Reply #8: Just one point. . . .

[Tansy_Gold]

. . . and I admit I haven't gone back and read the entire original thread. But one point jumped out at me from your opening post for this thread.

You wrote --

"As far as the "risk" goes of faking their deaths, is it any more of a risk than asserting that Hussein had TONS of chemical weapons, had bought uranium from Niger, when after the initial conflict ended, this stuff would start coming out as false?"

Actually, I think there is MUCH more risk in the faking of the two deaths, and therefore I think it is much more likely that these bodies are in fact Saddam Hussein's sons.

First of all, in lying about WMDs, the bushnazis knew the "proof" would never turn up. You can't prove a negative. Perle's comment about it taking 200 years to find them is right in this vein. If you know something isn't there, you don't have to worry about someone finding it; and of course if someone DID find WMDs, the bushnazis could always say, "Aha! Told you so!" So they didn't really have much risk here.

On the other hand, saying something isn't there and having it turn up is, well, pretty much proof that they lied. That's why, I think, they've never produced any proof of killing OBL, even though there were a lot of rumors that he'd been killed in the Tora Bora caves or whatever. Truth is, he might very well be deader than Strom Thurmond, but the bushnazis have no proof.

Second (or third, depending on how you're counting), the administration is not so totally stupid that they don't know they are getting tangled in their own lies. They know they have a credibility problem, and they know Blair's is even worse. The risk of having one or the other of the Hussein sons turn up alive after they lied about killing them is HUGE. The administration would be totally and completely discredited. Fuzzy videos and static-filled audio tapes are one thing, but official photos taken by U.S. military morticians carry a lot of weight and aren't as easily dismissed.

So I think they did kill the Hussein sons and these are the bodies, and it's outrageously barbaric to display the photos -- which is only minor considering it's beyond outrageously barbaric to invade the country and kill the leaders (thank you, Ann Coulter, for that policy declaration). I think the bushnazis knew they had to have a really big "victory" to draw the fire from all their fumbling and bumbling, and they're gambling that the outrage over the photos and the extrajudicial assassination aspect is less damaging to their image than the "proof" is beneficial.

I suppose there's a part of us that wants to see everything the bushnazis do as a lie, but I think we're being less than honest with ourselves if we try to apply the lie spin where it isn't needed. Sometimes the truth may be more damaging