[areafiftyone]

Boy does the media love spinning this around and around.

[mywholebodyisaweapon]

How utterly stupid. B&C just threw away the election.

They could have won in a landslide. So much for my previous predictions of 58 % p.v.

B.T.W., as some of you are observing, we STILL DO NOT REALLY KNOW that Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction.

I don't care what any of you says, Karl Rove is a complete and utter idiot.

[backhoe]

Go to the "last" here and work back:

IRAQ- some links to terror
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/746457/posts

[The Sons of Liberty]

I'm still not convinced that there aren't Iraqui WMDs in Syria or buried in the desert, but even if there are none, why is this news now?

[beckysueb]

Well thats a nice ubiased report. NOT

[Jaded]

What a bunch of fricken panty-headed idiot liberal morons. ABC has the interview Diane Sawyer did with that exceptionally UGLY woman in charge of Iraq's Bio/Chem Warfare program. Hussein had a couple of weeks to ship all the crap to Syria.

What happened to the pics of migs buried in the sand? The chemical warhead? Like so many other things they, accidently make the news and then the media hides it and lies about it.

[1L]

Let's see: he didn't gas the Iranians; didn't gas the Kurds; and kicked inspectors out so they wouldn't find his top secret baby formula.

Only an idiot would think that.

[kitkat]

BUMP

[steveegg]

By SCOTT LINDLAW, Associated Press Writer

Where did I see that name before? (thanks for the dig, Navydog; sorry about the pulled dup thread)

[Brimack34]

Why did the White House let this stuff out now and not after the election?

[Zhangliqun]

WMD was never anything but a secondary issue for me. Saddam was supporting terrorists of all stripes, from the kids blowing up buses in Israel to Mr. Zarqawi to the guy who hijacked the Achille Lauro. It was always quite a stretch to think Saddam would have studiously avoided Al Qaeda...

"...because I just know with metaphysical certitude back here in 1989 with my people NOT meeting up with theirs in the Sudan NOT under the brokering of Hassan al Turabi that on 9/11/01 Al Qaeda will attack the U.S., 10 years after the first Gulf War that I already know about 2 years in advance -- and that NONE, say again, NONE -- of these other terror orgs will, meaning I can openly embrace them all but not Al Qaeda because I know back here in the mid 90's who will win the 2000 election and he will come after me.

No, I would never, ever, ever, EVER have any dealings with Al Qaeda, even though they will cause major pain to a mortal enemy and thus prove they are the only group effective enough to possibly cause the U.S. to withdraw entirely from the Middle East so I can have free reign over the entire region, and even though I've seen how the Americans always run when they get a bloody nose. No, no, what possible benefits are there for me if I support Al Qaeda?

Even though their great leader Osama will hide from the Americans so well that the squeamish soccer moms will still think he's alive even after no-one will have seen any pictures of him for nearly 3 years after the early fighting in Afghanistan, and these soccer moms (a name that can be applied to many American pathetic excuses for men as well) fearing a dead man they want to appease, may very well cause a weak and indecisive man who is afraid to fight to be elected president who will think he can cut deals with me like that other useful idiot, Jimmy Carter. No, I don't want a pliable man like that in Washington who is eager to let me fool him. How will that help me? No, no!

What gain is there for me to support Al Qaeda?

Hezbollah, Hamas, Martyrs Brigade, Islamic Jihad, bring them ALL on! Come to my terrorist candy store. Money, weapons, bombs, WMD to not support that non-plot to use chemical weapons in Jordan that will not be foiled in 2004, anything! You want it, I got it! Come one, come all!

EXCEPT AL QAEDA. No, no, Osama -- you stay AWAY from Iraq! You will only help me realize my goal of regional domination! Why would I, Saddam Hussein, want such a thing?"

[hershey]

At this very moment I'm watching a cable show on how Iraqis got centrifuge expertise, material, skull furnaces, the whole nine yards from Germany. They were trying to build an atom bomb. I fail to see why Kerry and company can rant and rave about Saddam's peaceful intentions in the light of public information of this sort. The Germans were selling nuclear capability to the highest bidder 24/7, including to Pakistan, who were paranoid about India and Kashmir.

[Capriole]

Saddam may not be presently building nukes, but neither is he filling mass graves with the bodies of women and children. We were right to go in and stop the atrocities. If we had not, the vast liberal media would be excoriating the US for its failure to act while all the horrible things were taking place.

