Posted on 07/10/2003 2:22:07 PM PDT by EllaMinnow
Edited on 05/07/2004 5:21:27 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
PRETORIA, South Africa - Secretary of State Colin Powell defended the administration in its handling of information about Iraqi weapons programs, saying Thursday that President Bush shouldn't have to apologize for a statement that later proved false.
Powell's remarks were the administration's strongest defense yet of Bush's decision to include an assertion in his State of the Union speech that Saddam Hussein had sought uranium from Africa.
(Excerpt) Read more at azcentral.com ...
Kiss it where the sun doesn't shine comes to mind.
|
|
|
 |
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
It is in the breaking news sidebar! |
|
Remember the good old days when foreign policy used to be truly bipartisan, and that whatever criticisms of the President ceased when he was visiting foreign countries? It appears to me that the DemonRats bring out their biggest guns when Bush is overseas, thereby trying to undercut him as he's trying to project American influence with foreign leaders. They're despicable.
Further, how do those now in such a hurry to declare the post-war search for WMDs in a nation with the physical size of California to be a failure reconcile their position with their pre-war calls to allow the UNSCOM Weapons Inspectors "as long as it takes?"
We need to get off the defensive in this debate.
Let's not forget the aspirin factory he took out in Sudan. Where were the Democrats when Clinton acted on "false" information that that factory was actually a chemical weapons plant?
These people (I use the term loosely when referring to Democrats) are disgusting in their hypocracy.
Until he starts firing those that duped him, he leaves open the question of his collusion.
****************************
You people really are blinded by your Bush-hatred. First, it’s rather difficult to get unambiguous intelligence out of a dictatorship with a record of murdering people who give up intelligence (even if they are, say, married to the dictator’s daughter). So it’s absurd to assume that getting WMDs wrong requires either dishonesty or stupidity (not that dishonesty and stupidity are impossible or unknown among government officials, just that they are not proven by such a mistake).
Further, what if the intelligence was not wrong? Just imagine the possibility that Saddam did have significant WMD programs from 1998 into 2002 – something that Clinton and just about every relevant figure of both parties has believed. In such a case, what does the absence of WMDs now mean? It means that Saddam decided to hide, move or destroy those WMDs.
What could explain this? Only one thing. Let’s assume that Saddam is rational, at least to the extent that he tries to maintain his power and his life. (His perception of reality has often appeared cloudy, and he seems to have no moral compass, but he has always acted in his perceived interest.) It’s not surprising that he would not use WMDs against U.S. soldiers, as WMDs would not give him victory, but would instead increase our resolve, and turn world opinion against him. Since the WMDs were useless against the army that seemed likeliest to invade, there was little reason for him to hang on to them (although they would be useful in another war with Iran or other neighbor, neither seemed likely in the short-term).
Now, since Saddam knew from experience that the U.S. would likely rout his forces in conventional war, he needed a plan that would give him ultimate victory regardless of this fact. He needed to be able to rely on waiting us out, with such guerilla actions as we are seeing today. This fits with his obsession with Vietnam and Mogadishu, and the perception (shared by Osama et al) that we will get easily demoralized and leave. As long as Saddam is still alive when we leave, he is likely to regain power, at least unless and until another single leader is in firm control (with multiple power centers competing against him, he would likely win).
Now how can he further weaken and demoralize us? Killing an American a day is a start, but discrediting the war itself is, if not absolutely essential, certainly necessary for the guerilla war policy to succeed in less than several years (time he does not have, lest he be killed by the U.S. or an Iraqi opponent, and lest a single strong opponent emerge).
Now how could he discredit the war? He knows he can’t cover up the murder of hundreds of thousands of people, claim to be a democrat, or erase any other part of his past history. But he can quickly eliminate the WMDs, by destroying them, moving them (to Syria or Lebanon), or hiding them well (burying in the desert). This of course, takes them out of immediate or tactical usefulness, but again, they had no strategic usefulness for him anyway. So naturally, the only rational decision for Hussein is to do so.
Then let stupid pinkos like you whine about the illegitimacy of the war, and the lies or stupidity of our leaders.
Hussein outlasted Bush the elder, and he’s betting that with your help, he’ll outlast Bush II. If he does so, he expects to have a free hand in the region, little to fear from the U.S., and the kind of “hero” status that insane Arab bigots give to his ilk. Then he expects to achieve his life-long ambition to be the next Saladin, to unite the Arab world in a military dictatorship, as God has ordained.
It is selctive reporting to obfuscate the overall facts and attempt to portray the uranium issue as one based solely on this one document.
The claim does not stand or fall on the veracity of this one document yet the media are attempting to paint that picture.
You're right. They're like schoolkids throwing spitballs when the teacher is out of the classroom.
Another thing I've noticed - a minor thing, but it's driving me nuts. When did NYE-jer turn into na-JHAIR?
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.