Posted on 01/12/2005 10:14:48 AM PST by ejdrapes
No interpretation needed - the Duelfer Report in summary is that since 1991 Saddam NO LONGER had WMDs BUT anticipated having them in the future.
I read your post and defined the differences of motivation in context of the discusson for you.
You seemed unable to draw complete conclusions and I tried to help you.
For further help, see actual definition of a homicide.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=homicide
1. The killing of one person by another.
2. A person who kills another person.
You are obsessed with what was left to be found after they had over a year to move them where ever the hell they wanted to.
Considering the previous stockpile the UN found, where did all of what they found go and what makes you think there wasn't more hidden or moved things?
You'd have to be illogical to believe that with him knowing there was a threat to investigate WMDs, that he would just leave all of them lying around when he had a year to hide them.
Your point of view on believing bad guys don't hide their weapons is ridiculous.
Their were in tact labs, chemicals everywhere that could be mixed to form WMD. Lots of dual use stuff was lying around Iraq.
And again, with a year to hide and wipe what he wanted clean for inspection, what did you expect to find?
Point by point, what did you think former inspector Kay lied about before Congress?
That is quite a list. Where did Kay lie and why would he lie about simple facts?
Still a repeated rumor. Where was that rumor documented? ANY credible source for that?
When Ambassador April Glaspie arrived, Saddam asked her what was the United States policy or opinion concerning Kuwait.
She told him her country had no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts, "like your border disagreement with Kuwait", but the United States would never accept a settlement achieved by other than peaceful means.
That was all there was to the interview.
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:dieYs4KO5l4J:news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/letter_from_america/newsid_2062000/2062561.stm+Glaspie+%26+Saddam&hl=en
Given the evidence at the time, it was very clear that Saddam was a threat.
Bush would have been wrong to not act.
Saddam was making a mockery of the U.N. and it was clear that the U.N. were not going to do anything about it (11 years, 17 resolutions). Saddam was also supporting the families of terrorists who attacked Israel. And some in the U.N. were making money from the Oil for Food program, too.
We had just been hit by terrorists and the 911 attack was very small when compared to what it could have been and might yet be.
We can no longer wait until someone attacks us. The first attack might be the complete descruction of a city and millions of Americans dead. Yes, then the Dems will be happy that the war is justified. However, at the expense of millions of lives?
Of course, they would blame Bush for not acting sooner (just like they tried to do during the 911 investigations).
He was also directing where UN inspectors may search. It was all rediculous.
Don't you remember when we were all making fun of Blix, you remember We called him Inspector Cleuseau? Remember we told Blix we (the US government) knew where the weapons were. And Blix said fine if you know, then tell me where to go so I can find them. Suddenly, we started doing a shuck and jive as to why we wouldn't and couldn't direct him to the known sites. IT was at that point I knew something was wrong with our stance on WMDS
So you see all this but Bush admin does not?
Yes but Homicide is not necessarily wrong or even a crime, nor does it adequately differentiate a bomb which you strap to yourself from any other kind of bomb.
So your discription therefore fails on both counts of either describing how it is delivered, or condemning it.
Even if you refine the 'Homicide' part to a more specific 'Murder Bomb', how does this define it as being different to say leaving an explosive under a car or in a garbage can.
It is a simple marketing term using very American words directed at an American public to DIFFUSE the (socialist's, leftist's, democrat's, dictator's, main stream press's and kingdom's) attempt to have America lose this war.
There is a lot of fear by kingdoms, dictators and socialists that freedom will remove their current fashion of control over their people.
The last thing any of these cultures and places want is freedom for their people as we know it.
How does the UN provide assurity that a gazillion tons wasn'y moved and could be sitting in piles now in Syra, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan or at the DNC?
Why is most of what was found get washed under the rug by the term of "dual use"?
You have two 50 gallon drums of chemicals in proximity to each other. Mixed they are WMD, but separated in two drums sitting next to each other they are considered ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING for these investigations.
"DUAL USE"
He did more than bluff, he had cards up his sleeves in the card game.
France was controlling the oil fields getting 75% of the profit in exchange for maintaining the fields and distribution when it was illegal to do so under sanctions.
Very mafia like, isn't it?
Russia and Germany were equally doing all this illegal back-door business ventures with Saddam that were illegal under sanctions.
All were making lots of money, so there was no way in hell France, Germany or Russia would sign onto Gulf War 2, despite Saddam for a year shooting at our planes and funding terrorism in Israel and elsewhere.
Nope, Saddam owned three votes in the UN.
With months to hold off inspectors or invasions, he had forever to move what he wanted to bad guys within Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Pakistan and of course France.
Oh, my the Duelfer report! Well, it just CAN'T be wrong. I stand corrected, silly me.
That means you have no trust in the Bush Admin now that appointed Duelfer and accepted his report?
The Bush administration accepted the CIA intel as well. What that right?
There is no alternative - either you acceptthis report or you accept past news reports that have been proven false - incorrect. I know WMD became like a testament of faith - but this God is a false idol.
Nope. The report never said that. We're going in circles because that's my original argument with you. Of course you don't need an interpretation when you're perfectly happy accepting the interpretation of the AP.
I've cited specific language in the report itself, you've cited one or two lines and twisted the content to suit your agenda, whatever it is.
I now leave it to the other readers to decide who has the better argument. I'm tired of repeating myself.
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.