IRAQ HAD NO STOCKPILES...SO WHAT?

Neal Nize ^ | 10/7/04 | Neal Boortz

[NotchJohnson]

IRAQ HAD NO STOCKPILES...SO WHAT?

The media and the Democrats, along with The Poodle's campaign are all excited about Charles Duelfer's testimony in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee. His verdict? There are no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Big whoop...why is this really news? Haven't we been hearing this for over a year?

The headlines all say the same thing...CIA adviser says Iraq had no banned weapons since 1991...no WMD in Iraq...and so on. The implication is essentially 'Bush lied, people died.' This is where media bias comes in big-time...as some of the stories showed. After all, bad news for Bush is good news for Kerry...and the media. But really, what we have here is old news.

It's been known since the report from David Kaye that nobody could find any stockpiles of WMD in Iraq. It's just not news. But what's also interesting in this case, is that some of the other more important testimony by Duelfer is being ignored. For instance, Saddam did not abandon his nuclear ambitions, he merely put them on hold. As soon as the heat was off, he was going to start making nuclear weapons. He had the ability and the desire.

Let's talk about biological weapons. Duelfer testified that Iraq could have restarted its program and produced mustard agent in months, and nerve agent in less than a year. So Saddam wasn't a threat, huh? All he would have had to do is restart that program, and sell some of that nerve agent to an Islamic terrorist.

What the Democrats would have done, had they been in power, would have been to wait until Saddam did just that. They would have waited until he posed an even greater threat to the world, the region and his neighbors before they did anything. So they didn't find any stockpiles...who cares? The dictator is out of power, is no longer a threat to the rest of the world, is no longer killing and torturing his own people, and will never produce weapons of mass destruction again. Iraq was a terrorist state, and we took action.

Al-Qaeda doesn't have any WMD stockpiles either...should we look the other way there? I think not

[NotchJohnson]

Doesnt nerve gas count as a WMD? What about teh book a "Bomb in My Gargen?" Isn't that about a nuclear device in a scientists back yard? We can either wait and and brace ourselves and then play defense or we can keep the score up like Steve Spurrier? I like the latter.

[hawkaw]

Stockpiles .... I just hate that word.

Clearly their were WMDs there but now its move the goal post time.

The whole thing just drives me nuts.

Everybody forgets about the resolutions and the SAMs being fired at our jets etc.

[ThirstyMan]

Not sure why Sadaam outfitted his troops with gas masks then.
And the joke is supposed to be on us? Seems like the whole story is not out yet, that's all.

[dfwgator]

Saddam killed millions, used chemical weapons, invaded a neighboring country, attacked Israel with scud missiles, and violated the cease-fire from the first Gulf War. He needed to go, and the world is a better place for him being out of the picture.

[freeperfromnj]

Not sure why Sadaam outfitted his troops with gas masks then.

Now there's a great point I've not heard mentioned since we entered Iraq.

[areafiftyone]

I heard on Fox and Friends that it clearly states that Saddam was planning to re-introduce them as soon as the sanctions were lifted. He was in co-hoots with France, Germany, Russia, China and the U.N. to get the sanctions lifted by paying them off with money that was skimmed off the Oil for Food program. Eventually the sanctions would have been lifted if we hadn't have gone to war and Saddam would have stared to make them. I wish Bush would mention this in the debate. The Oil for Food program scandal is out there in the public now. It's not a secret.

[Non-Sequitur]

IRAQ HAD NO STOCKPILES...SO WHAT?

So what? Over a thousand U.S. soldiers are dead and thousands more wounded for reasons that prove to be untrue, and all Neal can say about that is "So what?" According to the report all it took to keep a lid on Hussein's WMD program was UN santions. Wouldn't keeping those in place have been cheaper than the invasion?

[E. Pluribus Unum]

As Dick Morris said on Sean Hannity's radio show yesterday, when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor Saint FDR did not attack Japan, he attacked Germany and Italy.

Fascism had many fronts, just as Islamofascist terrorism has many fronts. Iraq was the most logical first target because it was a piece of cake to defeat, and it gives us a base of operations in the heart of Islamofascist Land.

We have troops right next door to Iran now, and if they come up with a nuke, we will take it out.

Iran must not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon, which alone justifies taking out Saddam.

[boycott]

CIA adviser says Iraq had no banned weapons since 1991

Is this the same "slam dunk" CIA?

I am beginning to question how ruthless and unethical the CIA is. I always thought it was rather silly to suggest that the CIA was involved with assassinating President Kennedy but I am beginning to have my doubts.

The CIA is far more involved in politics than I ever imagined. This group failed the American people. This is one very incompetent group.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

But what's also interesting in this case, is that some of the other more important testimony by Duelfer is being ignored. For instance, Saddam did not abandon his nuclear ambitions, he merely put them on hold. As soon as the heat was off, he was going to start making nuclear weapons. He had the ability and the desire.

That was exactly the point I thought was so important. IMO, there is no difference between him haveing them and just waiting for a chance to get them. I wondered, why aren't they hammering that part of the report up more.

Becky

[E. Pluribus Unum]

So what? Over a thousand U.S. soldiers are dead and thousands more wounded for reasons that prove to be untrue, and all Neal can say about that is "So what?" According to the report all it took to keep a lid on Hussein's WMD program was UN santions. Wouldn't keeping those in place have been cheaper than the invasion?

When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, Saint FDR did not attack Japan, he attacked Germany.

Was Saint FDR wrong?

[NotchJohnson]

Becky,
There is a template for the media. Only report the points that would hurt Bush. It is amazing he is not losing to Kerry and very welll may beat him.

[Dr. Frank fan]

I will never be satisfied until someone explains what Iraq did with the anthrax. I never get a rat's ass about "stockpiles" of chemically-armed shells on missiles that could go a few hundred miles. It was always about anthrax (and perhaps smallpox) for me.

And the thing is, I see no way that any amount of "inspections" or "reports" could clear Saddam of having had anthrax. This stuff is just not big.

People have this idea that "WMD" are BIG THINGS sitting in a BIG warehouse so, if you don't find anything like that, then No WMD.

This is not true - at all - when we are talking about anthrax.

Do you hear me, "inspectors"? Tell me where the f**king anthrax went and then maybe I'll start to care what you say.

[z3n]

Let's be honest about something. Most of us who supported the war in Iraq did so because we knew that Saddam had to go. I myself took the viewpoint that Saddam probably did not have any "significant" WMDs at the time (except mustard gas and maybe some other chemical weapons), but would very gladly produce more dangerous WMDs and in the cloak of the night, pass them off to Extremist organizations who would use them in Isreal or the United States.

let's face it, as organized and as large as Al Queda was in Afghanistan and around the world, they could never build the facilities to create a nuclear weapon. Their only hope, and the only hope of terrorists organizations to get their hands on a significant WMD, is to receive one from a sympathetic Nation-State with the capabilities to produce them. This is the reason why Iran and N.Korea are very serious problems.

Finding stockpiles would have legitimized the publically states reasons for invading Iraq, but not finding them does NOT de-legitimize those non-publicly stated reasons for going into Iraq. The read-between-the-lines reasons for invading Iraq was to stabilize the middle-east for democracy and destabilize the middle east for subversive and extremeist organizations.


DNC error

[Rakkasan1]

Saddam was a weapon of mass destruction. just ask the guys who had their hands cut off for speaking out.

[DocRock]

If they are not in another terrorist supporting nation or still buried in the desert, then the scientist were ripping off Saddam because he sure wanted WMD's.

What about the 500 tons of Uranium? I wonder if that doesn't count because the international community said it's "OK" for the Iraqis to have that?

San Diego Union Tribune

[dfwgator]

When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, Saint FDR did not attack Japan, he attacked Germany.

Morris is wrong. We declared war on Japan, Germany declared war on us on December 11th.

[Coldwater Creek]

You are right "WHO CARES' if there wasn't any stockpiles of WMD's. I believe the real reason that we chose Irac was th draw the terrorist to one place. I heard some use the analogy that if you wanted to catch flies you hung the fly paper outside so that it would catch the flies before they came inside. The plan has worked perfect. We are a military family so I do no dismiss the loss of everyone of the brave that has lost their lives in this was, but we loose thousands and thousands of young people every year to pointless deaths such as, teenagedrivers, drunks not to mention the loss of life from shootings and other forms of violence.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

LOL....good point.

Becky

[beckaz]

Heard someone say yesterday, Saddam was a WMD and we found him. I agree with you we need to articulate our reasons for war in a better way, and the (high) costs need to be justified in a better way.

See my post #10 over there: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1237707/posts