[eDebate] Bush's Tricky Words

[Patrick McKenzie]

>>
I noticed something in Bush's State of the Union address that hasn't been
mentioned in any of the commentary I have heard.


When Bush started to lay out the "evidence" making the case that Iraq has
WMD that are unaccounted for, he kept saying something like, "According to
the U.N., in the 1990's Iraq had enough material to produce X amount of Y
chemical agent...Saddam has not accounted for those weapons...has not proven
that he has destroyed those weapons..." Something like that.


I thought it striking that Bush kept saying "had enough material to produce"
rather than "Iraq produced..."


I'm sure it sounds the same to most of the American public and I'm sure it
slipped past even the most discerning of commentators.


But there's a big difference. The only thing that Bush has proof of is that
Iraq had enough pre-cursor material to produce X chemical weapon. Does that
mean that Bush's "evidence" is based on the EXISTENCE of dual-use chemicals,
not any EVIDENCE of production? >>

This would be a compelling analysis if we hadn't turned up the actual
chemical weapon warheads (nothing in them at the time, luckily for avoiding
death and unluckily for proving guilt).

>>The truth is that just about everything can have dual-use capabilities.>>

Except, well, missile warheads.  Unless you count "killing people" and
"breaking things" as separate uses ;)

>>Bush had to have used these words because he doesn't actually have the
goods
-- the evidence that Iraq PRODUCED chemical weapons...yet his argument is
that the burden is on Iraq to prove that it DESTROYED these weapons. What a
tricky conundrum...Iraq would have to MAKE the weapons to prove that it
DESTROYED them. >>

But Iraq DID make weapons.  They've also USED them.  We've got photos of the
bloated bodies to prove it.  Saddam even admits to having them once -- he
just says that he's got rid of all of them now.  Without any evidence of
procedures to disarm them.  You can't explain all of that just to lax
recordkeeping.

>>It was disingenuous of Bush....an almost calculated deception...certainly
wise in an collegiate debate round, but borderline immoral in justifying a
decision that represents the loss of many lives. >>

Last point : Coop now swears before the debate community that GWB just
pulled the wool over the eyes of the lion's share of the punditry,
citizenry, and international community.  So I'd better not be hearing next
week on how he's a dumb smuck ;)

Patrick McKenzie
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030130/51e41f52/attachment.htm