Iraq had no WMD
by Michelle at 10/08/2004 11:56:00 AM
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.
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.
Just something I've been pondering of late: Is it OK for some nations (for example, the US) to dedicate time to building more and more nuclear weapons (i.e., WMD) and not others? I don't know what others' thoughts are on this, but I find it odd that considering the world's opinion of the danger we pose that we continue to build weapons of war while we also have the main say in who doesn't get to. Not asking for argument, just thoughts. I mean, every country thinks they're right...it seems like the US somehow KNOWS it is (?).
Get real, liberal! The rules are:
1) Might makes right
2) There are no rules
3) Thoughtcrime IS A CRIME
4) Who said anything about fair?
5) My country, right or mostly right
6) USA! USA! USA!
Amy, that's a great question. I enjoy discussing things on a rational level. Why does America deserve a nuclear arsenal and not North Korea, Iran, and Iraq? I think the main reason is that the US has a government of laws, of checks and balances, and the American people are ultimately the judge of you gets put in office. Fundamentally this puts in place a government made up of rational people who are ultimately interested in world peace and getting along with others. None of the other countries I mentioned are so lucky. Their leaders are despots. They simply cannot be trusted with such weaponry. India is not on the "axis of evil" even though it has nuclear capabilities. Just my thoughts. I'm interested in hearing yours.
I think the main reason is that the US has a government of laws, of checks and balances, and the American people are ultimately the judge of you gets put in office. Fundamentally this puts in place a government made up of rational people who are ultimately interested in world peace and getting along with others. None of the other countries I mentioned are so lucky. Their leaders are despots.Again though, just because the American people are the judge of who gets put into power, does this really guarantee that they are rational and interested in world peace and getting along with others? Just because we're American doesn't mean we vote good people into office. I would venture to bet that much of the "free world" would argue harshly about Bush fitting into the latter category you mentioned. This will become an issue if Iraq is ever able to vote for a candidate of their choosing too. What happens if they vote someone in that we don't like? Do we do this whole thing again?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Oops! Hit the wrong button!
Jeff, numbers 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 on your list make no sense. I think they should be
1) Morally right makes right (the courts have no "might")
3) Speechcrime IS A CRIME
4) It's all about being fair (cosmic justice)
5) My country, wrong or mostly wrong
6) America sucks
I think that's better.
P.S. Personally, I'm tired of rational discussion. I'm trying out non-responsiveness with occasional poorly written satire and childish derision instead.
just because the American people are the judge of who gets put into power, does this really guarantee that they are rational and interested in world peace and getting along with others?It at least guarantees that poor choices won’t be in power for long. In a system of checks and balances and elections, leaders have to be accountable for their decisions. Make poor ones, and you will likely be defeated in the next election. Worse offenses cause you to be impeached. Bush’s decisions on going to war in Iraq were politically risky – less likely to bring 4 more years of power vs. more likely because the costs are apparent immediately (dead soldiers, civilian casualties, instability, larger US deficits), but the benefits cannot be realized for years to come (a free Iraq, contagious democracy, fewer Islamic extremists who want to kill us, greater peace in the world and greater security for us).
...leaders have to be accountable for their decisions...I don't see that they do. Four-eight years is a long time. No matter who the elected official is, I'm still confused that the US feels that the decision is its own when it is unwilling to change its ways. I don't claim that I particularly trust that it will change with any particular leader. It runs deeper...and it's hard to imagine being on the other end and not wondering why the US gets to call the shots for the world.
» Post a Comment