It *is* interesting...
One major wild card remains: the likely consequences of any Iraqi use of weapons of mass destruction...Iraq could also increase casualty levels of U.S. or coalition forces by using WMD against them, particularly its thousands of chemical-filled artillery shells and rockets.
(From here.)
It shows how widespread the misconceptions were. But the really elemental difference between Mr O'Hanlon and Mr Bush is that the former used his [admittedly faulty] understanding of the situation to offer America a cautionary vision of what might be, while the latter pressed every factual error into the service of war.
I remember the day Colin Powell addressed the UN, showed the world some pictures of trailers in the sand and admitted (or perhaps warned) that he didn't have a smoking gun to display. I wish I'd listened to him more closely. I wish we as a nation had listened to the UN, had given the situation more time and hadn't jumped into an unnecessary war.
Current Events » in reply to Not even a good try.
matter-of-fact references to chemical weapon use
The whole thread (44 posts)
- The Greatest Strategic Disaster in United States History
- That election is killing the Left, isn't it? (n/t)
- That election solved squat, didn't it.
- The Far Left can't stand the idea of democracy. (n/t)
- What election? (n/t)
- The Greatest Strategic Disaster in United States History was PEARL HARBOR. (n/t)
- That election is killing the Left, isn't it? (n/t)