The Weapons That Weren’t (NY Press)

[dajabr]

"So what’s the difference?" a slightly flustered George W. Bush asked Diane Sawyer last week when she challenged him on whether Saddam Hussein actually had weapons of mass destruction, or just wanted to get his hands on some.

"The possibility that he could acquire weapons," Bush continued, now defending the invasion and occupation of Iraq based on Saddam’s thoughts, desires and wildest dreams rather than his actions, "if he were to acquire weapons, he would be the danger. That’s what I’m trying to explain to you."

With that logic, I should pay taxes on a brand-new BMW just for wanting one. Hell, I should be locked up–and, in Texas, given the death penalty–just for some of the ugly thoughts that have gone through my own mind in recent months.

Gone are those heady days of Colin Powell’s maps and grainy photos of deadly trailers filled with diabolical scientists making poisons designed to knock off entire populations. "My colleagues," Powell told the U.N earlier this year, "every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we’re giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence… We have firsthand descriptions of biological weapons factories on wheels… can produce enough dry biological agent in a single month to kill thousands upon thousands of people."

More: http://www.nypress.com/16/52/news&columns/signorile.cfm

Good read.

[girl gone mad]

1. Minority Report. n/t

[Beetwasher]

2. "if he were to acquire weapons, he would be the danger.

That’s what I’m trying to explain to you."

And if you had a dick, you'd actually be a man. And if you had a brain, you'd actually be able to think properly. You peice of shit...What a scumbag...

And of course, the obvious follow-up question was never asked "So then you admit he wasn't a danger at the time we went to war, so, why the rush to war? Why not let the weapons inspectors finish LIKE YOU PROMISED YOU WOULD?"

[dennis4868]

3. Thanks for the article...

A great read for sure! I never understood why Dean took so much heat for saying that AMERICA is no safer today than we were before Sadaam was caught. Based on what we know now (and what Bush really knew before starting this illegal war) Sadaam was not even a real threat to his region of the world. Even dems like James Carville said that what Dean said was stupid. I would like to ask Carville why that is so?

Did Sadaam have anything to do with 911? NO

Did Sadaam have strong ties with those responsibile for 911? NO

Did Sadaam have WMDs? NO

Did Sadaam have nukes or even a program? NO

So what exactly makes America safer TODAY now that we got Sadaam?

[montanacowboy]

5. Because Carville

does not support Dean - watching Carville on CSPAn over the weekend, he hemmed hawed all around Dean, not wanting to give him any credit, but at the same time being careful what he said - I think down deep Carville is still the old DLC

[fob]

6. Yeah, that was weird.

Carville kept referring to Dean as running away from Clinton. What does that mean? Dean's stances(apart from IWR) seem very Clintonian. Balance the budget, healthcare for all, etc. What's the key item Carville seems to be basing his point on?

Anyone?

And James, if you're here, when ANYONE asks you if (insert dem nominee name here) can beat bush*, the answer is not just yes, it's "Hell yes and you're a complete fool for even asking!)

fob

[jbfam4]

4. excellent read....

Thanks for posting this. How said that the talk show hosts don't have the savvy of Signorile

[kanrok]

7. My favorite quote:

"It’s curious how Condi and the gang became fortunetellers when it came to Saddam–and justified a war based on their soothsaying–but claim they couldn’t predict the 9/11 attacks, even with clear-cut intelligence staring them in the face."