WMDs not likely to be election fodder

Washington Times ^ | 1/29/04 | James G. Lakely

[kattracks]

A so-far fruitless search for weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq has put the Bush administration on the defensive, but Republican strategists say Democrats won't be able to exploit the issue for political advantage in November.

Democrats have seized on a statement by David Kay

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

President Bush did the right thing as far as I am concerned, except he spent too much time trying to get a multi-lateral consensus at the UN. Time where Saddam very likely buried, destroyed or moved the weapons to Syria and elsewhere.

[GulliverSwift]

That's been my view (and tagline) for some time now.

[Mike Darancette]

If Ted Kennedy had spent 10% as much effort trying to fish his doxie out of the creek as he did fishing for dirt to use against President Bush she would be somebody's grandmother today.

[risk]

Are Americans so naive that they need to wait until L.A. or N.Y.C. is nuked before they decide to stay on target and disarm the islamosphere and the hermit kingdom?

No, Americans are not stupid. They're going to stay behind the President. They're happy that he went into Iraq "just because we weren't sure."

[alnick]

You're right. The media and the politicians have become so enmeshed in the politics of WMD that they've totally lost sight of the fact that be it now or five years from now, left to his own devices Saddam would have passed off some horrible weapons to terrorists to be used against us. The American people are smart enough to understand that.

If indeed we didn't allow his WMD programs to progess to the point where stockpiles of WMD were produced, great. Better they don't exist at all than to be out there somewhere. I'm not entirely convinced they're not out there somewhere either.

[risk]

These same enemies of our Republic who argue that there weren't any Iraqi WMD are crying out asking why we haven't invaded the DPRK yet. So we can't preempt when the price is low, but we should invade when the price is very high. They don't make any sense.

[joesbucks]

The price is high because the risk is there. A true risk to our freedom. In Iraq, we were lead to believe the price was high, but it appears for some reason we didn't know.

[wayoverontheright]

"It is my belief that regardless of political party, after [the September 11 terrorist attacks], the shadowing effects of that horrible tragedy changed, as a nation, the level of risk that all of us were prepared to run," Mr. Kay said. "As I look back on the evidence, I understand [Mr. Bush's] decision."

Isn't the lesson of 9-11 that anyone who hated us, without WMD or without al-Qaida, could do us unspeakable harm ON OUR OWN SOIL.?

Those against the war in Iraq were gambling our lives that Saddam was blind to this same lesson.

[Coop]

In Iraq, we were lead to believe the price was high, but it appears for some reason we didn't know.

Speak for yourself. The justification for intervention in Iraq was and still is far stronger than in North Korea. It was the right thing to do.

[Destructor]

I wonder why?

[Coop]

A CNN/Gallup Poll released Jan. 14 showed that 59 percent of respondents thought that "all in all" liberating Iraq was "worth it."

That's really an amazingly high number, IMHO, when you consider the borderline treasonous public revolt by the media and many national-level Democrats.