Posted on 03/07/2005 12:35:40 PM PST by rightalien
Saddam himself was a WMD!
Except we told Blix we knew where the WMD's were and that he was looking in the wrong places. So why didn't we tell him where to find them? Why has the President's team admitted that the programs were discontinued after the first gulf war when we were told by the same team pre invasion that the programs were active and ongoing?
Why this now?
Iraq had WMD. Period.
Anyone who protests is illegitimately shifting the definition around.
“And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people.”
How about those protestors who say the mission was never to free the Iraqi people?
As soon as syria moves out of Lebanon, and we gain access to the bekka valley, the wmd stockpiles will become apparent. Bashir doesn't have the stomach to try and move those wmds again and will claim that he did not know that they were moved there. Bingo, game over.
Maybe we were wrong about "knowing where they were". We thought they were in locations ABC while they were really in (or moved to) locations XYZ. So we told Blix ABC and were wrong.
That is perfectly consistent with Saddam having WMDs in locations XYZ. Therefore maybe we didn't "tell him where to find them" because they were located in, or moved to, locations without our knowledge.
That was part of the problem, intelligence is not 100% you see. We can't count on "knowing where things are". It was Saddam's responsibility, by the way, to show us where things were instead of making us guess or hunt.
Here's an explanation that fits all the facts you've complained about:
We had some pretty good intelligence indicating that some WMDs were kept in locations ABC. Some time went by while we (VERY PUBLICLY) accused Saddam Hussein of having WMDs. Saddam Hussein, not being an idiot, MOVED the WMDs. (You do know that physical objects can be moved right? Just checking. Some people don't seem to know this.) We gave Blix our best info (locations ABC) but they were no longer there.
Under this explanation,
-Hussein was in violation of Resolution 1441.
-Hussein had WMDs.
Why has the President's team admitted that the programs were discontinued after the first gulf war
"the programs were discontinued after the first gulf war" is too hopelessly vague to have been "admitted" by anyone. Which programs? All of them? Some of them? What exactly did "the President's team" "admit"?
The fact remains that Iraq possessed WMD and that this is a finding of the Duelfer report.
This is what for me makes the "was there WMD" question quite ludicrous to ponder. The left not only fails to grasp the lesson of 9-11, they want the rest of us to presume Saddam didn't grasp it either.
This is all so much BULL crap!! After 911 "CONNECTING" the DOTS i.e.......that Iraq could "POSSIBLY" give TERRORISTS a WMD to use on the United States was without a doubt the right thing to do. It was a CLEAR connection and one that to ignore would border on the incompetent!!
Afterall GW was castigated as was the entire intelligence community for NOT CONNECTING those unrelated, uncommunicated "NEBULOUS" dots to prevent 911.
---------------------------
Not even Rummy tried to trot that out.
We know WMD existed in Iraq because we sold it to them when they were on "our side" WMD do exist but our government never confirms or denies the existance of WMD.
I knew long, long ago that "nothing" would be found either way.
Does kinda make you wonder about that "secret" train trip moving nuc weapons around the US last year to "store waste."
Report: U.S suspects Iraqi WMD in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley
Saddam's WMD hidden in Syria, says Iraq survey chief
Saddam agents on Syria border helped move banned materials
New evidence: Saddam's WMD in Lebanon Weapons transferred to Syria before war, then to Bekaa Valley
Why else do you think Assad is only pulling back to the Bekaa Valley?
Let's hope.
Here's a lesser scenario, I wonder what you think and whether it would be acceptable:
The Bush admin. communicates to Syria that if they vacate Lebanon we'll look the other way about the WMDs in Bekka (let them move or destroy them quietly) to let him save face and avoid the humiliation you describe. Some sort of deal is cut; Syria announces some "timetable" and Lebanese complain about the delay, but the real reason for the timetable is just to give Syria a chance to deal with the stuff in Bekka. The result being that Lebanon is liberated at the price of Bush sacrificing the potential PR victory of finding Iraq's WMDs and parading them in front of his detractors.
Would such a deal be worth cutting, if we could? I kinda think so. Would Bush be willing to cut such a deal and give up the WMD PR victory? I suspect so.
Or is what I'm describing just too far-fetched? Anyway, even if there is no such "deal" I wouldn't be surprised if that's the main reason for Syria's foot-dragging anyway.
Does it make a difference? Really?
If you had a convicted child molester and murderer living on your street, would you be justified in feeling concern for the neighborhood children, even if the guy had gone through therapy and was declared "cured"?
Saddam Hussain had weapons and used them, every thinking person outside Iraq was justified in assuming that he either had active weapons or the ability to create them on short notice.
Add to that his intransigence, secrecy, obstruction and obfuscation...for what? So that he could brag that he stood up to the West?
There is the theorem that states: "The most obvious explanation is usually the right one". There may have been a lot of reasons for the behavior of the regime, and all evidence indicated he not only had them but would use them.
Who said we knew where they were? I don't remember anyone saying that, but I could be wrong. Can you find an article that highlights that? I remember them saying they thought the WMD could be in his palaces, since he had hundreds of square miles of territory designated as "palace grounds" for the sole purpose of making them off-limits to the investigators.
So, I am not buying any argument from anyone that the risk of WMD was not sufficient for us to invade. Unless he gave us free and clear access to his country, the argument is worthless. Unless, you want to take Saddam at his word, like a lot of the liberals did.
And those people, would be the ones who would squawk the loudest if anything serious had resulted from WMD's in the hands of terrorists.
Up until the last few days, all he had to do was open up to inspection, and President Bush would not have sent the troops in.
If Saddam was bluffing, he picked the wrong guy to do it to.
"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
"[W]e 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, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, 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 an ilicit 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 a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated 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, 2002
"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, 2002
"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, 2002
"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, 2002
"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 weapons 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, 2002
"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
So the democrats say president bush lied, that there never were any weapons of mass destruction and he took us to war for his oil buddies? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...........................
Ping.
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.