Saddam had WMDs

National Review Online ^ | June 9, 2003 | Stanley Kurtz

[hchutch]

Gee, looks less and less like Saddam was an innocent victim.

[hchutch]

Gee, could this explain a few things as well?

And any bets as to how long before the paleos come in with their usual blather?

[Poohbah]

No bets.

[hchutch]

LOL!

[Grampa Dave]

[hchutch]

FYI ping.

[Dog]

With the media and RATS in full whine about the WMD......you know what is about to turn up???

WMD.

[billbears]

LOL!! And all the while the editor of the other neocon publication is questioning Bush. So the question I guess now is which neocon publication to believe? The Frummites at NRO or Kristol and the PNAC/Weekly Standard? Decisions, decisions....

[CyberAnt]

And ... without trying to be toooooo cynical ... the next statements from the libs/dems will be - THEY PLANTED THEM!!

[dpwiener]

This is just plain silly. "Dirty bombs" are not weapons of mass destruction. They are more like weapons of mass annoyance. The main damage and loss of life caused by setting off a radiological bomb would come from the impact of the conventional explosives involved. The radioactivity would probably not kill anyone, or at worst would cause a slight increase (which was statistically questionable) in cancer 20 or 30 years down the road. The real impact of a radiological bomb would be to cause large portions of the affected city to be evacuated and/or abandoned (at a cost of tens or hundreds of billions of dollars) due to public hysteria over anything containing the word "radiation".

Let's save the term "Weapons of Mass Destruction" for weapons which truly kill large numbers of people, and not devalue our language for the sake of political expediency.

[Miss Marple]

Never believe Kristol, even when he agrees with you. Always find another source. That's what I do.

Mr. Kristol wants nothing better than to divide Republicans and embarass the President. If he had been sure Bush would have invaded Iraq, he wouldn't have supported it. He accidentally, due to his misreading of the President, found himself on the same side.

Now he is doing his best to cause mischief, which is his usual goal. If Kristol is echoing your ill-founded suspicion that there are no WMD's, feel free to believe him and trumpet it everywhere. I, myself, wouldn't be so confident of his being correct.

[Darksheare]

Well, let's see... a WMD would kill alotta people.
Use the right radioactive substance in a dirty bomb, and you kill alotta people with cancer later, or radiation sickness quickly.
Depends on where in the resultant particle cloud you are, and if you stir up contaminated dust and inhale it after the explosion.

So yes, it could be termed a WMD.

[Dr. Frank fan]

And all the while the editor of the other neocon publication is questioning Bush.

Why on earth do you seem to think that National Review is a "neocon publication"?

The Frummites at NRO or Kristol and the PNAC/Weekly Standard? Decisions, decisions....

Delusions, delusions....

[JohnGalt]

Apparently, the author of this piece did not get the talking points memo. The new story is: 'no WMDs have been found, but WMDs may yet be found, but even if their not found, it doesn't matter.'

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1116
Iraq's Weapons & The Road to War
by Daniel Pipes
New York Post
June 3, 2003
Two oddly similar searches are underway in Iraq these days, one for Saddam Hussein and another for his weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Neither has yet been found.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/925665/posts

Bill Kristol: "We have interrogated a lot of people and we haven't found a single person who said he participated in disposing, destroying the stock of weapons of mass destruction. Or in hiding them."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/925696/posts
James Lileks "It would be nice to find the weapons of mass destruction."

[hchutch]

LOL!

You sure made it pretty quick.

And Kristol is only saying that they COULD have been made, nor did he even say the misstatements were intentional. Newsmax misquoted him, which is why I stopped really taking it seriously as a source a while ago.

Furthermore, I am sick and f***ing tired of hearing so-called conservatives who sound more like Michael Moore than Ronald Reagan. We did not apologize to Japan, nor back down, after Pearl Harbor, and I'll be damned if I am going to put up with ANYONE who think we ought to apologize or back down from ANY terrorist group or state sponsor of terror.

Go ahead, keep whining about PNAC. I'll proceed to write a check to them tonight, so they can keep up the good work!

[Dr. Frank fan]

"Dirty bombs" are not weapons of mass destruction.

Okay boss so that means you wouldn't mind one bit if one went off near you. Suit yourself. Me, I'd rather not.

[Pres Raygun]

And why did Saddam have a nuclear facility in the first place?

Goos question, but I would ask the question this way

Why did Saddam have a nuclear facility in the first place when Iraq is blessed with an over abundance of oil and hydro electric power?

There can be only one reasonable answer to this question.

[mr.pink]

And any bets as to how long before the paleos come in with their usual blather?

A uncomfortable as it may be for many here to accept, sometimes the paleos are right. Kristol's preformance yesterday on FOX was close to a tribute to the paleo logic that brought them to conclude he is an untrustworthy and slippery little sneak.

[Poohbah]

FWIW, this "neo-con" has never been a fan of Kristol's. Yes, he's an untrustoworthy sort, and his recent move comes as no particular surprise, since he's still a raging McCainite.

[hchutch]

In this case, he was misquoted by Limbacher.

Kristol has his faults, but from the actual quotes, he was only raising a possibility. I've found the Weekly Standard's foreign policy to be pretty much on target, particularly after 9/11, and the maneuverings in the UN probably DID give Saddam enough time to ditch a portion of the evidence or to pass stuff along.

His comments were more along the lines of, "Bush and Blair made an honest mistake, assuming the worst-case scenario, which one cannot blame leaders for making after 9/11."

This article, by the way, renders his concerns moot in a big way, if you want my opinion. We've got materials that could be used in a dirty bomb. We have what is quite probably the basis for a nuclear weapons program.