Posted on 04/07/2005 5:27:24 AM PDT by SJackson
The absence of evidence (WMD) is not evidence of their (WMD) absence. Because we had no reliable assets on the ground in Iraq prior to the commencement of operations, thanks of course to clinton and the democrats, these people have no way of knowing whether or not WMDs were there. Saddam had months to move and hide WMDs, and there has been talk of large convoys moving into Syria. Moreover, Iraq is a large country in which it would be easy to hide even large stocks of WMDs. Until we capture someone with real knowledge who is willing or is convinced to talk, it's likely we'll never know the truth. It's impossible for a "Presidential Commission" to put together a report that provides the "last word" on this issue from Washington, DC.
How did W and the good guys ever get sucked into this "WMD/no WMD" bogus argument?
It doesn't matter, never did.
Bottom line: Invading Iraq has given terrorists around the world pause. W has effectively gotten the dogs back under the porch. No thanks to the rats and other leftist scum.
This is because terrorists respond to deterrents, just as do miscreant dogs and other organisms with a CNS.
In exact proportion to the vague and secretive nature of terrorism, by which it evades rules-based political systems of the nations, W's response to 9/11 was equally vague, but nonetheless justified and correct.
Proof positive: all the terrorists killed in Fallujah, and more specifically, where they came from. Hint: it was not from Fallujah.
The WMD argument should have been neutralized by the Republicans the first day it was balloon-floated by the rats.
I am sure they (the rats) were surprised that the Republicans bit into the argument. Surprised or not, they followed their political instincts and created an industry out of the whole WMD issue. Even the Euroweenies caught on and now they say, every other word: No WMD. Blair is still dodging immaterial questions about WMD to this day.
Non issue, never was. Republicans: get smarter. The rats fight dirty in arguments. Learn it.
If Saddam had no WMD's, why was he impeding the people looking for them? That's what started this whole mess. He refused to abide by the accords he signed after GW1.
Read the WMD report out 3/31. Our intel community screwed up BIG TIME.
We needed to go over there and kick somebody's butt.
Saddam was jumping up and down shouting "Ooooh Ooooh! ME FIRST!"
Saddam's repeated violations of numerous UNSC resolutions and the terms of the Gulf War cease fire made it all nice and legal-like.
That's more than enough for me.
The only thing most will hear from the MSM about this report will be anything that they can use to beat up President Bush.
Was Iraq in material breech of UNSC 1441? Yes or no?
If your answer is yes, all the rest is immaterial.
If your answer is no, we reside on separate planets.
MI Ping
All the rest is NOT immaterial. Yes they were defying the resolutions. However - did that justify the actions.
Please read the report.
Unless it's my son coming hme in a casket. Sorry - not good enough for me.
2. The Euro trash was corrupting the embargo.
3. Iraq was turning into the harbor zone and meeting place for terrorist groups
4. Hussein was funding terrorist activities
5.Having a democratic islamic nation in the heart of the Arab world IS in the interest of our National Security
6. The dying Iraqi children served as a rallying point for terrorist recruiters
Just a start
The report is irrelevant, since it is after the fact. Please read UNSC 1441, which was operative at the time. What was the prescribed action in the event of a material breach?
Actual WMD were irrelevant to a material breach of UNSC 1441. They were irrelevant then, they are irrelevant now.
Oh, great. Appeals to maudlin sentimentality.
Actually, you have the form wrong. You should invoke the image of your son coming home in a body bag. It's more disrespectful that way.
My first appeal was for you to get informed. Read the report.
Why? How is it relevant to what happened then? If the actual existance of WMD was not material to the legality of the war, or the decision to invade, how is any intelligence SNAFU that happened back then relevant to anything?
I assume that intelligence is SNAFU. That's what the "N" is for. If I read a report saying the CIA was not aware in 2003 that the Soviet Union had fallen ten years before, I would not be at all surprised.
I can't continue this discussion. I thought it was only liberals who criticized things they haven't read.
I read the report. We should not have gone into Iraq. Those of you touting the successes are being short-sighted. We've got major structural problems and this is not a partisan issue.
I thought the report had to do with WMDs. What does that have to do with whether or not we should have gone into Iraq?
The report clearly lays out how screwed up our intel "communities" are and how bureaucratic hacks are standing in the way of real change/improvements.
One does not necessarily lead to another. You of course know that there were many reasons that we went to Iraq, and no one in the administration claimed that WMD’s was even the dominate reason.
But just out of curiosity, since you’ve read the report, how does it put this item in perspective later written up in Bomb in my garden?
"The CIA has in its hands the critical parts of a key piece of Iraqi nuclear technology -- parts needed to develop a bomb program -- that were dug up in a back yard in Baghdad, CNN has learned. The parts, with accompanying plans, were unearthed by Iraqi scientist Mahdi Obeidi who had hidden them under a rose bush in his garden 12 years ago under orders from Qusay Hussein and Saddam Hussein's then son-in-law, Hussein Kamel. "
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.