Nuclear Semantics

The argument over whether a British intelligence report was accurate or not is quite frankly moot. Whether or not the piece of paper contained accurate or tainted information doesn’t change the fact that Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons. And the fact that he had an advanced nuclear weapons program, as admitted by the IAEA, stands as proof that it was only a matter of time before the murderous dictator attained the nuclear capability he was striving for. So, the real question isn’t whether one report out of many corroborating Hussein’s actions was false or not, the real question here is why so many people are blind to the fact that this madman was perhaps months away from being able to destroy entire nations!

The media and the liberal-left are having a field day over semantics. As was verified Sunday by Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice on the Washington news shows, the Iraqi inquiry into attaining enriched uranium wasn’t a one time thing. They had been inquiring about attaining it for years. In fact, the nuclear researchers from Hussein’s regime who have been cooperating with the coalition forces in their search for weapons of mass destruction are verifying that not only did he have chemical and biological weapons but also that he had a credible nuclear weapons development program already in the works. He even had some scientists burying sensitive components in their own backyards to keep them from being detected by the UN Weapons Inspectors. The world could have given the inspectors decades more time and they never would have found what they were looking for under the agreed upon search guidelines. Even the UN has admitted that but to date the liberal-left and the alphabet news media hasn’t.

So, if we know that he had chemical and biological weapons prior to the military action and we know he had a credible nuclear development program prior to the military action what is all the finger pointing about?

Let’s take this a step further. Let’s talk about the liberal-left’s contention that there was no link between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. Yes, let’s kick it up a notch.

The Herald, Scotland (December 1999): “The world’s most wanted man, Osama bin Laden, has been offered sanctuary in Iraq if his worldwide terrorist network succeeds in carrying out a campaign of high-profile attacks on the West…”

UPI (November 1999): “The US Government has tried to prevent accused terror suspect Osama bin Laden from fleeing Afghanistan to either Iraq or Chechnya, Michael Sheehan, head of counter-terrorism at the State Department, told a foreign relations sub-committee…”

Akron Beacon Journal (October 1999): “Bin Laden Spotted After Offer To Leave – The Taliban has since made it known through official channels that the likely destination is Iraq.”

Now, we have three reports (and if they are coming from the alphabet media how can we dispute them, right?) that contend outright that Osama bin Laden’s destination for sanctuary in 1999 was Iraq. On top of that we have reports that the Clinton Administration knew this, at least the State Department’s Michael Sheehan did. So, with this factoid added into the equation the picture becomes a bit clearer and a bit more sinister: Saddam Hussein + Bio-Chemical Weapons + Nuclear Weapons + al Qaida + Money + Hate = ???

If one were to use just a bit of common sense it would be plain to see that what was happening prior to September 11th made it one of the most dangerous times the planet has ever known. If we were to have continued sitting passively allowing Hans Blix and his band of neutered inspectors to continue inspecting places where absolutely nothing had been stored we would have awoken one morning to a horror that would have made two airplanes being flown into twin towers a second page story. We would have awakened to entire cities having been destroyed, if we were able to have awakened at all.

It is time for the liberal-left in Washington and around the world to stop the political positioning. Saddam Hussein not only had the bio-chemical weaponry, he used them on his Kurds and then he never proved that he destroyed his capabilities when asked to do so. Didn’t anyone find it amazingly coincidental that contraband missiles and warheads started showing up when military action against his regime became more of a threat? Isn’t it enough that he murdered his own people in mass? Aren’t the mass graves enough for those who are arguing semantics in Washington? Maybe it is time for a “fact finding mission” to some of those gravesites. After the accusing legislators bag a few hundred bodies maybe the definition of “weapons of mass destruction” might become a bit clearer to them.

Here in the United States the Democrats who are calling for inquiries and investigations are exposed as positioning themselves politically and as trying to create an issue for the upcoming 2004 elections. This can be the only reason they would focus on one sentence from one speech about one report on one topic. It can be the only reason that they would overlook what has already been proven to exist in order to argue semantics about a program already proven to have been in play.

Fact: The world is a much, much safer place now that Saddam Hussein is gone. There is no denying that.

Fact: The liberal-left is now arguing, in hindsight, about how Saddam Hussein’s demise came about.

I bet they are the same type of people who eat two-thirds of a meal at a restaurant and then send it back saying that they didn’t like it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Frank Salvato is a political media consultant, a freelance writer from the Midwest and the Managing Editor for www.TheRant.us. He is a contributing writer to The Washington Dispatch. He has appeared as a guest panelist on The O’Reilly Factor and his pieces are featured at OpinionEditorials.com, and Townhall.com.

GOD BLESS OUR MILITARY
AND
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Keep Our Republic Free

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER
It's on the Breaking News Sidebar

Of course the media will attack Bush on semantics and let the previous occupant of the White House debate the meaning of the word 'is'.

Fact: President Clinton destroyed an alleged chemical weapons facility on bad intelligence. The media remained silent.

Fact: The intelligence leading up to September 11, 2001 was scattered, tenuous and not analyzed as a whole until after the attacks. The media attempted to paint President Bush as having been asleep at the switch or incompetent.

When President Bush had scattered, tenuous, unanalyzed information about a single attempt by Iraq to obtain nuclear materials, he reported this to the nation. The media now attempts to paint the President as a liar or worse.

I just love the selective amnesia these morons have on the subject. I have yet to hear ONE of them mention the 8 years of Clinton and what he did (nothing) regarding the war on terrorism. What's more sickening is the fact that the media doesn't seem to have the sense to do simple fact checking. I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but it's absolutely amazing how the media works hand in hand with the DNC. It's more stupefying to see how a majority of people swallow what they feed them! I'm going to vomit now.

Fact: President Clinton destroyed an alleged chemical weapons facility on bad intelligence. The media remained silent.

And if I recall correctly, he bypassed both the Joint Chiefs and the UN in doing so, making a virtually unilateral decision to bomb this factory because the heat was on with the Monica scandal. I wonder what France thought about that?

...because the heat was on with the Monica
scandal. I wonder what France thought about that?

What's to think? Any Frenchman would have done
the same thing. For that matter, any Frenchman would
also have overlooked the source of his problems if it came
from a country he had too good a relationship with to attack.

8 posted on 07/18/2003 8:00:06 PM PDT by gcruse (There is no such thing as society: there are individual men and women[.] --Margaret Thatcher)

These excerpts are a great find, I haven't read them elsewhere. Note the date: 1999 and Clinton did nothing.

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.