No WMD`s?
Here is an article for reader Jeff and all those who stick to the ``no WMD`s`` mantra; Bill Tierney from UNSCOM gives us an inside peek at Saddam`s lack of weapons.
(Hat tip; The American Thinker
(Hat tip; The American Thinker
posted by Timothy Birdnow | 5:20 AM
4 Comments:
Thank you, Mr. Birnow, for pointing us to the Tierney article. From my read, this looks like some pretty shaky evidence for WMDs. Quite a few "I believe", "I think", and "smoking gun" statements, but nothing I'd call solid. No, as a pragmatist, I think that finding an actual WMD would indicate there were WMDs. The fact that none have turned up in over 2 years of occupation speaks volumes.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I guess, Jeff, that as a pragmatist you are content to wait for absolute evidence-like a city disappearing?
Jeff, I`ve pointed you to numerous examples, but you don`t WANT to believe them for political reasons. Saddam had poison gas, and we`ve found some of it (as I pointed out), he had anthrax, and we`ve found labs and equipment, he had a nuclear program and we`ve found tons of uranium and some partially enriched uranium.
Even if what you say is true, and Saddam had no weapons, it doesn`t matter; everybody believed he had them (and bear in mind that Saddam used gas on the Kurds.) We believed he had them-not just President Bush but Bill Clinton. Remember, Bush retained Clinton`s CIA director-who told him it was a ``slam dunk``. Bush had been in office a whopping 6 months. Remember, also, that the rest of the world was giving the same intelligence. If anyone lied us into war it was Saddam, who didn`t want to back down on this.
WMD`s were not the central reason for the invasion of Iraq, anyway. It was ONE reason. The President rightly wanted to open a second front on the terrorists, and Iraq was the obvious place to go; there were numerous U.N. resolutions against them, Congress had already given it`s approval, Saddam had been shooting at our planes and had attempted to assassinate a former President, Al Zarqawi and other terrorists were being harbored in Iraq, and the Iraqi`s had a terrorist training camp in Salman Pak, a suburb of Baghdad. Saddam was paying $25,000 dollars to the families of suicide bombers in Palestine. Furthermore, from a geopolitical standpoint Iraq was ideal; a broad, flat, open plain, easy to move equipment through. Iraq bisected the two terror masters-Iran and Syria. Iraq had been the most urbane and cosmopolitan nation in the middle-east, which suggested we would have an easier time rebuilding. Saddam was a terrible tyrant, and we knew we would be supported at least by the Kurds if we removed him. Iran would have been a far more difficult undertaking.
Jeff, we cannot sit around waiting for our enemies to love us-they won`t. Their hatred stems largely from their weakness relative to our power; they want to establish the Caliphate. These are not people to be reasoned with; we have to defeat them. If Americans knew anything about Arab culture they would know that Arabs respect strength above all else, and our vacillating policies bring their contempt. We have beat them, and they have to know they are beaten.
Jeff, this mental Onanism, this gotcha politics being employed by the left is going to destroy us. This should transcend the petty politics of the `90`s-but it hasn`t. The Democrats, Media, and others in the left have simply chosen to disbelieve in the War. They want to click their heels together and say ``there`s no place like home-in Washington`` until they are magically transported to pre-911. We cannot afford to hide our heads in the sand. Death waits at the door.
It`s time the left face that.
> I guess, Jeff, that as a pragmatist you are content to wait for absolute evidence-like a city disappearing?
Well, a single WMD would be nice. According this administration, they were all over the place in Iraq prior to our invasion. I kinda figured they'd be easy to find.
> Jeff, I`ve pointed you to numerous examples,
Every one of which I've demonstrated to you possess pretty shakey evidence for WMDs, at least one of which stated quite emphatically that NO WMDs were found. Keep in mind, these were YOUR OWN sources.
> but you don`t WANT to believe them for political reasons.
Again, there goes that "you believe" statement. You don't know what I believe (or don't), and I know that, because you've been wrong every time.
> Even if what you say is true, and Saddam had no weapons
When did I say that??? I wrote that I was unconviced by your evidence that he did immediately prior to our recent invasion, and why. Those are two VERY different things.
> Jeff, we cannot sit around waiting for our enemies to love us-they won`t.
I've no quarrel with you over that. :) :) :)
> Onanism,
Hey, now, I do know what that word means. :) :) :)
Now, Mr. Birdnow, I'm not one to deny that we all live in a dangerous world. I think it's a matter of relative danger. Why, just today I almost got hit by a car when I was crossing the street. Yet, I still don't think it's a very good idea to get the whole country to wage a war on automobiles. I've written that I think that Saddam's WMD capability on the eve of our invasion, based on the evidence, is pretty tenuous. Of course, I admit that I could be wrong; and, if some conclusive evidence for them is found and reported in a reliable source, I will change my mind.
As ever, I do appreciate our discourse on this matter.
Post a Comment
<< Home