Why I was wrong about Iraq

Times Online ^ | January 14, 2005 | John Maples

[Luis Gonzalez]

The entire world took it for granted that Hussein had WMDs, otherwise the whole world wouldn't have been demanding that he get rid of them, the fact that he did not use them in 1991 in no way means that he did not have them in 2002...and that's your entire reasoning, that since he apparently didn't have them in 1991 (he did), he didn't have them now.

Well Joe...the question seems to have been settled, and now, we no longer had to concern ourselves with Saddam Hussein, and the possibility of his selling weapons to terrorists to use against us.

So, where exactly is the downside Joe?

[Luis Gonzalez]

Undisputed?

ROTFLMAO!!

Your entire argument boils down to saying that since exploratory surgery failed to find cancer, exploratory surgery was not needed.

Yet, you wouldn't have known that there was no cancer without the surgery, would you?

[Luis Gonzalez]

"My suggestion for Bush? Open Saddams cell door, put a bullet in his head, declare victory, and leave that POS country."

Your suggestion to Bush is to have the United States behave exactly as the worst of our enemies is trying to paint us?

Typical...

[Luis Gonzalez]

Joe would be one of the people widly cheering as Pat Buchanan demanded that George Bush be arrested and tried for crimes against humanity for the unjustified arrest of hundreds of Muslims in America, and an unwarranted attack on Afghanistan, a country that neither attacked us or possed a threat, in a press conference being conducted high atop the Manhattan skyline at "Windows on the World", on September 12, 2001.

[Veritas et equitas ad Votum]

Yea, I know another trick Rush taught you is to paint everyone who disagrees with you as a leftist.

Okay, fine. It's pretty sad you spent time collecting these quotes.

BTW-Why didn't you post any quotes from Harry Truman, he must have been a leftist too, right?

[Joe Hadenuf]

the fact that he did not use them in 1991 in no way means that he did not have them in 2002

Uh, lets see here. He didn't use them in the early 90s when his butt was kicked out of Kuwait, as we slaughtered thousands of his Republican guard as they were fleeing back into Iraq. So many died they named it the "Road of death". And again, just *recently*, he didn't use them when we invaded his *entire* country.

I don't think one needs to be a senior investigator to understand that if he had these big bad weapons of mass destruction, and his *entire* damn country was being invaded, with *him* being a prime target, one would think he would use them. Eh louie?

I don't know louie, it's just a wild guess.

I must say though, compared to Saddam, I've seen tougher, meaner, transients, drunks and bums. When they pulled Saddam out of his hole, he looked like some petty, weak begger.

[Veritas et equitas ad Votum]

"Yet, you wouldn't have known that there was no cancer without the surgery, would you?"

So, we should just operate on everyone hoping to find 2 or 3 people who actually are sick?

GREAT ANALOGY!

Did you hear that one on Rush or Hannity?

[FreeReign]

You must be mistaking me for someone that follows the liberal media. I for one do not march in lock step cadence to the liberal media, or either of the two beltway party's.

You're right Joe, I must be mistaken. Glad to hear that you won't be using their lock-step, neo-words.

I did notice you failed to address anything I have posted here about the UN, and WMD, or lack of in Iraq.

Anthrax - Iraq admitted making 2,200 gallons of anthrax spores. U.N. inspectors determined Iraq had the capability to produce three times that much. Saddam was supposed to destroy the anthrax and Saddam was supposed to prove that he destroyed the anthrax.

Saddam never did.

Botulinum Toxin - Iraq admitted producing 5,300 gallons of the stuff. 70 billionths of a grams of the stuff is enough to kill if inhaled. Saddam was supposed to destroy the Botulinum Toxin. Saddam was supposed to prove that he destroyed the Botulinum Toxin.

Saddam never did.

Shall I go on? There's a lot more stuff to cover. He had VX, he had Sarin and he had much more...

He was supposed to get rid of all of it and he was supposed to prove that he got rid of all of it. Anything short of that represents a reasonable risk.

Saddam never proved anything.

[LexBaird]

I think it will be clearer sooner. When I look at a map I see to the right Iran. To the left is Syria. To the south are our "friends" the Saudis. We will be in a much better position to keep on eye on the neighborhood in the near future. In order of quell the Arab fundamentalists, we need to squeeze the Saudis (Colin Powell's friends). We need to influence Iran and Syria.

Hallelujah! Someone besides me can read a map!

[John Lenin]

I can't wait to see your zot.

