Posted on 06/24/2004 12:35:11 AM PDT by Veritas_est
How can we MAKE them cover this?
Has Rush talked about it?
I haven't seen it even in any other conservative media.
Has Hannity covered it?
Why we don't do anything about that is another subject entirely. I'm sure you can come up with some pretty reasonable answers, if you put yourself in Bush's shoes.
This is being ignored (spiked) by every outlet..IT IS THE story of the year and even the administration isn't trumpeting it. What a waste...WMD exist we know where the Un knows where everyone knows we just don't want to admit it cause then Bush would be right...Blame it on the French I do
ping
hmmmm, can anyone vouch for the honesty of this publication? I've not heard of this before, and it sounds too good to be true. Which means it probably is. That would also explain why it wasn't being shown on Fox.
Rush Limbaugh has said he thinks after the transfer of power to the new Iraq gov. they will ask the US to go into Syria and get the weapons ...I am hoping he is right
It would be nice if the source was more mainstream, like maybe Washington Times or New York Post.
Can someone dig out the original report from the U.N.?
What's new about this version is that it's the U.N. report that states Saddam was smuggling WMD.
Last week Putin also stated that Russian intelligence had confirmed to the Bush administration that Hussein was planning attacks on the U.S. I pointed this out in a heated argument with a liberal Bush-hater. He said he had already heard that. He still contended Bush lied.
bump
A most interesting and disturbing Article.
On the other hand, this article does raise a difficult question:
Was the major effect of the War (or, at least, the many months spent stalling in an attempt for UN approval) the resultant export of thousands of tons of Iraqi WMD components to Worldwide Terrorist Organizations?
At the risk, as always, of playing "Monday-morning Quarterback" -- I remains unconvinced that a $200-billion (and counting) Conventional War was the best way to handle the "Saddam Threat".
Perhaps a selective recission of Executive Order 12333, thus allowing for the Assassination of Saddam and a few other notable Unworthies, would have been the better option -- leaving "Baghdad Bob" in charge (heck, we're already contracting former Iraqi Generals into the New Regime), and the WMDs in Baghdad. Still a Threat, yes -- but primarily a Threat to the Iranians.
Instead, we have fought a 200-billion (and counting) Conventional War, and the only Result we know for certain is apparently this:
The Horse has left the Barn... and meanwhile, our Politicians still ain't even halfway serious about "Border Control".
I'd sure like it to be true,not because it's a good thing but because it might shut some of the anti-American claptrap we have to listen to here in Oz up for 5 minutes.
Please post links to the other stories.
bttt
The Horse has left the Barn... and meanwhile, our Politicians still ain't even halfway serious about "Border Control".
You said a mouthful there. Spend BILLIONS on airport security and leave the house "Unlocked" I love Bush, but he has made a mistake here.
The American Angle
1. Iraqi WMD is a dead issue. Except in very small doses, we won't find any in Iraq. Neither the left nor the right really cares, at this point, because both sides already feel vindicated in their beliefs about the value of this war. Thus, neither side will make more than passing reference to Saddam's WMD.
2. Bush is willing to let himself and the intelligence agencies take the hit on the WMD issue. Why? Because WMD was a means to an end. So long as Bush can push for the results he wants, he'll let peripherial issues go.
3. The end result, which has not been stated, but is clear to anyone who cares to look, is this: Bush intends to remake the political and cultural landscape of the Middle East into a place where Islamic fanatacism and WMD are hard to come by, or at least, unable to colocate. This goal cannot be attained by military might alone.
4. Bush realizes that MAD is not a deterrent against religious fanatics. In choosing to attack the social structure of the Middle East as a means to keep WMD out of the hands of terrorists, Bush's strategy appears to be long term and visionary. If his sights are indeed on a different target, that would explain why he seems unconcerned about short term setbacks.
5. Bush's true interest is not in Iraqi WMD but Iraq itself. Iraq is soon going to change from being a political liability to a political weapon. It will soon be generating internal pressure against every dictator and theocrat in the Middle East. The example of a modern, prosperous Arab state with a relatively liberal government will be a better destabilizing force for the region than another 10 divisions of the U.S. Army.
6. If we fail to either remake Iraq, or remake the Middle East, then Saddam's WMD is a non issue. If we succeed, it's a non issue. It's only an issue to Bush's credibility. If he's willing to take the hit, which apparently he is, then it will be chalked up to 'weak intelligence' and 'overzealous advisors'. Bush appears to have made his choice, and is sticking to it.
The Syrian Angle
1. Syria had every reason to help Saddam hide his WMD. Knowing that he'd be stuck between Israel on one side, and the U.S. on the other, Assad had to realize that his regime was in danger. He also knew that he had no effective direct courses of action to take. Still, he had to do something. America and Israel were clearly hostile powers intent on destroying his regime. So, what would his best options for resistance be?
2. Simply put, Syria's best course of action would be to attack the legitimacy of the war itself. He could easily hide Saddams WMD in with his own, and doing so would rob us of our legitimate objective. It would be next to impossible for us to prove otherwise.
3. Assad's hope may have been to lay low and wait for the pressure to force us out. So long as he didn't do anything overtly provocative, he knew that we wouldn't risk going after Syria as well. No one at the time could have forseen how easily we would have won the war, or how much resove we would show against the Fedayeen (who's preparations for a Vietnam like guerilla war against the U.S. Assad almost certainly knew about) or against the foriegn fighters (who Assad still sends in against us).
4. At the time that the decisions would have been made, I think that it would have been both feasible and desirable for Syria to hide Saddam's WMDs. Going on the very reasonable assumptions that the war would be difficult, that U.S. public opinion would disintigrate in the face of no WMDs and Vietnam like high casualties, and that world pressure would mount against the 'illegitimate war', the potential benefits far outweighed the risks.
The Final Word
One day, at some point down the road, the truth may come out. Or, it may be dumped in the ocean and forgotten. Either way, that battle for Iraqi WMDs is over. Bush's actions reveal that he likely had other intents for Iraq than to simply purge it of WMDs. Those intents are reflected in his interest in the new government and the potential it holds for the region.
Of course the POS inspectors could not find this stuff when it was in place.
The big problem is that the WMDs are still out there, and in the hands of terrorists or terrorist sponsoring states.
That simply cannot stand, and every day we let it stand we are putting thousands, even millions of people at risk. Our hands are tied in Iraq right now, but we have to go after the WMDs ASAP.
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.