Posted on 10/08/2004 12:42:02 PM PDT by sanchmo
The Iraq report clearly states:
1. Saddam was the one who misled on WMD. His grand strategy was to convince the world he still had WMD, hoping to deter both Iran and the US - it was a bluff and a tremendous blunder. Even his own generals believed he had WMD until the very last minute. (If Bush was deliberately misleading, why would his administration have a report come out just before elections contradicting the lies?)
2. Saddam used the Oil-for-Food Program to build up his treasure chest, and to bribe the UN, its member countries, and inspectors and journalists into helping remove the sanctions.
3. Saddam had the ability to produce WMD within months of inspections and/or sanctions ending. And he fully planned to do so.
Conclusion:
Bush went to war under one wrong assumption - that Saddam had a WMD program at that very time. But WMD or no, Bush's plan toppled an explosively dangerous regime, prevented a terrorist-friendly WMD program from re-emerging (Iraq), stopped an existing WMD program in its tracks (Lybia), and created a killing field for the terrorists outside of US soil.
Under Kerry, sanctions would have fallen apart under the real coalition of the bribed and coerced, Saddam could have built chemical weapons again within months, and the US would have annouced to the world that we have no plans to develop bunker-buster nukes to stop him or anyone like him.
Your comments?
Under Clinton, Saddam threw out the UN inspectors and the Clinton's did absolutely nothing about it.
In short, Saddam had the $$$ and the intention to redevelop his WMD capability.
They care nothing for humanity. They're power hungry fanatics.
Good luck getting this into a 30 second debate response.
Thank you for posting this as a separate thread!
To expound, which was not the purpose of the report, Iraq was the easier of two large countries that are side by side who are terror supporters in every way possible. Both material and financial.
In order to take terror down and prevent the U.S. and western style allies from resorting to protective measures that will destroy our individual economies in the future, the only possible option is to be preemptive!
The shallowness of democrat opposition to this very important point is astounding! Dangerous on it's face and illogical politicizing of our very future.
The Dem's would trade it away to make political points with their leftist base and seal our doom forevermore.
The resulting economic collapse and knee jerk reactions that would surely come from a democrat admin would be devastating in it's consequences most assuredly plunge the planet into collective chaos for generations, if not in perpetuity.
It would make the Great Depression look like an economic bump in the road.
Rant over..................
I don't know that it was ever intended to be a 30 second sound bite for tonights debate....
Oh ( comment ) thread was here:
A good rant...
Related item:
Listing of Articles Relating to Iraqi Sanctions being Lifted pre-2003 ^
I agree with everything you say, and more.
But the media and the Dems are going to harp loudly on the part of the report that says there weren't WMD's.
Overcoming that is going to be a real problem for Bush, IMO.
I hope he can.
The fact that a majority of Americans continue to put terrorism at the top of their concerns is encouraging, though.
ping for comments!
A Kerry Presidency would get us all killed
But will Bush bash the UN? I have a feeling he won't, but he'd better. His political life depends on it.
Just out of curiosity.
Lets say we had given the inspectors another year or two, and they came up with a report that said " No WMD's in Iraq", is there anyone who would have actually believed that report? Or would we all be convinced that the inspectors were corrupt and or fools? How would we have proceeded at that point?
I would not have believed it!
Under Kerry we wouldn't have had any intelligence at all if his voting record is any indication. He's the absolute last one who should be whining about "misleading" intelligence.
Why? If he had them to start with (and he did, because he USED them!), why would he get rid of them (and how, without leaving a trace) but still pretend he had them if he was planning to rebuild the program after the sanctions were lifted. What possible benefit could be had by dumping them for the interim?
My personal belief is that the report is "bravo sierra" from a misguided stooge (possibly a clinton hold over?), released at a most opportune moment, to cause maximum embarassment to GW. I further believe that the weapons were not "destroyed" (where is the infrastructure to destroy tons of nerve gas?)but rather trucked across the border into the only other "Bathist" regime in the area and buried in the Syrian dessert.
Regards,
GtG
PS remember Ockham's razor?
I haven't seen that claim before....
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.