Posted on 04/12/2004 6:18:05 AM PDT by RandallFlagg
The world (Except Saddam) claimed to know for a fact that there were illegal WMDs in Iraq. The left was screaming, "NO war for oil," and, "Bush lied -people died," for over a year now. I have a theory about this that hasn't collapsed to any new facts as of yet. In fact, it's strengthened.
I take these people on every day in the web in other forums. They shout, "Bish Lied," and I shove back with, "Name the lie." They usually answer with, "Well, well, well..... He IMPLIED---," and their case is destroyed by their own words. But I ask myself after every leftist I crush: Why are they so easily swayed to believe Saddam over the world?
I've served and have been to the Gulf. I've talked to Arabs in the area and found them to be just regular people trying to do what they can to get by in this world. I've shaken hands with President George H.W. Bush. I was never into politics until I became a gun owner in 1996. I've read and seen media bias for years and not recognized it until Columbine happened -20 miles from my home.
But, why? Why has there been such a rampant negative cloud over President Bush over the last few years -especially during Iraq? Everyone has been saying that Saddam had WMDs. Why, all of a sudden, is Bush a liar and all other leaders and intelligence operatives get a pass on this?
"9-11 changed everything" Is commonly said. But, those on the left don't really mean it like we FReepers do. To them, they see it as an oppertunity to take America down at the knees. But their blindness has hidden the fact that they're being led down a one-way road labeled, "WMDs: This Way," which is heading off a cliff.
The WMDs would have taken the space of an area of about a 2-car garage. Broken apart, they'd be even smaller. Rush Limbaugh quoted some fact about botulinum toxin: "One thimble can kill one million people. Saddam had 18,000 litres of it. Enough to kill the current population of the world -THREE TIMES."
Wouldn't terrorists be drooling at the chance? Wouldn't these monsters be saying, "They're in Iraq! Let's go get them and use them against America," and swarm into that country by the thousands to get at these stockpiles before WE did? Didn't terrorists from neighboring countries swarm into Iraq before, during and after the war?
My theory is as follows:
1. The world said Saddam had massive stockpiles of WMDs.
2. Terrorists wanted these to use against their enemies (Us). Thus, the WMDs were to be the bait. To lure terrorists into Iraq, or use the terrorists' movements to lead us to them.
3. We knew where they were. It wouldn't be hard to track them and see where they were, who intercepted them and when.
4. Our people couldn't announce to the globe that all of the WMD stockpiles have been found because the terrorists wouldn't try to enter Iraq anymore; the incentives were removed and they'd be able to dissappear again.
It's that there was a need to kill these beasts, but we couldn't find them. We had to make them come out of their holes and come to us. We needed a lure that they couldn't resist. And it was there the whole time.
Thusfar, nothing else has convinced me that this theory couldn't be true. It was a strategy played by our government to destroy the enemy using their own desires to acquire WMDs that is resulting in their destruction.
Until President Bush comes out and says, "There were never any WMDs in Iraq. Never have been, never will be," my theory will stand.
Thanks for reading my mind.
Good thoughts.
I have got to check out this blogging stuff;
Although there are obvious benefits to keeping weapon stockpiles quiet, is it worth losing the election? At what point does President Bush take this ammunition away from his critics and reveal the evidence of greater amounts of WMDs?
Clever..... I like your theory.
A good read.Thanks for posting your thoughts. :-)
It makes a great deal of sense. Everyone knows the WMD's were there, and they didn't just "vanish." We recently removed several tons of uranium from Iraq (though this has not received any mention in the "mainstream" press).
bttt
Well my theory is that we killed or captured Osama long ago and WE are making the tapes urging terrorists to fight in Iraq where we are killing them at a 175 to 1 ratio. The media whining about a "quagmire" helps that strategery. The WMD's are (mostly) safely out of harm's way on some boat and Syria etc.
The Afgan campaign destroyed the training camps and madrasses, but it scattered many existing terrorists and freed them of their command structure making them more dangerous. Hence Iraq.
I thought of that as well, but that might be considered by too many to be something along the lines of, "SEE?! Bush IS the terrorist, and is responsible for all terror-related deaths after he captured OBL because he didn't tell anyone the truth. If he would have told the truth about OBL's capture or death, the terrorists would have given up."
Yes, the librats ARE that dim.
Maybe that is why President Bush was so peeved at Kerry during the first debate - Kerry knew the administration deal (he had to be briefed, after all...) and still used the "public lie" against Bush.
Yeah. President Bush did look like he was biting his tongue pretty hard that evening.
WMDs found again bump.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.