Did you deliberately misinterpret what I was saying, Red? Or are you just really that obtuse? In the case of the latter, let me spell it out for you: HAD HE BEEN LYING ABOUT WMD, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY EASY FOR HIM TO PLANT THEM THERE TO COVER HIS ASS...AND SOMEBODY WHO WAS LYING VERY LIKELY WOULD HAVE DONE SO. THE FACT REMAINS THAT NO WMD HAVE BEEN PLANTED, WHICH LEADS ME TO BELIEVE THAT THIS MAN WASN'T LYING. I really don't think you're that dumb though, Red. You just don't have an answer for my question, because it upsets all your preconceived notions that President Bush lied. So tell me...since YOU DO apparently feel that President Bush is (in YOUR words) "perfectly capable of malfeasnace, deceit, international crime, and reprehensible morality", why WEREN'T weapons of mass destruction planted in Iraq by this eeeeeevil man when they weren't found?
These are all quotes from Democrats about Iraq and WMDs. "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destru! ction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime . He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003 "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue a pace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001 "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. ... We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore
Exactly Gimp. That's what I've been trying to say. EVERYONE believed Hussein had weapons of mass destruction of some kind. Not just Bush and Rumsfeld. Not just the CIA and DIA. Not just Democrats and Republicans. The British believed it; Tony Blair had MI-6 produce a detailed dossier on Iraq's missile capabilities (not all the info. was true, but it was being widely circulated in the world intelligence community). Even nations against the war, such as Germany and Russia, were of the belief that Iraq had some weapons capabilities. Why else would they play games with the weapons inspectors for so many years, and even right up till when the war started? You know what I think? I think Hussein was bluffing the whole time. He had the technical expertise, and he knew he could never fully rebuild his programs as long as sanctions were in place and he was cut off. So Hussein defied the UN inspections, bluffing the entire region into thinking he had the weapons (and still being afraid of him) while getting his key buddies in France, Germany and Russia to put pressure on the world to lift the sanctions with pictures of Iraqi babies dying in run-down hospitals (which stayed run down while Hussein built dozens of lavish palaces). Then, as soon as the sanctions were lifted and the oil money and special EU contracts were approved, Hussein would resume the full reconstruction of his military machine, and that would have included chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. This strategy would have worked, had George W. Bush never been elected to office, had Sept. 11th never happened, had the new "Bush Doctrine" of marginalizing, pigeon-holing, isolating, and finally, destroying threats to global stability and American interests not been taken up by our government, or if Hussein had just fully complied with all UN resolutions from the end of Gulf War I, instead of trying to flount them right up till the outbreak of hostilities just so he could look a bad man in front of the rest of the Arab world. But I guess he thought it more important to appear guilty than impotent. He just never thought the West or the U.S. would have the guts to take that final step and remove him from power. Right up until the end, he was convinced the U.S. would not go to war without UN approval. He still thought the rules of pre-9/11 international diplomacy applied. Clearly they do not. By the way, Hussein also supported terrorism. The Salman Pak airfield in central Iraq for years was host to a terrorist training school where mercenaries were trained on how to hijack airplanes. Many of them went on to join Hamas, Hezbollah, and even Al-Qaida. Hussein also paid cash bounties of $25,000 to the families of "Palestinian" suicide bombers who would blow themselves up in Israel. That is supporting terrorism folks. I am more than confident history will bear out that this was a good move, and that years from now, the only question asked of this war will be, "Why did they take so freakin' long? Why didn't they just keep going all the way to Baghdad in '91?"
Hypothetically speaking, say that Hussein had WMDs and 5-6 years down the line he decided to use them or sell them to terrorists who would use them against the US or our allies. Instead of having a commission about 9/11 we would be having a commission trying to figure out why the hell Bush never did anything. The great leaders are the ones who do make the choices they consider to be the right ones, even when the support is against them. While i'm not saying that Bush should be considered among the top echelon of great leaders I still believe he has been a very good president given the circumstances of his presidency and the way he has handled them.
Better yet Sadaam dies and his crazy sons take over the country and rebuild an army with weapons of mass destruction 4 or 5 yrs down the road and start attacking its neighbors. What would the world be saying then? Hindsight is 20/20 once again.
When someone resorts to insults, I know that his argument is failing. So, you're saying, because he didn't plant evidence, that he is incapable of lying? Look, he could never get away with planting WMD's. Too many people would have to be involved for the secret to hold. Not to mention that WMD's have chemical, radiological, and technological signatures that would never fool an expert. My answer to your question is that it is illogical and doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense. Whether or not Bush would even consider an abominable crime like planting evidence has nothing whatsover to do with the fact that he told us that he knew WMDs existed when, in fact, they do not.
All this arguing over WMD's is rediculous! The bottomline is don't we all agree that Saddam was a problem that would have to be dealed with sooner or later. Are we so ignorant to think that he would never invade Kuwait or another country again and be a good boy forever? Whether anyone against the war likes it or not, there were terrorist camps found in Iraq and terrorists in Iraq before and after the war. You can argue that Saddam had nothing to do with them if you want but the fact remains that they were there. I don't think it really matters if they were connnected or not but it is fact that they were there! If I was president we would be going into iran next, just as soon as we could. The UN is a rediculous, moot point because they were on Saddams side along with the deals of Germany and France. WE don't need the UN but we do need NATO!
Besides the $$$$$$ France and Russia received before the war it looks like they were on track to receive a lot after they stopped the sanctions. Does anyone think that the war would have been vetoed if France and Russia were not making at the time and were going to make billions off of Saddam later? frontpage link
Heck, lets think about this for a minute? You have the UN and its Oil for food program that was aiding Saddam and members of the un along with France and Germany making money behind our backs. How do we know that the UN has any legitimacy or relevance when it comes to Iraq? Why should we believe anything the UN has to say about this subject?
