Posted on 06/02/2003 7:13:26 AM PDT by BOBTHENAILER
Edited on 04/22/2004 11:49:03 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Who knows? There certainly are plenty of rumors floating around, of the "my brother who works for the State Department said that his boss said that we've already found 'em and are just waiting for the right time" variety.
You'd have to be pretty flakey to put much stake in such rumors, but then I would put a bit of lefty baiting sneakiness past the "Dubmeister" either.
It would indeed be sweet, wouldn't it?, to catch the presstitutes and Euro-appeasers in mid outrage, with their urine-stained and well-wadded panties down around their ankles.
Bullpucky. Regime change and regional transformation are part of the picture. Non-compliance with terms of surrender and associated U.N. resolutions was also a fact (and remains a legal justification for the war) even if Saddam did give away or destroy his WMDs.
Even thoough the point about Saudi Arabia was a distortion of Wolfowitz, it still bears some merit, particularly in the larger context of the "containment" of Iraq. Did we really want to leave American forces in the Kingdom of Terror for another 12 years? How many more barracks bombing could be expected in that time? Did we really want to continue spending tens of billions of dollars each and every year on "containing" Saddam for 12 more years? Did we really want to leave Saddam there crowing about he had defied the Great Satan?
Finally, even if Saddam had destroyed his WMD's, he didn't destroy the programs that created them. Our only choice would, then, have been to continue a nervous containment, uncertain (in the inevitable deficiencies of intelligence data) if it were successful, until a WMD attack actually occured.
That would seem to imply that all of the denials of these things (no WMD's found, No Saddam, et al) are being done in spite of already having the proof in hand. In other words, he is lying about having the proofs in order to manipulate the american public for his political ends. Is this what you are implying? No different than Clinton, Nixon, etc. if that's the case.
No. Ask 1000 people on the street why we went to war with Iraq, and what answer do you think you'll get? Go check out some of the news stories leading up to and during the early part of the war. As my moderate friends started pointing out after no WMD's were used, the stated objectives started changing after the war was initated. Have you also forgotten the speeches at the UN about WMD's being the reason?
You make an excellent point that I have been saying for quite a while. That is, inspections would be a thing that had to go on forever. And since we cannot be perfect, WMD's would be developed and used despite those inspections. What we did was the only thing we could. The war had a finality to it that weapons inspections would never have.
I would love to believe this...but somehow I can't imagine Bush playing game like this..and involving numerous other officials in "pretending" they can't find anything..if in fact they know exactly where it is at.
However if it does work out that the WMDs are found ONLY after the leftists make total fools out of themselves..that would be delightful.
There's a great idea. We don't need a President, a National Security Advisor or a State Department. We can just send Jay Leno out on the street with a microphone and base our foreign policy on the idiots he interviews.
Go check out some of the news stories leading up to and during the early part of the war.
Sorry, correction: That would be idiots on the street and the hand-wringing, left-leaning media setting our foreign policy. But, sarcasm aside, and despite their deficiencies and bias, the media covered a number of considerations regarding the use of force in Iraq. WMD's was one. Saddam's habitual aggression towards his neighbors was another. Saddam's militaristic tendencies driving an arms race in the Middle East (including desires and actual programs in Iran and among other neighbors to aquire WMD's) was one I don't remember being mentioned, but should have been. Saddam's human rights abuses were mentioned, however. His connections to terrorism were discussed (financing and rewarding of suicide bombers in Israel, Abu Nidal, Salman Pak, etc). The financial cost of maintaing "containment" was not discussed much explicity (again I think it should have been) but the political costs were discussed in the press, as where the human costs (threats to U.S. forces stationed in the Middle East, the human cost of sanctions on Iraqis, etc).
I could go on like this for a couple more paragraphs. I haven't even gotten into political considerations regarding "transformation" of the Middle East; e.g. the arguments of "neo-cons" like Wolfowitz and Elliot Abrams that support for, or sufference of, dictators and authoritarian regimes in the interest of maintaining "stability" has proven (and always was) a false security; that the "status quo" in the Middle East is intolerably perilous, and only promises to become worse; that we are dangerously overdue for fundamental reorientations in policy that should have been undertaken at the end of the cold war, and that Iraq provided an ideal opportunity to effect these changes.
Anyway, most of these matters were discussed, and many others besides. I honestly can't imagine where (aside from the cynical and hypocritical anti-war left) you get the notion that it was all and only WMD. I have to ask if you were reading the news, or listening to Dubya's speeches.
As my moderate friends started pointing out after no WMD's were used, the stated objectives started changing after the war was initated. Have you also forgotten the speeches at the UN about WMD's being the reason?
Uh, huh. "Moderate" friends. Riiiiiiiiiight.
The stated objective, in terms of the legal basis for the war, was and is perfectly clear: To finally compel Saddam's compliance with the terms of surrender he agreed to twelve years ago, and the U.N. resolutions that codified them.
IT WAS AN OBJECTIVE FACT, as certified by the U.N. inspectors themselves, and agreed by all members of the security council, that Saddam was not complying with resolution 1441. (In, for example, the certification that Iraq's December disclosure of it's WMD programs and other prohibited weapon programs, required of them by resolution 1441, and required to be complete and accurate, was in fact INACCURATE and INCOMPLETE, as has been PROVEN on multiple points since).
Note that compliance did not entail Saddam secretely destroying (or transferring!) his WMD. It required that Saddam document the destruction, ideally by letting inspectors witness it, AND THAT HE FULLY DISCLOSE AND DISMANTLE THE WMD PROGRAMS.
Saddam never did ANY of this, and this was the formal and legal basis for the war. (Sorry to shout, btw, but it sadly seems to be necessary.)
In addtion there were many other considerations, as outlined above and ennumerated by other freepers. These reasons do not stand against each other, and it is patently nonsensical to take the position that they do. It was indeed the consilience of these multiple considerations that made the case for the use of force in Iraq particularly compeling. Whatever you or your "moderate" friends may think, it would be most unusual, to the point of being almost bizarre, for a policy of such scope and moment to have one and only one justification.
But who's trying to deceive whom here? That Saddam had biological or chemical weapons was a probability that everyone assumed to be true, even those who were against the war. U.N. inspections in the 1990s had proved that Iraq had such weapons, including 30,000 liters of anthrax, and Saddam had used chemical weapons against Iran and Iraq's own Kurds. The French themselves insisted that disarming Saddam of WMD, as opposed to deposing him, had to be the core of U.N. Resolution 1441.
Bump!
Gee, the nay sayers were willing to give the UN 6 mo. to a year....AFTER 12 years!! Suddenly, they want those Damn weapons NOW!! I wonder what their motivation could be?
I could support the right when it comes to the left complaining about water not running in Baghdad. However, even though WMD's were not the entire reason for going into Iraq, they certainly were made a centerpiece. Remember there were claims in terms of time that Saddam could launch the WMD's. Scant evidence has been found and even what has been found is the potential for a couple of mobile labs with no traces of poisonous compounds found on them. And yes, the water isn't running regularly in Baghdad on top of what appears to be a WMD stretch.
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.