Replies

Another question to ask yourself is do you believe someone like Tierney is telling the truth or just trying to placate us Free Republic warmongers? I would think that any nonpartisan student of Hussein over his horrible tenure in Iraq would agree that (1) he had and used wmds and (2) that being the case, he would develop and use them again if had the chance. Remember we're talking about a man who tried to have a president of the U.S. assassinated. Why is it so hard for many people to connect the dots and assume the worst about Hussein? I felt that Hussein would eventually have to be taken out fourteen years ago when I was still a Dem. I still haven't changed my mind.

Aren't you being just slightly disingenouous? I mean if Hussein didn't have stockpiles of wmds, why were all those weapons inspectors there in the first place? I find it difficult to believe that (1) Hussein had no large stores of wmds and was not close to developing nukes and (2) people who believe he wasn't interested in doing those things. Even people like Hans Blix have noted Hussein's past wmd weapons programs. They just thought that containing him through further inspections was preferable to war.

What's disingenuous is to present claims of WMD activity without any proof to back them up. I'm asking for evidence. A WMD find comparable to those we got when Libya surrendered their program to us. Or a large number of credible witnesses (scientists, technicians, transport people, government officials) who can put together a picture of how they acquired the WMD materials, how and where it was processed, how it was disposed of or evacuated.

Facts are pesky things but otherwise you end up with wishful thinking. I gave up on that a month after we invaded when every WMD claim turned out to be nothing.

Another question to ask yourself is do you believe someone like Tierney is telling the truth or just trying to placate us Free Republic warmongers?

I think that like Blix and others, he'll write a book to make some money. A book like that has to target an audience.

I would think that any nonpartisan student of Hussein over his horrible tenure in Iraq would agree that (1) he had and used wmds and (2) that being the case, he would develop and use them again if had the chance. Remember we're talking about a man who tried to have a president of the U.S. assassinated.

No one pretends Saddam is an angel. And the president Saddam tried to assassinate was, in fact, instumental in his access to U.S. tech in the Eighties, including the anthrax strains he received from our research programs. No effort was made to restrict his access even after it was clear he was intent on WMD programs.

Why is it so hard for many people to connect the dots and assume the worst about Hussein?

I do assume the worst. But I also know how messy WMD really is and how hard it is to hide the evidence, particularly from a country as sophisticated as we are.

Again, the Bush administration no longer claims WMD in Iraq. No one does. A great many fanciful explanations are offered for this but maybe the truth is that the threat was vastly overblown by our intel sources or the WMD programs were largely dismantled or simply too ineffective to succeed in producing WMD of adequate quantity or quality.

I would ask in return to your question: why is it so important for you to believe that which our administration does not claim about WMD in Iraq? It's a fair question.