re Reasons for War

[pynchonoid]

....the latest on a thread many of you enjoyed:


WHITE HOUSE:  WE LIED

Officials inside government and advisers outside told
ABCNEWS the administration emphasized the danger of
Saddam's weapons to gain the legal justification for
war from the United Nations and to stress the danger
at home to Americans.

"We were not lying," said one official. "But it was
just a matter of emphasis."

[Full Story
<http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/US/globalshow_030425.html>]


So why didn't the Bush Regime tell the American people
it was overemphasizing the danger from the weapons
they claimed represented an imminent threat - in order
to gain support for committing mass slaughter in their
name and sending their loved ones to their deaths?

"Officials now say they may not find hundreds of tons
of mustard and nerve agents and maybe not thousands of
liters of anthrax and other toxins."

So why didn't the Bush Regime tell the American people
it "might not find" the weapons the regime claim
represented the reason for committing mass slaughter
in their name and sending their loved ones to their
deaths?

"Beyond that, the Bush administration decided it must
flex muscle to show it would fight terrorism, not just
here at home and not just in Afghanistan against the
Taliban, but in the Middle East, where it was
thriving."

So why didn't the Bush Regime tell the American people
it would be committing mass slaughter in their name
and sending their loved ones to their deaths to "flex
US muscle" in the Middle East - and not in response to
an imminent threat?

"The Bush administration wanted to make a statement
about its determination to fight terrorism."

So why didn't the Bush Regime tell the American people
it would be committing mass slaughter in their name
and sending their loved ones to their deaths in order
to "make a statement" - and not in response to an
imminent threat?

"And officials acknowledge that Saddam had all the
requirements to make him, from their standpoint, the
perfect target."

So why didn't the Bush Regime tell the American people
it would be committing mass slaughter in their name
and sending their loved ones to their deaths to target
an individual that made a "perfect" symbol -  and not
in response to an imminent threat?

"One official said that in the end, history and the
American people will judge the United States not by
whether U.S. officials find canisters of poison gas or
vials of some biological agent. 

History will judge the United States, the official
said, by whether this war marked the beginning of the
end for the terrorists who hate America."

So why didn't the Bush Regime tell the American people
it would be committing mass slaughter in their name
and sending their loved ones to their deaths as a
gamble - and not in response to an imminent threat?

Could it be that the Bush Retime knew the American
people would not allow the slaughter of thousands of
Iraqi civilians, the slaughter of 135 US servicemen,
and the destruction of a country in their name - on
the basis of a muddled collection of unsupported
hunches, gambles, and lies?

Could it be the unelected and illegitimate election
thief and his regime hold the American people in
contempt, and believe that the people, whose loved
ones would be ordered to their deaths, cannot be
trusted to award the regime the power and support to
which it is entitled?  Just as they couldn't be
trusted to have given the regime sufficient votes to
which it was entitled?

Could it be that the Bush Regime knew the risk was
just too high that the American people would see
through even the flimsy justification of rolling the
dice blindly and hoping "history shows" a positive
outcome at some point - right through to the more
obvious motives of profit and political gain?

<http://www.mediawhoresonline.com/>

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo
http://search.yahoo.com