The Chicken or the Egg

Friday, October 21, 2005
Much has been said concerning intelligence failures and the War in Iraq.

Joe Wilson has become a hero of sorts to some people, in spite of the fact that he has been shown to be less than honest. Why? Because he gave the Bushies a hard time. He doubted. hmm.

Now the experts say that there was no real evidence that Saddam had weapons or ties to terrorists. Many say it was merely a vendetta by the neo-cons against the innocent regime of stern dictator.

I do not believe this.


Well, it seems to me that if there were no evidence of any of this before Bush came to office we would have turned Saddam loose years ago. Nor do I know where to fit Tony Blair into the Halliburton chain of events. When exactly did the intelligence become false? The day Bush's hand hit the Bible and he swore to do his duty to the best of his ability?

My question is how did we come to forget the 90's? How is it that the decade of no fly zones and terrorists attacks and the murders of Saddam's own sons in law for ratting on him as well as the whole Food for Oil scandal has melted away?

Is this the memory hole George Orwell spoke of?

Or is someone messing with us by revising history?

If not for the war in Iraq would we know what we know today of Saddam and his regime? Was it the war or the CIA that uncovered the truth of Saddam's regime?

And do we know the truth even now?

In other words what came first?

Did the war bring knowledge or the did the knowledge bring war?


MeaninglessHotAir said...

The omniscient and omnipotent federal government of the United States has been found to be neither. Shock! The CIA Clowns are just making their best guess. Contemplating Valerie Plame and her husband for a few minutes will indicate how good that is.

We found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We found chemical weapons facilities, biological weapons laboratories, nuclear plans, and missiles that were proscribed by the UN. We did not find stockpiles. We uncovered a nuclear cabal involving Iraq, Libya, and others, provisioned by Pakistan with Chinese technology. Libya backed off from its nuclear plans, and that alone should be sufficient justification for the war.

But now that we have 90% won the war--we win again!--it's time for the backbiting and second-guessing to consume the America-hating Americans. If you can be guaranteed that you win every time then it's a great opportunity for armchair commandos to take the field.

David Thomson said...

“Did the war bring knowledge or the did the knowledge bring war?”

The knowledge most definitely brought about the war. One often acts on imperfect information. No one told the Iraqi dictator to continue playing games. Imagine a thug taunting your local police with the possibility that he may or may not have a gun on his person. The odds were high that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. There’s no way to be certain without invading the country. For heaven’s sake, the country is as large as California! This is similar of finding a needle in a haystack. Secondly, we know that Saddam intensely hated the United States. I have long contended that eventually he would discretely assist terrorists in their attacks on our citizens. It was merely a matter of sooner than later. He also tried to have George Bush I assassinated. That’s enough for me.

terrye said...

It is worth noting that if Saddam really were an innocent man he could have gotten clear of all this years ago just by doing what Kaddafi did.

I think what amazes me is the willingness to forget who the enemy is and focus on one another and minutae instead.

David Thomson said...

“I think what amazes me is the willingness to forget who the enemy is..”

They have not forgotten who they perceive to be the real enemy: it is George W. Bush. Saddam Hussein is merely the blow-back of our imperialistic ventures in the Middle East. Everything will ultimately work out if we only convict the felons at Halliburton and get the Jews out of Israel.

terrye said...


Of course that is how they see it.


Peter UK said...

To stand this question on its head,why wouldn't Saddam Hussein know terrorists,he is a gangster,of course he knew other gangsters,if only to keep an eye on them for his own security.
As for imperialism,it would haver been cheaper to cut a deal with a crook like Saddam than invade.
That Plame was a deep cover agent is ludicrous in the extreme,who would suspect the American Ambassador's wife of being a spy? Nordic blondes must be especially useful in the Middle East.
Apart from it being gross nepotism getting her husband out of the way,sorry sending Wilson to Niger,it is also remarkable that he was sent to a country to investigate something about which he knew nothing.Did he even speak the language,could he tell yellowcke from fruitcake,why was he uniniquisitive about Baghdad Bobs visit.Lastly who goes to Niger anyway?

MeaninglessHotAir said...


Those are the questions which keep running through my mind as well. Until they are answered, I will feel completely in the dark about what is going on. Unfortunately these questions are never even being asked by the MSM, let alone answered by our intrepid reporting crew.

Nice to see you over here by the way!

Peter UK said...

Apparently Plame was "outed" by the CIA who inadvertently allowed the Cubans to read their reports.
Now if Cuba takes after its Soviet parent,everybody gets suspected,followed and put under surveillance,especially Americans,Plame was just not going to cut it wandering around dressed like Carmen Miranda with a camera hidden in the bunch of fruit on her head.
This chap has the right idea. Payback by the CIA
I would only quibble with his timescale,it would be common knowledge in the worlds intelligence community that the company Plame worked for is a front.I have absolutely no doubt that every car in and out of Langley has its number noted,along with times and dates.

Thank you MHA,blogger kept sending me round in circles,sign in,put the code in,publish,start all over again.

Syl said...

“Did the war bring knowledge or the did the knowledge bring war?”

Nicely put.

The opposition is stuck in a pre-war mentality. They keep fighting the war over the pre-war just like they continue to argue over the 2000 election.

As if nothing has happened since.

To survive in this world, one has to adapt. And that means learn. And one cannot learn unless one actually recognizes changes in the world around you. Gains knowledge.

And you can't do that if you're stuck in the past.