[Peace-discuss] I Meant Geraniums

[C. G. Estabrook]

This is an excellent point.  It's easier to see now that the whole
imminent threat scenario that the administration presented was a conscious
lie, and that Bush, Blair & Co. (including our congressional
representatives) have the blood of thousands on their hands.
  

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003, Chas. 'Mark' Bee wrote:

> Ken Urban wrote:
> 
> >I hear the discourse changing from _having_ WMDs to _programs_ for WMDs.
> > Soon it'll switch to _would like to have_ WMDs or _dreamt about_ WMDs.
> >
> >I thought I heard some silly gov't offical (or news lacky) say that
> >Iraq hid/destroyed their WMDs right before the attack. 
> >
>     Actually, that might have happened, even *during* the attack, to
> whatever remnants they might still have had.  Of course, if true, it
> wouldn't support BushCo's lies, but squander-the-troopsers all across
> the country would crow like roosters that it did just that.
> 
>     This is one of the PR 'nightmare scenarios' that could result from
> acting like Iraq had absolutely no WMDs.  They had to have had
> something or other sitting around from the Reaganauts, unless they are
> more efficient than our government is, which seems unlikely.  
> Eventually - however small - it will turn up, which is why 'imminent
> threat' needs to be made the test against which finds are measured in
> the public eye, instead of 'no WMDs'.
> 
>     Cries of "Iraq had no WMDs" need to sooner or later be changed to
> "Iraq couldn't use WMDs" if this is a PR battle we want to stay won.  
> Bad drives out good, especially in the realm of public opinion.
> 
>     Just my 1 cent, back to lurker mode...
>