Wow, where to begin....
Ok, to be honest, I got through about 20 minutes of it before I got sick of taking notes.
First and foremost: by completely ommiting the Clinton Administration's repeated statements concerning Saddam's possesion of WMD this particular 'film' shows its bias right out of the gate.
Further, the majority of the dialogue in this 'film' is opinion. You have former CIA analysts elabortating on their ideas and opinions about the foreign policy they like best and would best like our country to follow, and former members of the foreign service giving opinions best left to CIA analysis.
One thing I simply cannot stand is the repeated statements that there was no "imminent" threat. Pres. Bush never said there was and imminent threat. It was the policy to act BEFORE there was an imminent threat. But that little distinction no matter how often explained simply will not sink into the minds of people who do not like our current President. Consequently, all I ever hear is: "well there was no imminent threat, therefore"...yeah, that's what the President said, pay attention.
A former foreign service agent stated, in his opinion, that it was extremely unlikely the intelligence agencies would ever find enough information that would neccesitate the war. Well, the President disagreed, and he's the President, so that man's opinion is irrelevant.
There was a former CIA analyst giving his opinion on the policy of pre-emptive war....sorry, not your department pal.
A former foreign service agent giving his opinion on the assertiveness of the remaining "dominate power", the US. Note: As soon as someone uses the word "neocon" you know his political bias.
A white house counsel for Nixon(what?) telling me the current administration was exaggerating it's claims about the Iraqi regime. Maybe it's true, but this guy is hardly the authority on the issue.
Numerous opinions concerning the possesion of nuclear weapons and how they believed the administration up-played the reality. When in fact the the administration only ever stated the "possibility" to create a nuclear ability "might" exist if Saddam's regime obtained fissile material, not that he currently had anything at all.
Some moronic former foreign service member saying it was just silly to think Saddam would launch a missle from Iraq at an american city. Well, whoever said they'd do that? The whole premise was the construction on a WMD small enough to be passed from Iraqi intelligence to a terror network, then smuggled into our country to be detonated. It wouldn't take much nerve gas, detonated in a sufficiently crowded area (say a rented one-engine prop plan flown into a football game) to kill thousands of people. No ones launching missles at anyone, and to even suggest that that was the administation's argument is a lie.
Then there's the terror connection. Many people argue about the implausibility of an Iraqi-AL Qaeda connection due to secular/religious differences among other things. But it is a fact that Saddam openly supported any and all terrorist attacks commited against Israeli jews by the palestinian people by giving money to family's of succesful suicide bombers. Hamas and the Al Aqsa martyr's brigade are the main groups associated with palestinian terror. Does anyone believe there is absolutely no connection between Al-Qaeda and either of those groups? So we have, Saddam->Hamas/Al Aqsa->Al Qaeda. Lets say Saddam gives a nerve gas canister to Hamas to use in Tel Aviv, but the Hamas leadership decides to co-operate with Al Qaeda, and give them the canister to use against us. Irresponsible dictators, with lethal weapons and hatred for us are obviously a threat to us. How can anyone deny this?
Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (fact), and he was supposed to destroy them in front of UN inspectors (fact). He didn't (fact).
No, don't start pointing the finger at Pres. Bush and say, "you lied to us you a hole". Ask yourself, "well, if they aren't there, where the hell did they go?"
