It appears you're quoting someone. Who? The logic is excellent. I also love the arguments that are coming from some of the harshest Bush critics on this subject - such as Chris Matthews, who almost always manages to express a confoundingly ill-informed and idiotic kneejerk perspective on any newly emerging controversy. Supposedly, according to Matthews or the Win Without War people, among others, the nuclear connection as in the controversial Niger item was a critical element of the case for war. The Bush Administration knew, they say, that any hint that SH was looking for nukes would seal the deal with the public. That's the supposed explanation for the inclusion of an item that the CIA felt uncomfortable about its own ability to back up. It now appears that the famous 16 words were technically and factually accurate: There really was intelligence held and still maintained with high confidence by the British (probably obtained from the French - see article above) that the Iraqis were seeking nuclear materials in Africa. By the critics' logic (lets pretend for a second that logic matters), the case for the war has thus been made - deal sealed, game over. Unless the report of David Kay's survey team reveals that SH and his sons had undergone a spiritual transformation and had committed themselves strictly to conflict resolution along Ghandian lines, the story that finally emerges about what SH really did and was really aiming for is very likely to break this self-constructed "no real threat" straw man in two. Even if nothing new emerges (very unlikely), the evidence that is already on the public record, and is virtually undisputed - I mean the history of SH's past defiance, aggression, terrorist connections, and mass murderous oppression - is more than enough for most Americans to support the war policy. We'll also see soon whether the observers who see the post-war glass as half or less empty are more right than those who take the opposing view. Considering that most of those in the former group are the same ones who were talking quagmire and defeat both in Afghanistan and Iraq, who thought Franks' war plan was shaping up as criminally inept, who were sure that the battle for Baghdad would look like the battle for Stalingrad, who bought all the first totally erroneous headlines about the Museum looting story, and so on, and so on, I'm comfortable betting on the latter group.
Can you prove that it was not a critical element? Can you prove that it was not the straw that broke the back of those who had doubt that war was the only option, and war htat absolutely had to happen now, not later? You are minimizing the impact, without evidence. Just another chicken hawk's opinion, yawn.
KF, One thing that strikes me as ironically unfortunate for the American public is how W/Cheney downplayed the 9/11 security warning, yet managed to play up the Nigerian uranium deal. Could they be that stupid/unlucky? Or does that discrepancy point to a hidden agenda?? Speaking of which, Halliburton's biggest competitor was a French company (anyone know the name offhand??). HAL is the 2nd biggest oil svces company behind the French company. All of these weird coincidences make me VERY NERVOUS!!!
Unless the report of David Kay's survey team reveals that SH and his sons had undergone a spiritual transformation and had committed themselves strictly to conflict resolution along Ghandian lines, the story that finally emerges about what SH really did and was really aiming for is very likely to break this self-constructed "no real threat" straw man in two. Even if nothing new emerges (very unlikely), the evidence that is already on the public record, and is virtually undisputed - I mean the history of SH's past defiance, aggression, terrorist connections, and mass murderous oppression - is more than enough for most Americans to support the war policy. Uhhh, I would think anyone who was forced out of leadership of a sovereign nation by pre-emptive military force would be considered a great threat to retaliate. If Hussein is alive, and in possession of WMD, are the odds greater now that he will use them against US interests? Most intelligent people would realize Hussein now a great reason to support terrorism against the US, certainly a greater reason now than ever before, if he did in fact have ever did have such an agenda.
I see you're back to relying on slurs. I guess that's a good idea, considering how poor your logic and reading comprehension seem to be. I don't consider the item a critical element of the case for war, but, if it was, then the case for war is perfectly sound: Get this through your head - the intelligence was as sound as such intelligence ever is. The only "problem" was that the US's own intelligence services did not have the core intelligence in their own possession, and thus could not back the claim up with their own resources. That is insufficient, the White House now maintains, for a SOTU address. I think they were mistaken to reach this conclusion, and that they also wrongly believed people would handle the issue with a bit of perspective. As one observer put it, they acted as if they had forgotten that the mass media mainly operate as a tool of the Democratic Party, especially when the Republicans are in control. The point remains, if Saddam's search for nuclear materials is enough to justify the war, and there is strong reason to believe he was searching for nuclear materials, then the war was justified - according to the critics' own logic. The "straw man" is the idea that Saddam posed no threat, or that there wasn't sufficient evidence to believe he needed to be taken out. To use a different cliche, it's the crowded corner that the Bush critics are currently painting themselves into. Yawn yourself...
You are the slur master: ...."such as Chris Matthews, who almost always manages to express a confoundingly ill-informed and idiotic kneejerk perspective on any newly emerging controversy." Whoever doesn't agree with your perspective is labeled idiotic. You are just another mud slinger. Yawn. At least Rush is humorous from time to time.
I'm sure Chris Matthews will be greatly heartened when he hears you're standing up for him. The guy signed a multi-million dollar contract. It's his job to be well-informed on these subjects. When goes on and on about something, as he did last night, without even showing the slightest awareness of the basic facts - e.g., that the British were standing by the intelligence, and that it was not based on the notorious forged documents - then he deserves to be slammed.
I don't think he cares, nor do most reasonable people when you blather your opinions of who and what constitutes reasonableness. I have come to the conclusion that it isn't possible for you to make comments without deeming anyone you don't agree with, or anyone who has a position you don't agree with, without some slur of sorts. Shame you can't just construct arguments and leave your personal bias, and need to slander people out of the process.
Who called who a "chicken hawk"? Whose idea of a reply to post was a) to misread it, then b) tack on a "yawn" in order to signify his disrespect? If you want to keep things civil, then don't open with insults. Oh, and in case you haven't noticed, Bush's opponents, here and everywhere, have hardly been holding back with extreme charges against him - recently or at any time except for maybe a brief period right after 9/11. There's nothing I've said about Chris Matthews or anyone, least of all you, that comes close to the level of invective that we get virtually every day from the left.
Oh, so your "defense" is "Mommy, they threw rocks at me, so I had to throw rocks back at them." What utter nonsense and weak argumentation. Apparently the 2 wrongs=right is your way of life.