Ex-Aide: Powell Misled Americans

CBS News ^ | 10/13/03

[JohnGalt]

Did the Kay report say that he had found WMDS? (No.)

Did Krauthammer say that the Kay report founds WMDS? (No.)

You've been drinking too much gubmint Kool Aid.

[SpinyNorman]

Can you name one country in the world that scenario would not apply to?

Pick one! The answer is any and all, which is why terrorism is so easy. You would be surprised what I could concoct from under-the-sink chemicals.

The point is that we are talking about Iraq, not any other country (unless he sold the goodies to Syria or N.Korea). This is the same Iraq that was the recipient of 12 or 14 (so many to remember) UN resolutions, and the signer of a cease fire in which he was to disarm, something he refused to do up to 1998 (if Clinton and the UN are to be believed) or the present (if the President and David Kay are to be believed). The real problem is that Saddam was bereft of any hesitation it using the procured or fabricated arms on his own people (Kurds) or others (Iran). And he would similarly be willing to sell arms to any buyer that would get the hated U.S., even Osama bin Laden (ever hear of the adage "the enemy of my enemy is my friend?")

The argument that he destroyed them all becomes specious in light of the dumping of chemicals in the Euphrates just prior to, or during the war, and his obfuscation of the UN inspectors prior to the start of the war. Really now, if the weapons were all destroyed (or even just the ones that the UN thought he had) why would he be so uncooperative during the inspections? Why throw away power and risk inprisonment or death when simply saying "look all you want, I have nothing to hide" if you have nothing to hide. There is no percentage in this tactic, unless you have something to hide, or you are completely nuts. He would remain in power, and would be further enriched by the lifting of the sanctions, and free to pursue WMDs unencumbered after the inspectors left. Either way, the Iraqi people were screwed with him in power, and appreciate his loss (or near loss if he is still alive), judging by the recent Gallup polls taken there.

[hchutch]

I don't dispute that the AUC's hands are quite messy, to put it mildly. However, they do bring a few advantages to the table that I am a little reluctant to pass up. The biggest of these is the fact that they are a plausibly deniable way to rip the guts out of FARC's infrastructure.

However, despite my disagreement with the decision by Secretary Powell to list them as a terrorist group on par with al-Qaeda and FARC (they were designated as a group that did NOT threaten American interests prior to Powell's decision), I believe Secretary Powell is an honorable person.

[JohnGalt]

That was the whole point my asking the question.

Possession of some stuff that might in the future be used to make something that could possible kill people is not a "conservative" rational for war.

[dennisw]

Still flailing away against the USA I see. You are as dishonorable as the liberal idiots at DU. At the end of the day you want us to show cowardice in Iraq same as the liberals. You want us to cut and run before we have even a year in Iraq. You don't care that such a retreat will ruin forever American power and prestige in the Muslim world. So much so it you would be squealing about gas and oil prices down the road.


Foolishness, they name is libertarian.

[JohnGalt]

"What are your feelings on Jonathan Pollard?" he asked, already knowing the answer.

Will you be voting for Clark or Kerry in 2004?

[colorado tanker]

Thanks, Finnman, nice find. I'm not surprised he surfaced as a Dim activist after leaving the government.

There's another straw man in his argument, the claim that Saddam had not reconstructed his nuclear program. The administration never said that, either, but rather claimed Saddam was trying to reconstitute his nuke program. Saddam had WMD programs for chem and bio and was trying to put his nuke program back together, which is exactly what Kay found.

[zook]

You're like the knight in "The Holy Grail," who having had his head and all his limbs cut off in battle says, "C'mon, I'm not finished with you yet."

Or, you may simply be a special ed. student. In case it's the latter, let me spell it out very clearly. To say, as did both Kay and Krauthammer, that "we have not yet found large stockpiles of WMD, but we may yet find them because we've barely scratched the surface in terms of searching Iraq's weapons sites" can not be considered as "proof that there were/are no weapons of mass destruction."

God, it hurts to type that because I just hate to imagine that someone who calls themself "John Galt" could be so stupid.

[JohnGalt]

I am so shocked a college professor at a gubmint school refuses to answer what a WMD is.

Actually, not surprised at all.

[SpinyNorman]

That was the whole point my asking the question.

Possession of some stuff that might in the future be used to make something that could possible kill people is not a "conservative" rational for war.

I might agree if the persons in question were not the Hussein family and their accessories with a "rap sheet" that specifically includes the actual use of chemical weapons at minimum. I have to agree with the Bush Doctrine because it will allow us to deal with known problem areas before they get to the North Korea stage, and put other nations so inclined on notice. Syria comes to mind.

We have seen what ignoring the problem will produce. Pulling out of countries too early is another faux pas that should not be repeated.

[JohnGalt]

Most conservatives, particularly Russell Kirk, warned that the rational you are citing is a blue print for permanent war for permanent peace.

It clearly a reasonable point of view that your hold in 2003 American politics, but its not particularly conservative.

[zook]

You know, "John," schooling -- "gubmint" or otherwise -- is precisely what you appear to lack. There's a limit to how long I'll play with cranks like yourself.

So, let's just put you in that quaint category of famous unschooled foreign policy "geniuses" -- alongside men such as Charles Lindbergh, Henry Ford, and Braniac -- and leave it at that.

[JohnGalt]

Whatever you say, Professor Kantorek.

[rdb3]

Or, you may simply be a special ed. student.

Yep.

[zook]

Free Republic Poll of the Day

Is pseudo-Freeper "John Galt" more like "Pinky?" Or more like "The Brain?"

Cast your votes now!

[zook]

rdb3: You went to school with some awesome folks! I was a teacher at Detroit Southwestern High School. I had students like Jalen Rose and Howard Eisley. Keep posting!

[rdb3]

Grand delusions of being The Brain, but really is nothing more than Pinky.

Narf!

[SpinyNorman]

Most conservatives, particularly Russell Kirk, warned that the rational you are citing is a blue print for permanent war for permanent peace.

Well, I think the "permanent war" idea goes to the radical Muslims, who will not rest until the world is subjugated under them, and living in 14th century "splendor" under Sharai'a (sp?; Islamic law).

It clearly a reasonable point of view that your hold in 2003 American politics, but its not particularly conservative.

As Popeye once said so eloquently: "I yam what I yam!" Or perhaps Curly Howard: "I'm a victim of circumstances!" ;-)