Posted on 11/29/2006 9:10:21 AM PST by Graybeard58
Buried in a front-page, Bush-bashing tome in The New York Times recently was this: "Experts say that at that time, (Saddam) Hussein's scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away."
"That time" was 2002. So if the experts are right, Iraq could have joined the atomic club in 2003.
That was the year President Bush and Congress decided the Hussein regime posed intolerable risk to world security and authorized an invasion by a U.S.-led coalition. Hussein was deposed and an uneasy, violent transitional period, demonstrably too long for American attention spans (see Nov. 7 election results), ensued.
That the Times hid this nugget 13 paragraphs into a 37-paragraph article is instructive. What the Times found important was the Bush administration placed 15-year-old technical nuclear information, written in Arabic, on a government Web site available to anyone. The liberal newspaper de-emphasized the near certainty that Iraq would be a nuclear entity today if the war the left insists never should have been fought had, in fact, never been fought.
It's true invading troops found no weapons of mass destruction, aside from a few Iran-Iraq war artifacts presumably left on various battlefields and in concealed ammunition dumps forgotten by the Hussein regime. But Iraq had built and used WMDs before, and captured documents prove the existence of a conspiracy to build such weapons.
It all comes down to time, opportunity and motive. Hussein's Iraq knew how to build nukes, as well as chemical and biological weapons, in 2002. If there had been no war, Iraq would have had the time and the opportunity to build and deploy them. And there was plenty of motive: a suspicious and unfriendly West; a deadly rival to the east, Iran; and a nuclear Israel that had used an airstrike to smash an earlier attempt by Iraq to join the atomic club.
And what might the United States have done about Iraq's nuclear ambitions in 2003 or 2004, with Hussein still in power? It would have had two choices: Negotiate from a position of relative weakness; or wait for something terrible to happen and respond in kind. One need not stretch the imagination far to conclude the Iraq war, for all its horrors and frustrations, is better than the unspeakable alternative.
And meanwhile traitors within the administration AGAIN leak classified documents to undermine the war/rebuild effort.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
The NYT is going down in flames and wants to take America down with her. They should be prosecuted for their treasonous conduct during this war.
Maybe Michelle Malkin from the Hartford Courant will pick this up?
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Michelle is not from the Courant, she is a nationally syndicated columnist.
The Waterbury Republican-American in Waterbury, Connecticut is one of the most consistently conservative newspapers in the country and it's not a new thing, I've been posting their editorials for years.
you're right, I was thinking of Michelle JACKLYN, the columnist who slandered us from back in 2000!!
got me, thanks!
sad but interesting point.
:-)
Nancee
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.