No WMDS? So What! (NY Post Editorial)

NY Post ^ | 5/26/03 | NY Post Editorial

[Alberta's Child]

I don't necessarily think I was "lied to" -- I just had no intention of getting conned by a propaganda campaign that was aimed at attracting the votes of the same soccer moms that spent most of the 1990s watching Oprah and salivating over Bill Clinton.

[Stopislamnow]

Personally, I'm sold on the BIG conspiracy theory.

I think Saddam had a very large part in the 9-11 attacks. Either the connections are dead and in a unmarked grave, or they are hiding so well that we'll never find them.

I think we have evidence of this that won't see the light of day for years. And the number one reason that it hasn't come to light is because had we, the public, known, Iraq would not of been liberated, but obliterated.

France's big islamic push, and thier desire to run the European show and knock the US down gives me heebie jeebies, like they were somehow involved also. Someone made alot of money moving cash and securities leading to 9-11, and it wasn't just the Saudi's.

Frankly I could give a rats a$$ if WMD are found or not, and the humanitarian issue is a nice side effect of taking out Saddam. But neither are very important in the big picture.

Until Iran's mullah's and Saudi's Wahabbi's are pushing up daises, this war will never be over.

[SamAdams76]

Well, of course they would, since he used it as the primary justification for the war.

That is not the case at all. The justification for the war was that the Iraqis were not cooperating with the U.N. Security Council resolutions and the Security Council was not adequately enforcing their own resolutions. Why do you think we wasted all that time farting around with those guys, trying to get them to do their jobs?

[Alberta's Child]

Why do you think we wasted all that time farting around with those guys, trying to get them to do their jobs?

That's the price the U.S. paid to get Great Britain on board.

It's hard to make the case here on FreeRepublic that Iraq's violation of U.N. resolutions constituted legitimate grounds for war, since most of us here never gave a rat's @ss about the U.N. to begin with.

[finnman69]

I buy this paper, and no I don't buy it for the want ads. Actually the buisness and local real estate articles are far superior to the NY Times. The Op ed and commentary is a breath of fresh air in a liberal city.

[epluribus_2]

and we have not proven that he had or did not have them yet. We only have the motivation, behavior, intelligence, and circumstantial evidence that he most likely did have them and the country has to be scoured - maybe for years - to find out what happened. I don't remember reading anywhere that we completed searching (THOROUGHLY) every mosque yet. Or day care center. Or any vanilla private house. But that is where the twisted bastard most likely put them along with his other weapons. But this all proves hands down why the UN would never have found them.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

I am concerned about the lack of WMD, but not because I think I was lied to. I know what was accounted for in previous inspections, and I know what has yet to be accounted for since. That's troublesome.

And that, I think, is the long and the short of the story.
The burden of proof is being put on the wrong man.

Nothing new about that, of course--essentially the same story as 900 FBI files being accessed illegally, then saying that no harm was done. But that can never be proven, and it should never have been suggested that the victims had any obligation to try. x42 deserved impeachment simply for instituting a system which in fact did access those files wrongly, and for not punishing anyone for that behavior. And firing Craig Livingstone doesn't count as "punishment", not when Chuck Colson went to jail for a year for one count--not 900.