I just watched the ostensibly anti-war movie
Leading to War (here) and it is very well done. Unfortunately for its producers, however, they fail to make a convincing argument against the war. Ah sure, it gives bushaters multiple opportunities point to Bush's use of the term "nukular" as evidence of his incompetence or stupidity. And if you think that Rumsfeld was too big for his britches, there's plenty of footage to support that perception. But the producers fail to establish anything that impugns the Bush Administration.
4 comments:
"Unfortunately for its producers, however, they fail to make a convincing argument against the war."
Are you kidding?
The war was based on the following claims:
• The Iraqi government possessed nuclear, biological and chemical weapons (Weapons of mass destruction).
• Iraq provided training for members of al Qaeda.
• The Iraqi government met with Mohammed Atta, thus establishing a meaningful link between Iraq and al Qaeada.
• Saddam Hussein, due to his weapons program and links to al Qaeda terrorists, posed a "grave" and "imminent" threat to the U.S.
• Regime change in Iraq would weaken al Qaeda and stabilize the Middle East.
...and on and on.
As the movie points out, all of the claims are absolutely false. No weapons of mass destruction, no connection to al Qaeda, no grave and imminent threat (no threat whatsoever, in fact), etc.
Since each of these claims has been proven totally false, the war was completely unjustified. Thus, using the administration's own language and rhetoric, the movie makes a very strong case against the war.
I don't see how you could watch the movie and then claim that the producers don't make a strong case against the war.
Don't get me wrong, they made a slam-dunk argument for Monday Morning Quarterbacking . . .
Anon...You're wasting your keystrokes... Ned is the real deal.
It's people like him that would follow a leader like Bush to their demise. America has never been weaker, more hated and economically stressed as it is thanks to W.
Ned will deny it and blame someone else to the end. That level of denial associated with an otherwise sane person can only be described a psychological 'condition'.
William, er "anonymous" . . . thanks for visiting.
Post a Comment