Posted on 10/07/2004 4:11:59 PM PDT by areafiftyone
Scott is still working for the AP? Wow! After that story, I thought his career would be over. I guess he's on the Dan RaTHer track.
If Saddam truly did not have WMD, he could have proven it by giving the UN inspectors complete access and complying with the UN resolutions. Perhaps Saddam didn't want to reveal his lack of WMD's for being perceived as weak to his neighbors. Perhaps he also thought the US would never invade Iraq and depose him.
At any rate, given the climate after 9/11, and the intelligence provided to Bush, it would have been irresponsible for the President not to act against Saddam. If the US had been hit with a nuclear 9/11, and it later came out Bush had this intelligence and did not act, I think it would have been an impeachable offense.
Without a doubt Kerry will be pounding on this in tomorrow's debate. I hope Bush does a better job of responding to these charges, or he will continue to slip in the polls.
The worst part of all is that if this lowlife Kerry actually pulls out a win because of this, we're going to go back a policy that guarantees our drift towards another tragedy, and probably one even worse than 9/11.
Everybody should read the Duelfer Summary. What Saddam was up to is quite damning.
Key Findings (Duelfer Report): Sanctions Had Collapsed by end of 1999
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1238122/posts
Key Findings (Duelfer Report): Iraqi Intelligence Had WMD, Tested on Humans
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1237962/posts
ISG uncovered information that the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) maintained throughout 1991 to 2003 a set of undeclared covert laboratories to research and test various chemicals and poisons, primarily for intelligence operations.
[snip]
• The existence, function, and purpose of the laboratories were never declared to the UN.
• The IIS program included the use of human subjects for testing purposes.
Indy, you are right on, but I fear that Bush will begin a slow oozing down in the polls no matter what he says tomorrow night. He has given the Johns exactly what they wanted: a blanket statement that no WMDs existed.
I think that we will be able to trace this year's race to two events: the first W/Lurch debate (and how Rove screwed it up) and the admission that there were no WMDs (which has Rove's fingerprints all over it).
If I am wrong, and W wins by more than a whisker, than I owe Karl Rove a well-deserved apology.
Lemme get this straight. The Bush Administration is going to say we went to war to save a UN program that was being abused?? Talk about grasping at straws! Sheesh for Bush's re-eleciton hopes that better NOT be the talking point.
He had some old artillery shells filled with mustard gas and nerve gas. They were depleted and/or destroyed by 1991.
The Kurds were killed by drift from a nearby Iran-Iraq battle. Based on the autopsies, the gas appears to have been from the Iranian side.
NBC weapons are expensive, ultimately not very effective in light of their equal risk of harm to the deploying army, and require arcane technical skills to manufacture, store, and transport. The comically inept Iraqi military did not have those resources.
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.