I collect old history books--pre-1970's--with a purpose!
Posted on 12/24/2007 5:24:12 PM PST by roaddog727
We live in an age of documents. There are no more secrets, only deferred disclosures.
Saddam Hussein's secret documents are measured by the shelf-mile and stored inside a secure but dusty facility near U.S. Central Command Headquarters in Doha, Qatar, and in several subsidiary sites.
Armed guards protect the unread dossiers. Three shifts of two hundred translators each work around the clock. Perhaps 5% of these captured documents have been studied so far, but their contents are about to shatter much of the conventional wisdom concerning Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.
The absolutists on either side of the WMD debate will be more than a bit chagrinned at the disclosures. The documents show a much more complex history than previously suspected. The "Bush lied, people died" chorus has insisted that Saddam had no WMD whatsoever after 1991 - and thus that WMD was no good reason for the war. The Neocon diehards insist that, as in Raiders of the Lost Ark, the treasure-trove is still out there somewhere, buried under the sand dunes of Iraq.
Each side is more than a little bit wrong about Saddam's WMD, and each side is only a little bit right about what happened to it.
(Excerpt) Read more at loftusreport.com ...
Or a report that relies on John Loftus?
LOL!
HE's the guy that writes about conspiracies between the Vatican, the Allies, and the Nazis to exterminate the Jews!
Credibility = Zero!
http://www.john-loftus.com/ this guy???
Oh come on JV, Saddam was just keeping his country prepared for the “Mother of all Cockroach Invasions”... that’s why he kept all that “insecticide” laying around...
THANK YOU so much, for all your hard work. And, most of all.. for breaking down this highly complex issue into bite-sized, understandable language. You are a FR treasure.... and, one of this lurkers favorites.
No, it will not bother the Democrats, because they do not deal well with reality. Unless it is their own, which is contrived in the deep, dark recesses of their imaginations.
"...Saddam was supposed to supply proof of disposal as a condition of leaving him in power. He didn't, game over."
I'm so glad you boiled it down...that IS the bottom line!
Then why was Bill, Hillary, and all the Dim leadership on record during 1996 through 2000 saying Saddam did have WMD?
That's what I used to believe. But, if it is true, then Bush should have presented as convincing evidence for it as he did for invading.
I don't know what to think now, except that when it comes to stuff like this, things are seldom as they appear.
I lost all faith in Bush when he tried to ramrod the legalization of illegal invaders through Congress with the help of Ted Kennedy.
If Bush could run for a third term, I would not vote for him, no matter who he was running against.
I think you are right about Anbar Province. In the spring of 2005 we flew over a site in Anbar Province that was thought to be where the WMD or their precursers were located before being spirited into Syria
LOL
I collect old history books--pre-1970's--with a purpose!
Merry Christmas :)
God bless all our brave troops.
Thank you very much and Merry Christmas :)
imagine that?!
Exactly!
He violated the conditions of the peace agreement and we had every right to remove him.
This should have been taken care of in 91, but Bush Sr. was too weak.
True enough. We should have gone in when we were 500K strong. Any insurgency then would have likely been crushed PDQ. But the “Conventional Wisdom” at the time indicated our losses would be astronomical once in Baghdad and the urban environment. We’ll never know for sure.
I wondered. That story came and went with no explanation of the focus of the raid.
Because the Syrians were not just holding the stuff, but building their own program based on Saddam's stuff. A big headstart. Syrian nukes would be even more dangerous to Israel than Iraqi ones would have been, and about on par with Iranian ones.
In view of these newly discovered documents, it can be concluded, more probably than not, that Saddam did have a nuclear weapons program in 2001-2002, and that it is reasonably certain that he would have continued his efforts towards making a nuclear bomb in 2003 had he not been stopped by the Coalition forces. The truth is what it is, the facts speak for themselves.
Why has the pro-war establishment in Washington not done more with these potentially persuasive indications that Saddam was indeed pursuing WMD programs until the bitter end? The irony is that the Republicans will not touch this issue and indeed have tried to suppress it. Perhaps some of them are embarrassed by their own intelligence blunders that permitted the looting of what might have been Saddam's last nuclear lab. More likely, GOP politicians may be afraid of being portrayed as "kooks" by the press if they question such a settled sacred cow. The news media has voted fairly unanimously on the WMD issue, after all, and the orthodoxy is possibly too settled for politicians to do much with these complex halfsmoking guns in a sound-bite age. The Democrats, although not usually reluctant to publicize America’s blunders in Iraq, also have no appetite for the issue. Even though they were right that there were no CW and BW inside Iraq when the war began, it now appears most likely that nuclear WMD materials were still inside Iraq on the first day of the war, still sealed up in the underwater Iraqi warehouses. Acknowledging this would be uncomfortable.
Our beloved government officials prove once again that retaining power always trumps the truth.
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.