Guests of honor at the upcoming Crow feast.
Posted on 06/01/2003 9:01:13 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Guests of honor at the upcoming Crow feast.
This is a much more reasoned piece that those coming out of the UK though!
The biggest argument is that Saddam would not let inspectors have unrestricted access, within the terms of the agreement, to his sites and materials. He was hiding something, and everybody knows it. With his stalling, he probably managed to get much of it out of the country, but I'd bet the large underground compounds that have been discovered (and are still being investigated - by robots, because they're booby-trapped) are going to turn up some interesting stuff.
Bush/Blair et al. would not have lied about or exaggerated this because the risk would have been just too great. The stuff is out there, I'm sure we'll find it or track it to wherever it was sent.
And as for adopting the worst case scenario, what's wrong with that? In dealing with an unstable dictator who could take out a large part of his region upon a mere whim, going for the worst case seems, to me, to be the most prudent thing to do.
Guests of honor at the upcoming Crow feast.
Seems like I heard that sort of statement over and over during the whole period leading up to, and then during, the war. No crow feast yet. If it comes, it may well end up being a real suprise to those who end up attending it. If there are any cards waiting to be played, it's time to show them. Not doing so will leave me feeling like I've been lied to, manipulated, and conned.
| To find all articles tagged or indexed using Bush Doctrine Unfold , click below: | ||||
| click here >>> | Bush Doctrine Unfold | <<< click here | ||
| (To view all FR Bump Lists, click here) | ||||
Saddam has played a huge game of deception with us. Deception is very highly valued as an Islamic war tactic. But no way is his crew 100% efficient. We'll find stuff but it'll take a while. No way are his idiots organized enough to do a job that's any better than 75% thorough. His regime was full of bumbling Baghdad Bob types. You don't get perfection from such types.
We'll slowly but surely debrief/interrogate the right people and find the WMD we want to find.
Being a bit impatient aren't you?
Saddam only had 12 years to develop and hide stuff!
And he was certainly evasive !
Are you saying he had nothing to hide?
I think eventually Bush will be exonerated when the facts come out, yet (of course) the media will not be so adamant as they are in some of the article coming out here recently. Hardly a mention of credit will be given by the lamestream media I would bet.
Saddam has used chemicals on Iraqi citizens, many, many times during his 30 year rein.
When Tony Blair said to the UN that it wasn't in disupte Saddam had WMD but only what to do about it, you could have heard a pin drop and NOT ONE national leader stood up and said Saddam DIDN'T have WMD. Everyone knows he had them at one point.
All the dithering around for months gave Saddam ample time to transfer them to another nation or sell them to terrorists.
Human rights organizations have witnessed the use of WMD on Iraqi people.
NYT author Judith Miller and many, many others have written books and seen the chemical factories about this very subject. We have satellite photos of previous use and storage and manufacturing.
What is wrong with that is that it puts you at risk for committing mass murder. Now if you are a sociopath, that might not be a problem, but for honorable people, that is a big problem.
If the WMD story was an intentional lie (or intentional spin, to use the modern word) then the blood of the thousands of dead from the Iraqi war is on this administration's hands. Notice I do not say our hands, we (US citizens) are not all responsible for this debacle, but everyone that helped it along without duress is at least partially responsible. Of course, those who perpetrated the lie are fully responsible.
What is happening now is the slow realization by Americans that there are no WMDs. The probability increases with every passing day without finding anything and the acceptance of the horrible fact is slowing speading among the people. How can this not hurt Bush's prospects for re-election? What were they thinking?
Thanks.
Well, if at least some of the intelligence is ambiguous, then shoudn't the President, in interpreting the intelligence, be assuming the worst (and reacting accordingly) rather than hoping for the best? When the consequences of error -- of understimating the threat posed by WMDs in the hands of terrorists supplied by Saddam's regime (including Saddam's regime itself, which was a terrorist organization in its own right) -- include another 9/11 (or worse), shouldn't the margin of error be very small? Shouldn't the President err on the side of protecting national security rather than leaving it at greater risk? Why doesn't this article ask this rather obvious question, which would put this entire issue in its proper perspective?
Further, you can't honestly believe Saddam didn't have WMD can you? He's used them to kill untold civilians during his 30 year rein. Watch a few History Channel shows about his subject. Read a few books out of the 100's about this subject.
No right thinking person honestly believes Saddam didn't have WMD. The only difference of opinion among the Security Council was what to do about them. Not whether or not he had them.
Exactly. Saddam acted like he was guilty as charged and was trying to hide this fact, not like a man who is innocent and has nothing to hide -- despite the fact that his regime's very survival was at stake and depended upon his full and proactive cooperation with the UN inspectors.
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.