The ISG Report has concluded what we pretty much already determined: there is no evidence of stockpiles of WMD. Bush has acknowledged that, to his credit. The Bush administration made a serious blunder in emphasizing Iraqi stockpiles when making their case for war.
But how long can we ignore the elephant in the room? The mainstream media cannot ignore forever the serious implications outlined in the ISG report about oil-for food program and massive corruption at the UN and the governments of China, Russia, and France. It also cannot ignore forever the implications that Saddam Hussein was still very much a threat to our national security.
Democrats like Kerry need to shut up and think for a second. Why were we worried about WMD stockpiles and programs? Because we didn’t want Al-Qaeda and other jihadists from getting their hands on WMD. How could they get their hands on WMD? They could be given the knowledge to create it themselves or they could be slipped the real stuff. We were worried about even a small vile of anthrax or other deadly substance getting into their hands (remember Colin Powell’s vile he showed during his speech to the UN?) The ISG report proves that Saddam could have very easily given Al-Qaeda WMD knowledge or smaller quantities of WMD. Okay, so it’s not likely they were going to be given hundreds of tons of mustard gas or anthrax by Saddam. So What!
The ISG report sheds light on what Saddam’s real plan was: get out from under UN Sanctions and then start up his chemical and biological WMD programs again. His nuclear programs would be restarted if it appeared that Iran was going to go nuclear (which it does). He knew that starving his people was helping him meet this objective by turning public support around the world against sanctions. That, in conjunction with the bribery of French, Russian, and Chinese Security council member states, was his ticket out from under sanctions.
Why the media is not spending a lot of time discussing the level of UN corruption outlined in the ISG report is mind-boggling! I strongly urge you to read the key findings from the
ISG report that just came out. It’s clear to me that the US had 3 options:
1) Topple the Saddam regime (which we did)
2) Give “diplomacy” more time (as Kerry would have done. Kerry does not provide details beyond “give diplomacy more time”, and I guarantee you he won’t!) and presumably give UN sanctions more time. Thus enhancing Saddam’s vast smuggling network, worldwide bribery, and starvation of his people.
3) Let sanctions lapse, thus allowing Saddam to take advantage of the smuggling network he put in place under sanctions and secretly start up his weapons programs again. Presumably we would eventually find out, and even democrats would at this point realize Saddam was a threat and would confront Saddam while he’s vastly more dangerous – truly armed with chemical and biological weapons.
So given the choices, I’m glad we took Saddam out when we did. It’s also clear to me that we would NEVER have gotten the cooperation of France, Russia, and China.
Earth to Liberals: the Coalition of the Bribed and Coerced consist of France, Russia, China, and Saddam’s Iraq. John Kerry would have joined them.