[petercooper]

[goldstategop]

Yep. The truth of the matter is EVERY ONE thought Iraq HAD WMD. That was reason enough to go after Saddam Hussein at the time. I don't care that some bureaucrat now says our intelligence was faulty. If the evaluation was wrong, then the President's opponents were fooled too. The media is never going to admit this since they are a Kerry transcript service. It wasn't about removing Saddam from power though it made us safer. It was about making sure a dictator did not acquire the means to make American cities a pile of radioactive rubble. In these dangerous times, the partisan media and the man it supports doesn't understand what was - and is still at stake in a post-9/11 world.

[chiller]

Here's a very nice summary of the report, courtesy of Jonah Goldberg and one of his emails to the Corner;

If you dig in to the report, you find that:
(1) Saddam had every intention of restarting his WMD programs as soon as the sanctions were gone. The nuclear scientists were there, the biological lab people were there, much of the infrastructure was intact, or in pieces and hidden securely away.
(2) The sanctions were eroding as early as 1999, and likely would not have lasted much longer.
(3) Massive bribery of government people in France and other countries, including parts of Chirac's inner circle, was the reason for (2).
(4) Bribery of _journalists_ ensured coverage of the sanctions was slanted in the way Saddam wanted it. I wonder why the MSM does not want to highlight this part, eh?
(5) The money for the bribes in (3) and (4) came right out of the oil-for-food program. Wonder why the MSM does not want to highlight this?

Folks, you really need to stop relying on the same people who are calling Dan Rather a journalist for information on this scandal. The pajamadheen are on this...little green footballs has info, Clayton Cramer has been reading and posting impressive facts http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/blogger.html and I'm sure there are others.

[bray]

The only reason we know he had no WMD is because we went in and searched for them. Otherwise we would still be assuming he was hiding them. I'm glad he didn't and doesn't!

Pray for W and Our Troops

[rodguy911]

Here are several reasons that should justify going in to take out Sadaam.

1. We acted on the info given us by CIA chief Tenant. He was a Clinton appointee. He screwed Bush. Gave him erroneous info. Initially he produced a few photos,and when questioned by bush "is that all" stated that "Iraq having WMD's was a slam dunk". He lied. He's gone. Based on info from CIA and Tenant we should have gone into Iraq.

2. We have had threads here on FR that documents trucks hauling WMD's or suspected poisonous gas beingn trucked into Syria.

3.Once you have the formula to produce chem weapons it is not rocket science to do so. Saddam could have restarted a chem weapon program almost anytime if he could get rid of the UN. inspectors

4.Nuclear weapons are WMD's. Saddam conspired with N. Korea,and Lybia to build 5 nuc's, also well documented here on FR and would have done so had they not been caught. Witness the collapse of Qaddafi.

5.We know Sadaam courted terrorists who hated us. He courted them actively. He had a mock-up plane, a 707 or other, that was used to train terrorists in Iraq,

That's all I could come up with on short notice. But there is plenty more.

[philosofy123]

Somebody please explain; if the Republicans are war mongers and wanted to invade Iraq to avenge Bush's father, or whatever other stupid reason, why did ALL the Democrats voted in agreement to invade Iraq?

My theory is, after they supported our effort, the midterm election showed that they lost their a$$. Then, Howard Dean ran screaming that the Iraq war was wrong, and found the ranking file Democrats all in agreement, then the "insider" type Democrats had to make an excuse why they now oppose that war. These losers have no ground to stand on. I think the American people can see that the change of heart is simply for capturing the White house, and affecting the potential supreme court nominations

[jpl]

Let's face it: the anti-American internationalist Beltway bureaucracy declared all-out war on the Bush administration, and the administration has apparently decided to throw in the towel.

The worst part of all is that if this lowlife Kerry actually pulls out a win because of this, we're going to go back a policy that guarantees our drift towards another tragedy, and probably one even worse than 9/11.

[ironman]

Everybody should read the Duelfer Summary. What Saddam was up to is quite damning.

Key Findings (Duelfer Report): Sanctions Had Collapsed by end of 1999
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1238122/posts

Key Findings (Duelfer Report): Iraqi Intelligence Had WMD, Tested on Humans
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1237962/posts

ISG uncovered information that the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) maintained throughout 1991 to 2003 a set of undeclared covert laboratories to research and test various chemicals and poisons, primarily for intelligence operations.

[snip]

• The existence, function, and purpose of the laboratories were never declared to the UN.

• The IIS program included the use of human subjects for testing purposes.