Iraq post from 5 Dec 2002

(Note: I am re-posting some of my Iraq-related posts from the old blog as a prelude to my some of my current thoughts about Iraq, which I will be posting here in the near future. The old posts are to provide some background on my thoughts about Iraq before the war and during the initial stages of the war.)

Almost two months went by before I mentioned Iraq again in one of my posts. I remember paying some attention to what was going on during that time, but I don't think I had fully involved myself in what was going on just yet. I think the time of this post was right around the time when I really started paying full attention. This post was just to comment about something that was said at a White House press conference, but my comments indicate that I was strongly leaning towards opposing the war at that time - somewhat significant considering the tone of my post two months ago. (Also, my cynical side comes through loud and clear in this post.)

"The White House said Thursday it possesses solid evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction...White House spokesman Ari Fleischer declined to say what evidence the administration has...'The president of the United States and the secretary of defense would not assert as plainly and bluntly as they have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction if it was not true, and if they did not have a solid basis for saying it,' Fleischer said." Read the full story here. (link no longer valid)

Actually, yes, the president and secretary of defense would "assert as plainly and bluntly as they have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction if it was not true" because they know that the American people are by and large ignorant, naive, stupid people who will believe anything their government tells them. Duh.

Maybe Iraq has weapons of mass destruction; maybe they don't. But I don't buy the bull**** the government keeps feeding us. If you have evidence, show us. Otherwise, keep your trap shut.

Oh, and by the way, if I understand all this correctly...Bush keeps accusing Iraq and Hussein of violating the U.N. resolutions. If I understand it right, Bush cannot go to war with Iraq unless the U.N. first passes another resolution authorizing it. If he goes to war without a new resolution then Bush is in violation of the U.N. resolution also. Correct? It won't stop him. I just found that semi-interesting for some reason.