Bush, Saddam, and the Weapons of Mass Destruction: WHO IS REALLY LYING?

Jan 25, 2004 | TruthShallSetYouFree

[cardinal4]

Well, there you go again, trying to expalin something logically about Democrats..

[massiveblob]

Good Article

Didn't Madeline Albright say in an interview with O'Reilly that she agreed with the "why's" of the war. Maybe she lied too.

[SandRat]

This is Top Drawer!

From the Title I was half expecting another Bush Bashing only to be most pleasantly surprised that it was written logically and accurately. Too bad we could never get those on the left and the f-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-r left to ever sit quiet enough, long enough, and concentrating on the subject as presented.

[TruthShallSetYouFree]

Thanks. I tried to keep it logical.

[Sabatier]

Obviously the Democrats have been arguing from false premises for months now, getting more and more shrill. Why are they screeching? Because the mud they throw doesn't stick. The American people know that Saddam himself was a WMD and that he used WMDs on his own people and that the WMDs Saddam had are probably sitting in Syria now. Like chimps who hurl feces at their enemies the Democrats resort to the only tactics they know but it just makes them look ridiculous - and their aim isn't very good, anyway.

[alloysteel]

There were lies repeated and believed in the situation with Iraq and WMD, no question there. The lies were as much to Saddam himself, by the minions that worked on the weapons programs, as they were by the various reporting agencies. Falsified records, used to confuse the potential spies who managed to gain access to the files of the weapons programs, and to drive appropriations by the Saddam regime for the acquisition and further development of what turned out to be total fabrications of progress already made, joined together to present a picture of a formidible capability that in fact existed only on paper and in imagination.

The entire world bought into this series of fictions, and Saddam believed it himself. Who are we to criticize the regime of the "Former Occupant of the Oval Office, 1993-2001" for repeating and dressing up the intelligence they had received from the much truncated and neutered data gathering apparatus they maintained around the world?

So much so, in fact, that the outgoing regime left a plan for the invasion and neutralization of Iraq and Saddam Hussein on the desk for the incoming Bush Administration. That plan was definitely all about the oil. Fortunately, before putting that plan into action, it was extensively redrawn, and the justification was vastly reinforced by the events of September 11, 200l. Saddam Hussein was not the architect of the assault on America. But he definitely knew the people who were, and there is more than anecdotal evidence, proof even, that he contributed materially to the effort. This is called "kicking out the supply lines" and is an entirely justified tactic in any war engagement.

Recall a little history? When England was fully engaged with Nazi Germany, the US, a non-combatant at that time, was providing much war materiel and vast quantities of relief supplies to Great Britain. The Nazi submarines were hunting and killing these convoys in the North Atlantic, even though there was not at that time a state of war between the US and Germany. Only after Pearl Harbor, did Hitler declare war formally on the US. That did not mean, does not mean, that supply lines are not fair targets.

Iraq was a major support and supply base for al-Qaeda. Therefore, a fair target in response to 9-11.

[Consort]

Just don't let the Democrats control any branch of government. Next thread.

[massiveblob]

It will be interesting to see the beating the democrat nominee will receive in the coming elections. They will loose by a landslide if they keep yelling "Bush lied!"

[Marine Inspector]

Very good read.

Thanks.

Marine Inspector

[TruthShallSetYouFree]

The truth is obvious to us, but it must be repeated over and over again to people who have consistently voted for democrats, amounting to about half of this country's voters. If the "big lie" theory works on them, maybe the "big truth" has a shot.

[Marine Inspector]

BTTT

[ex-snook]

Out of Africa is still the mystery to unravel - who, what, when, where, why and how. Bush knew that Clinton was conned with the aspirin factory 'intelligence' but still ate the yellow cake story. Clinton and Bush, willing or unwilling, to be or not to be that is the question.

[TruthShallSetYouFree]

Excellent points, all! However, if Saddam really wished to comply with the letter and the spirit of Resolution 1441, he would have behaved in a very different manner. If some of the WMD estimates were exaggerated or, if in fact some of the weapons did not even exist, Saddam could have explained it by calling on the scientists and underlings who had vouched for their existence. They could then have explained that some of their work was a fabrication. Saddam never answered any of the questions, nor ever acted like someone who was actually disarming. Look at Khaddafy in Libya. Once he decided to come clean, the entire scope of his weapons program was revealed in a matter of days. We'd been chasing Saddam's weapons for twelve years.

[TruthShallSetYouFree]

Thank you.

[Dutch Boy]

IMHO - I still beleave that it will be years before we really understand the WMD picture. I also believe that there is either a complete nuke or a near complete nuke somewhere in Iraq. The were very close in the 80's. Being that close, it doesn't make sense they would just stop.

[trustandobey]

Great article! Absolute must read with more truths in it than most people can understand. Please write more.

[TruthShallSetYouFree]

Thanks for the very kind words.

[Blue Highway]

Excellent points, all! However, if Saddam really wished to comply with the letter and the spirit of Resolution 1441, he would have behaved in a very different manner. If some of the WMD estimates were exaggerated or, if in fact some of the weapons did not even exist, Saddam could have explained it by calling on the scientists and underlings who had vouched for their existence. They could then have explained that some of their work was a fabrication. Saddam never answered any of the questions, nor ever acted like someone who was actually disarming. Look at Khaddafy in Libya. Once he decided to come clean, the entire scope of his weapons program was revealed in a matter of days. We'd been chasing Saddam's weapons for twelve years.

That's a point I never see brought up to democrats about Resolution 1441 not being met, which resulted in a "coalition" not a "go-it-alone" strategy for military strikes. Democrats also never say how long they were willing to wait for weapons inspectors to do their jobs, and how many more years of torture they would let occur, with Saddam in power. I can imagine they would change the subject and deny truth.

[Jackknife]

bump