Weapons of Mass Distraction - Tyranny is the real threat.

OpinionJournal.com ^ | Wednesday, January 28, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST | BY CLAUDIA ROSETT

[Huber]

We've reached an intriguing moment in the saga of evil regimes and weapons of mass destruction--their presence or absence, and the uncertainty zone between.

In Iraq, the U.S. and the United Nations had reason to believe that Saddam Hussein--having invaded his neighbors, harbored terrorists, tortured and murdered hundreds of thousands of his fellow Iraqis, gassed the Kurds, plundered his country, and set a standard in the Middle East of fascist brutality to rival Hitler--was still pursuing weapons of mass destruction. A U.S.-led coalition toppled Saddam's regime. Now the recent U.S. point man for the weapons search in Iraq, David Kay, is saying it looks as if maybe Saddam didn't have any WMDs. At least not significant stocks, at least not that we've found. Mr. Kay's best guess is that Saddam only thought he had a WMD program.

[Huber]

Unchecked power is always dangerous!

[11B3]

That is a very odd comment to your own article. Please explain your meaning.

[sauropod]

Good article.

[God is good]

Saddam Hussein was the weapon of mass destruction. Knowing what this man did to his own people was reason enough to disarm him. Knowing what this man did to his neighbors gave President Bush no moral or military choice but to take the Worldwide threat out.

I thank God we have at least one world leader who will react in the interest of America and not in the interest of globalism, at least on this occasion.

[eno_]

Why is it an odd comment? It is true everywhere.

When we give our own government unchecked power in the name of safety, we erode our own legitimacy in what is really a struggle against opression, not terror or WMDs.

[ohioman]

We have done no such thing. In fact, if anything, the US has been quite restrained since 9/11. Compared to the other Superpowers throughout history, there has never been a more benevolent country than ours. If you think we are running wild with unchecked power, which seems to say that we are unjust, then I suggest you crack open a few history books.

[eno_]

It is a mixed bag: hunting and killing AQ people in their lairs - good, just, and in line with what a constitutional government in the U.S. was designed to do. But at home we have diluted freedom to the point where you have to ask: Is the Patriot Act verison of "freedom" worth your son's life to defend?

[ohioman]

No one is fighting and dieing while defending the Patriot Act, a needed bit of legislation. The fighting is abroad in the war on terror. The Patriot Act is being used as fodder by limp-wristed hand-wringers (i.e., the deplorable and deportable ACLU). I'd rather fight against them.

[eno_]

No one is fighting and dieing while defending the Patriot Act

Not me, for sure.

We no longer have medical confidentiality, financial privacy, communications privacy, etc. Half of any prosperous person's income is confisacated. That's not freedom. A government that big and expensive can hire a mercenary to fight. I'm not going.

[Huber]

I meant that unchecked power is the basis of all tyranny. Does that clarify?

[ohioman]

If more people thought like you we would be speaking German. There are still things worth fighting for.

[eno_]

My first priority is to fight the tax man and JBTs. After they have been given the Pol Pot treatment they deserve, I'll become a reservist.

[ohioman]

I am not sure was JBT means? But, I can certainly agree with you on one thing - fighting the Taxman.