quote:
Yet where was the evidence for WMDs. Clearly there was none before the conflict, at least nothing close to the level of evidence suggesting continued parent-child relationships during fossil gaps.
The same place the evidence of design is in the eyes of proponents of IDC: it was merely inferred. Behe had to do a lot of work to find biological structures whose origins have slight documentation so he can infer that the gap in question had to be filled by intelligence. Even good old Bill Hicks (RIP) knew America's first bout with Saddam was a set-up:
"We know he's got nukes."
"How do you know?"
"We got the receipts. As soon as those checks clear he's dead. What time does the bank open?"
"Nine."
"We attack at nine-thirty, then."
It didn't take sophisticated scientific equipment to see the administration's desperation for an oil-rich-land-grab. I'm sure they would have shown the 'intelligence' they claimed to have concerning the WMD's, or at least pointed the UN inspectors in the right direction.
Previous administrations had to goad the enemy into attacking first. Our overseas correspondents can be forgiven for not remembering the Fort Sumter incident, when Lincoln floated a hostile fleet into Charleston harbor to fortify a tiny Union outpost. The Confederates attacked and the Civil War began. Not a hundred years later, America annexed Hawaii and parked another hostile fleet there, daring the oil-starved Japanese to make a move. Pearl Harbor started the festivities that time.
Bush couldn't wait for Saddam to fire first, and was probably relieved that public opinion didn't seem to require such patience. In classic IDC style, war supporters said that evidence that Saddam didn't have WMD's would have been just as much reason to invade, since it would have made the prospect of conquest easier. When you've got your mind made up, what's the difference?
------------------
En la tierra de ciegos, el tuerto es el Rey.
™ Version 4.2
