Posted on 10/06/2004 5:10:59 PM PDT by Ginifer
It's a mystery why, if Saddam didn't have the weapons, he didn't just say so and keep his cushy palace life instead of ending up in a hole in the ground. That being said - an even greater mystery is why, if Bush lied about the weapons as the leftsocialists claim, didn't the President make sure there were weapons planted so they'd be found? To believe both of these things at the same time, a person would have to believe that two of history's stupidest "evil geniuses" were both in power at the very same time.
bump
Thank you. Now I will be having nightmares.
Very interesting analysis.
And of course, Bush was ultimately basing his case for war not on Saddam having "stockpiles" of WMD or being an "imminent" threat or any of the other claims the media has put in his mouth, but on the fact that Saddam was in violation of numerous UN resolutions, as your points illustrate. That would be the bottom line if the UN was serious about stopping Saddam's WMD program. The fact they and the Democrats choose to quibble over the things they do indicates that their indignation over the WMD issue is feigned to conceal their real agenda.
Oh count on the dummocrats to bring up impeachment charges against bush once he wins re-election. its almost a given. Kerry would want him tried in the haig too....
Yep, the Democrats (undoubtedly guided by Watergate veteran Hillary) have been replaying every dirty trick they tried against Nixon, and if Bush wins a second term like Nixon did, a pretext for impeachment is next on the agenda. They've already tried to set the stage for it with Joe Wilson, etc.; they just haven't been able to make anything stick so far.
Since when are rebel Iraqis and aggressors in the Middle East a greater threat then the combined military forces of the Free World ? A threat of invasion from the greatest military the world has ever seen was a far greater threat to Saddam then any thing else. The ease at which that military threat disposed Saddam from power was evidence of that fact. Days to Baghdad. Not weeks or months. On the eve of invasion Saddam should have been 'coming clean' on having no WMD. He did not.
No doubt. Everyone going for that black gold under the useless sand. It has been evident from the get go that WMD evidence was going to be covered up and swept under the 'sand'. Imagine that since September 11th 2001, WMD has been found and deployed within the US, but not found and not deployed within Saddam Hussiens Iraq ?
"Saddam, it says, even fooled his own military chiefs into believing that he had WMD. This was designed to deter uprising from rebel Iraqis, on whom he deployed mustard gas in 1988, and aggressors in the Middle East."
justa-hairy ape responded: "Since when are rebel Iraqis and aggressors in the Middle East a greater threat then the combined military forces of the Free World ? A threat of invasion from the greatest military the world has ever seen was a far greater threat to Saddam then any thing else. The ease at which that military threat disposed Saddam from power was evidence of that fact. Days to Baghdad. Not weeks or months. On the eve of invasion Saddam should have been 'coming clean' on having no WMD. He did not.
My response (a quote from my response on another related thread is below) is that if you need a more convincing answer to the question everyone is asking, "Why didn't he fess up?", it is that, since he had France, Russia and China in his payoff pocket, he knew the US could never pass the Global Test. What he didn't count on was that Bush, in post 9/11 mode, would not put a "global test" before the security of the US when considering pre-emptive action. Saddam failed to listen or understand when Bush clearly stated that 9/11 changed everything.
"It is apparent that Saddam thought Bush II would be concerned about a "global test". Good thing Kerry wasn't President and God help us if he, or someone who thinks like him ever is. This report illuminates the danger of the "global test" doctrine, and leaders of all parties should reject it in the interest of the nation."
"Memos from Iraqi intelligence officials, recovered by American and British inspectors, show the dictator was told as early as May 2002 that France - having been granted oil contracts - would veto any American plans for war."
"To keep America at bay, he focusing on Russia, France and China - three of the five UN Security Council members with the power to veto war. Politicians, journalists and diplomats were all given lavish gifts and oil-for-food vouchers."
When Jimmy Carter was thrown out of office over the Iranian hostage crisis, the Iranians knew that the new Republican President would be a threat to them. The hostages were released. So past history shows that when a tough talking Republican is elected, the middle eastern leaders know its time to start acting civil.
I am reading the LA Times today and the key quotes about the CIA weapons report are that Saddams WMD programs were 'essentially destroyed'. Why the 'essentially' qualifier ? If they were 'completely' destroyed the essentially qualifier would not be used. Fact of the matter is the US at that time did not have the capability to 'completely' destroy Saddams WMD capabilities by air attacks within Iraq. Heck, a few years later we could not even hit camoflauged serbian tanks in Kosovo. The other key quote from the times is that Saddam could have 'reconstituted' his program at any time. That means the program was still in place just waiting reconstitutuin. Look what we have here is a bunch of mumbo jumbo to disguise the plain facts. The world wants and needs that oil out of Iraq. Obviously judging by all the oil violations the CIA found, the demand is extremelly high. So, the main issue now is creating an atmosphere within Iraq that allows for the smooth flow of oil. Calming fears about WMD, obviously helps to achieve that goal. Its really funny when you think about it. The left has been boxed into a corner where they are helping to deny the existance of an illicit WMD program to help the smooth flow of oil out of Iraq.
One other point, Saddam attempted to kill Bush's father. There is no way he would have thought that GWB could be contained by the French, German and Chinese within the UN. The entire fantasy world the left is trying to paint only makes sense to a Michael Moore follower.
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.