimony have been leaked showing that Bush et. al. wanted a war with Iraq from the very start and they were lying to get it.
3) Now that we've actually invaded, we've found no weapons of mass destruction, no evidence of the genocides Saddam was supposed to have committed (he's on trial for the murder of 157 people--bad enough but hardly a genocide), no evidence that he was a participant in 9/11--in short no legal reason to invade.
4) In the meantime, somewhere north of 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of our actions, nearly 3,000 American servicepeople have been killed, the war has cost an unknown but obviously huge amount of money, apparently a bunch of fresh recruits have joined the cause and the entire Muslim world is drifting towards dislike of America, and more wars are on the horizon, and people still apparently want to defend Bush's actions on the notion that Saddam had identified an Al-Qaeda cell in his country and he had, very briefly, talked to them but it turns out they didn't like each other and after a short while, realized they didn't want to work together.
I guess I have nothing more to say.
Last edited: