Posted on 10/07/2004 6:31:27 AM PDT by 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
Clinton, the CIA agreed taht WMD were theer. Now Clinton supporters have stepped away from that. Yeah it's a shame they use politics in such dire situations. But what happens if more evidence turns up in a year? An apology?
KERRY and EDWARDS are delighted (delighted as in happy dance delighted) that in the event they find themselves in a winning position they do NOT have to deal with Saddam Hussein or his sons. Just absolutely DELIGHTED!!!!
How much fear do you think Edwards put into terrorists in the debate. Hearing him talk is about as threatening as hearing Barney Frank speak. Someone said hire Cheney to kill terrorists, hire edwards to sue someone.
Sorry, I´m still in the Reserves here, and we still train our soldiers in NBC-self-protection. In basic training, they get training injectors, but my comrades in Kosovo, Afghanistan, etc have the real atropine! This is not a cold-war scenario, this is standard for western armies. Isn´t here a active US soldier or reservist who can say how it´s in the US armed forces?
They can run but they can't hide. We'll see to it.
Where Bush Got His Marching Orders.
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation .. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry ( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2000
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2000
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2000
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2000
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapon stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2000
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation .. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
Tell me, how would you know?
Sure, but part of my agenda is to protect my country against unjust slander, understand? ;-)
The only threat to the whole world we experience(d) was and still are nuclear weapons in the hands of criminals.
So what? Our intel community is in shambles, that's what.
Another piece of the Clinton legacy, along with 9/11, a nuclear North Korea, Chinese influence over US politics and our undermanned military.
A Century Of Evidence...
Just what consitutes a stockpile? It's an old term, usually applied to large quantities of munitions. Does a lunchbox of ricin or some other chemical or biological agent constitute a stockpile if it can kill as many people as a stockpile of munitions?
A century? I´d say we lived half a century at the borderline of those who posed a threat to the entire world. That should be enough to identify... oh, and btw, I don´t think that your passport is decisive for identifying evil.
Speaking of 12 years of:
Speaking of all that, no one has yet answered the question as to why Saddam Hussein would play 12 years worth of the games he did if there were no WMD hidden in Iraq.
Of course, the answer increasingly seems clear. He was making out like a bandit with the UN Oil for Food scam. Now there's the real scandal (and there's the nest of liars whose greed and incompetence led to all the horror that's happened since 1991). But our vaunted mainstream media can't be bothered to so much as yawn in the direction of the UN, let alone work themselves into one of their pack-media frenzies demanding answers from Bill Clinton, Kofi Annan, Jacques Chirac, Gerhardt Schroeder, and Vladimir Putin.
No, no, no...that would be too hard. Peter, Tom, Dan and all their tagalong boy and girl reporters can't risk mussing up the hair or getting the dirt of the real world on their pretty clothes, now can they.
I would also propose two more logical reasons:
[1] FACT: Iraq was part of the Axis of Evil which harbored and funded terrorists around the world.
[2] FACT: Iraq has a highly educated population which would provide the most furtile ground for democracy to take hold in that area of the world.
"The intelligence from Bush 1 to Clinton to Bush 2 was consistent" in concluding Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and was trying to develop a nuclear capability, Clinton said this morning. And Saddam's expulsion of weapons inspectors and "the behavior" of his regime "pointed to a continuing effort" to produce WMD, she added.
So where are they?
Ol' Saddam had plenty of time to get them out of his country while we were mucking around with the UN, trying to get them off the dime.
They were moved to Syria, but that doesn't matter now. The other part of the very good plan is that the U.S. has set up base smack dab in the middle of the middle east. We are drawing the islamo terrorist bastards in to Iraq like freaking flies on crap. We are killing them over there, that is a good thing. Iraq was just as good of a place as any to start.
Clearly it does not otherwise there would be no way any amount of inspection teams or reports would be able to declare flat out that Iraq had "no stockpiles".
Don't look for the Democrats to offer any forgiveness during a campaign.
BUMP
So what if Saddam had used WMDs. So what if Saddam had secret programs in the mid-90's that were discovered when some people defected from Iraq and provided evidence of the programs. Even Saddam admitted he had WMDs, and failed to account for the destruction.
So what if Saddam's military routinely shot at US/Coalition planes that were monitoring Iraq and enforcing the no-fly zone. This would be the like expecting the police to take action in a neighborhood where people would shoot at the cop cars as they drove by. We really expect the police to not take action ... right??
So what if Saddam was secretly siphoning of billions of dollars from the Oil-for-Food (and bribes, and palaces and weapons) Program that was monitored by the UN (and they were also in on the scam.) So what if the program, because of fraud, was helping Saddam stay in control while allowing tens of thousands of Iraqi people to suffer and die. So what if Iraqi people were dying ... it's not like they are real people who count ... people who count like Democrats and Michael Moore. The Iraqi people flying kites, shown in the Farenheit 911 movie probably supported Michael Moore and Saddam.
So what if Saddam was giving families of suicide bombers $25,000 to spread terrorism in Isreal. And even though Claudia Rosett of the Wall Street Journal is exposing the fact that Osama bin Laden was probably broke when he left Sudan in 1997-1998 ... (after Clinton refused the offer of Sudan to turn him over to us) ... but while in Afghanistan, bin Laden was probably getting hundreds of millions of dollars from Saddam (diverted from the UN's Oil for Scam program) ... and so Saddam was funding Osama ... but heck .. who cares, since Bush lied about WMDs.
<'sarcasm off>
So what should we do ... put Saddam back into power and let him restore "order"? Tell the Iraqi people that we don't value them ... they really aren't human anyway since they never fought for their freedoms (well ... they tried, but Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of them for trying ... but hey ... who gives a damn ... Bush lied and there were no WMDs ... so let's elect Kerry ... who loves to allow socialist/communist governments to come in and fix countries up. Heck ... Kerry liked the idea of North Viet Nam taking over the management of South Viet Nam. So what if hundreds of thousands died and millions suffered ... those people don't count either ... since they probably are sub-human too.)
Am I missing something here? I think the Democrats - who worried about genocide in Africa ... are the biggest damned bigots in the world. They ignore the plight of millions of people (in Iraq) ...while a madman collets billions of petrodollars and uses the money to build arms, aid terrorists, and whether or not he actually had WMDs .. he has had them, and he would get them again if the Democrats were in control
The Democrats disgust me ... their policies are either stupid or racist .... or both!!!
Mike
Yossef Bodansky says in his book "Secret History of the Iraq War" that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons. Many were transferred over to Syria during our military buildup but they some were also set to be used on our troops but we came in too quick and they were hesitant to use them. Why else would gas masks be found and chemical suits? I still believe the WMD are out there. We need to get the truth that there were WMD.
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.