Posted on 07/28/2003 9:23:08 AM PDT by fight_truth_decay
Uday and Qusay killed to keep them silent on lack of WMD? Newsweek’s Eleanor Clift suggested on the McLaughlin Group over the weekend that the in killing Uday and Qusay Hussein, “two intelligence assets who could potentially lead us to the weapons of mass destruction,” the Bush administration “surrendered a major opportunity to uncover” those weapons “unless,” she added nefariously, “they don’t believe those weapons are there.”
Later, she equated President Bush’s State of the Union line about Iraq “seeking” uranium in Africa with the tape erasure in the Nixon White House: “The 16 words are taking on the aura of the 18-minute gap under a former President.”
On the deaths of Saddam Hussein’s sons, Clift argued: “The way they went sent another message. You don’t send in a TOW missile if you want to capture them alive. And these are two intelligence assets who could potentially lead us to the weapons of mass destruction. And the fact that the administration really made very little attempt to take them alive -- they wanted to spare themselves the headache of a trial -- but they also surrendered a major opportunity to uncover the real reason we went to war -- unless they don’t believe those weapons are there.”
In her weekly MSNBC.com column on Friday, Clift offered a less accusatory version of the same theme, arguing that finding the weapons of mass destruction “would be such a huge win for the administration that you would think they would have gone to greater lengths to take Uday and Qusay alive.”
An excerpt from Clift’s July 25 column on MSNBC.com:
....The war in Iraq was fought to disarm Saddam, but the way the commanders on the ground went in after Uday and Qusay shows the administration is not serious about finding weapons of mass destruction. These were the two best intelligence assets, short of Saddam, that the administration could capture. U.S. troops offered them a chance to surrender, and then called in a barrage from helicopter gunships. By killing the brothers, the administration saved itself the headache of a trial but lost the opportunity to prove a link with Al Qaeda or solve the mystery of the missing WMD.
I don’t necessarily quarrel with the decision. Bringing peace and a new order to Iraq would be harder with Saddam’s sons alive. But if the Bush administration really were looking for WMD, these two men were key. It increasingly looks as though the WMD have disappeared. They may be scattered and already in the hands of terrorists. Saddam could have destroyed them before the war, or years earlier, and simply was bluffing to menace his neighbors. Or they could be buried somewhere. Finding them would be such a huge win for the administration that you would think they would have gone to greater lengths to take Uday and Qusay alive....
END of Excerpt
For Clift’s piece in full: www.msnbc.com
No kidding. Another one is Susan Estrich. I can't stand their voices, they make me physically ill!
Same here. Clift & Estrich are so ugly, I'm afraid they'll break my tv screen.
Not make sure they stay hidden? Saddam's sons would be the last ones to know the whereabouts of the WMDS. Especially Uday! He was too dangerous. According to Saddam.
Should be:
For Eleanor's piece of bull!
OOooh Eleanor, you're SO HOT! I'd do you in a New York minute.
Your turkey neck and crow's feet just get me going.
I'll bet you have a nice little rump under those knickers!
Next time you're on the McLaughlin Group can you do a 'Sharon Stoner' for us?
Sorry, should have posted a 'barf alert!'
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.