Sen Fred Thompson confirms Iraq is threat to U.S.

The Tennessean ^ | 9/21/02 | Rob Johnson

[GailA]

Fred Thompson, now near the end of his U.S. Senate career, says the nation has yet to come to terms with the new world that is dawning.

In a Nashville speech yesterday to the National Conference of Editorial Writers, Tennessee's retiring U.S. senator worried aloud about how we can have a nimble homeland defense if it takes on the sluggish bureaucratic bloat of the rest of federal government.

[TexasCajun]

Your quote: "My point is that I don't see the evidence that Saddam has threatened us."

You and Scott Ridder are pals, I see!

I looked at your sign-up page, On this site it is perfectly ok to say "GOD" without the "G-D"

Maybe you did that cause allah is your god?????

[TexasCajun]

Rishi Ritter.... sorta has a ring to it.

[Patriotic Rich]

That's funny! During the hearings he held on the china funny money, I just wanted him to tell Glenn to shut up! IMHO the hilderbeast had his FBI file on her desk and or Bubba had his hollywood elite friends dig something up on him. He went from a one time presidential hopeful, to a retiring senator. Go figure

[CROSSHIGHWAYMAN]

Okay he has weapons. But so do I.

Are you going to take MY gun away because you're scared of it?

No, I'm going to take your gun away because I'm afraid of you!

And it's not a gun we're talking about!

[texasbluebell]

If we go after them, it should be because he has used them against us or is about to. Like I said, I haven't seen that evidence.

Saddam is financing much of the terrorism in the ME, and he's behind the WTC I bombing, the US Cole bombing, there's an Iraqi connection to the OKC Murrah building bombing. And if we weren't being lied to so much we'd probably see many other links to Saddam. He's also paying $25,000 to the families of the Palestinian suicide bombers.

Do we have to wait till he sends smallpox our way next?

[painter]

"But so do many folks I know who have a basement full of products sanctioned by the 2nd Amendment."

That's probably true,same way with a lot of my friends. But,are they convicted felons?

Sadam, according to the UN is just that.Allowing Iraq to posses nuclear weapons is dangerous. If and when Sadam develops Nuclear weapons he is NOT going to start a nuclear war with someone.He is going to give one or more to a terrorist to smuggle into a country and detonate.

So,now for the 64 dollar question.

Which city or cities are you willing to sacrifice before we do anything.

[cousair]

Rush had a good show on Friday quoting the Washington Post of all papers, on how four years ago, everyone and I mean every liberal in tim-buc-two was on board to go after the Butcher of Bagdad. Now they are all on other side. Rush said the only difference is we now have a President in the White House who will REALLY GO AFTER THEM!! Rush mentioned that Europe really sees President Bush as a second REAGAN and remember what they tried to do to him? President Reagan made Germany whole again ( it was split in two parts) and he got the Russians in line.

[jwfiv]

I've been watching you do a Mexican hat-dance on this thread, circling the issue, stating what you don't like, saying you see no evidence certain of Iraqi intention to do mischief, wondering why Iraq and not Saudi Arabia, and somehow making the right of Americans to bear arms equivalent with Saddam's 'right' to build WMD.

It's time for you to stop circling and step on the hat, let us know what you think is the proper course of action in response to the storms on the horizon.

Others have pointed out Iraqi complicity in WTC '93, etc. They connect the dots they see to another point in the future which then reveals a picture of a mushroom cloud over an American city.

What picture do you see? Show me evidence that Saddam is recidivist and repentent and will not use his arsenal for mass murder...currenty, I see none.

May G-d bless you, Ri Shi. Pull up a bit, see the forest, enlarge your vision...the endless permutation of detail, and the natual inclination to avoid aggression, will get us dead.

[adam stevens]

That is a beuatiful picture!

[MHGinTN]

... then reveals a picture of a mushroom cloud over an American city. The handler of the weapon and the one who gave the weapon to the handler for detonation are the responsible parties for the death cause by the weapon.

It will not take a detonation inside an American city to devastate our economy and hundreds of thousands of American lives to be lost; if Saddam is allowed to acquire nukes, a 1 meg detonated say twelve miles off shore of Los Angeles, New York, and or Miami will destroy the city and right up any rivers/inland waterways that lead to the sea through those cities.

Ignoring the 'head in the sand' folks like RiShi is better than giving them credibility by debating their lame-brained opinions. [HINT: a concealed carry permit isn't issued after being attacked, since CCP is to deter personal harm by being able to take action; how mistaken would this RiShi want to allow if a nuke or two from Saddam to terrorist shills were to be detonated off the coast of New York or Washington? Now the RiShi arguer will try to make the point that the CCP comes into use WHEN attacked, thus not an excuse to start shooting anyone the CCP person 'thinks' is a threat; but the reality is far more subtle when considering a megalomaniac and his proven minions. In essence, the notion of deterrence is all that I wish to pose with the CCP, and stomping the Bathists and Saddam NOW is the deterrence we ought opt for, to prevent the nuke-off-the-coast scenario ... waiting for a smoking gun (the tidal wave roaring toward New York) is not an option, unless one is willing to sacrifice a few million Americans and a city or three to get international sypathy on our side. Oh, and we don't really have the option to use nukes on Saddam unless WMD have been used on U.S., because the regional effects are catastrophic. We must strike 'pre-emptively'.]

[jwfiv]

"Ignoring the 'head in the sand' folks like RiShi is better than giving them credibility by debating their lame-brained opinions."

Good advice from a Volunteer, I should take it. Definitely agree with your assessement of danger and the proper response. And, thanks for the CCP analogy, it clarifies the false one RiShi put forth. Some folks think an apple is an orange.

I just said the following on another thread: If it takes years to stabilize the the re-born nation of Iraq, that's cool, we're willing...on the whole, I'd rather be in Philadelphia, but if temporary bivouac in Iraq is what it takes to keep the City of Brotherly Love from becoming an irradiated blast zone, well...ok...we should make that choice, while we still can.

[jwfiv]

I'm with you until you say:

"But does this really require us to change our foreign policy doctrine such that we are parroting those who want to gut the right to keep and bear arms?

The threat posed by the Iraqi Caligula with his WMDs is a bit more dangerous than any punk with a .38, carried legally or not. To tell the relatively few insane schemers of today's world that we will prohibit their aquisition of the means to kill us is not parroting Alec Baldwin. I just don't get your point.