[melancholy]

KC,

>>Since the UN was involved in the crime, we are justified in going in without UN sanction.<<

I completely agree with you and add:

THE UN SHOULD BE SANCTIONED!

[Republican Wildcat]

"LOL, I'll let those that read this thread decide. My post are clear, unchallenged and undisputed."

[meema]

bump

[FreeReign]

I don't think one needs to be a senior investigator to understand that if he had these big bad weapons of mass destruction, and his *entire* damn country was being invaded, with *him* being a prime target, one would think he would use them. Eh louie? I don't know louie, it's just a wild guess

I see what you mean Joe although it is obviously after the fact that one sees no WMD during an invasion.

Making a better point: I don't think one needs to be a senior investigator to understand that if Al Qaeda and other terrorists had the capability to move WMD across the Mexican border, and their entire global organization was under attack and being targeted for extinction, one would think that they would have moved such weapons and used such weapons by now. Aye Joe?

I don't know, just a wild guess.

Cheers to you.

[Republican Wildcat]

1999 ABC News Flashback: Saddam's links to terrorism (including Osama bin Laden)

1999 AP Flashback: Saddam has offered asylum to Bin Laden

262 Mass Graves found in Iraq

A Litany of Leftist Lies-The truth behind the most common canards of the "Bush Lied" crowd

Al Qaeda videos found in Iraq weapons raid

The Evidence Against Saddam Hussein Continues to Stack Up

Banned Missiles Found

Gadhafi: Iraq war may have influenced WMD decision

Horror unearthed from Iraqi mass grave

Intelligence backs claim Iraq tried to buy uranium

Iraq May Have Been 'Far More Dangerous' Than Believed, Kay Tells

Iraq, Bin Laden Planned Saudi Opposition

Iraq Raid Yields Cyanide Linked to Al Qaeda

Iraqi officer in al Qaeda, papers show

Iraqis share graphic tales of regime's torture chambers (Gruesome read)

Iraqis Tell of 11th-Hour Arrests and Torture

Iraqis, Seeking Foes of Saudis, Contacted bin Laden, File Says

Marines Find Cache of Suicide Bomb Vests

Mass Grave of 600 Kuwaiti POW'S found..

Oil for Food: Hussein's Regime Skimmed Billions From Aid Program

Pacifist says 'I was was wrong' - Back from Baghdad, Rev. Ken Joseph now favors liberation of Iraq

Saddam 'diverted aid to bomber families'

Saddam's Ambassador to al Qaeda

Saddam's son beats 12-year-olds who say no to sex: defectors

The Iraq connection - A new British inquiry is showing that Saddam did seek uranium in Africa

UK Newspaper Says Documents Link Bin Laden to Iraq

UN knew of Saddam's oil-for-food thefts: BBC

WMD Breakthrough: Post-Iraq, the world's proliferators are on the run

[Luis Gonzalez]

Do you understand post #264 Joe?

Had Bush acted based on the intelligence report of our strongest allies and most Western nations, launched a preemptive strike on Afghanistan AND BY DOING SO SUCCEEDED IN STOPPING SEPTEMBER 11, you, Buchanan, and the leftist media of the world would be saying the exact same things that you are saying about Iraq today, or worse.

You can't use what never happened as justification for taking action to stop it, and you are using the fact that an event never happened, to criticize the action taken in an attempt to prevent it.

I can't figure out whether your argument is incredibly intellectually disingenuous, or just plain dumb; I'd say it was a little of both.

But 9/11 happened, and in a 9/12 world, with the very real ability AND WILLINGNESS of the very few to massacre the millions, not taking aggressive preemptive action based on the best available intelligence is no longer an acceptable option.

The luxury of hindsight died on September 11, 2001 Joe, and I don't know whether Saddam Hussein had WMDs, was developing WMDs, or intended to develop WMDs, but I do know that he was willing to do it, that he was able to do it, and that he had no problems financing terrorists.

I'll tell you what else I now know...I know I won't have to worry about Saddam's WMDs any more.

I'll take Iraq over September eleven 10 times out of ten Joe.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I think you just made Joe's head explode.

[chudogg]

DONALD RUMSFELD, in his more private moments, must wonder if the invasion of Iraq was really such a good idea.

Methinks Rumsfeld keeps himself too busy running a friggin military to sit around and ponder absurdities.

[chudogg]

We pick and choose which UN resolutions to enforce based on national interests. The UN be dammned.