War Without Evidence

Washington Post ^ | 9/10/02 | Richard Cohen

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

The Vietnam Syndrome is not dead. Certainly the United States is no longer gun-shy -- the Gulf War proved that -- but a different Vietnam Syndrome not only lives but seems to be thriving: the willingness of Washington to exaggerate the threat. This is happening now with Iraq.

Not that Iraq is no threat. Under Saddam Hussein, it has twice invaded neighbors -- Iran and Kuwait -- and used chemical weapons against both foreign and domestic enemies. It also has biological weapons and is trying to secure nuclear weapons. If it gets the latter, the entire balance of power in the Middle East will be changed -- and for the worse.

But there is no -- that's no -- evidence that Iraq has nuclear weapons. Intelligence suggests, in fact, that Iraq is five or so years away from either securing or developing a bomb. The nuclear threat is not an imminent one, and it is not one, in any case, directed at the United States. We are a world away and have ample means to retaliate. Iraq would cease to exist.

So what explains the Chicken Little remarks made by Bush administration spokesmen on the Sunday TV shows? In the formulation of Vice President Cheney, Iraq somehow morphed into the old Soviet Union: "If we have reason to believe someone is preparing an attack against the U.S., has developed that capability, harbors those aspirations, then I think the United States is justified in dealing with that, if necessary, by military force." You bet... CLICK

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

1- Why is the situation better after Hussein has nukes?

2- Why did Clinton tell America Hussein had the weapons, was a threat to our nation, and needed to be dealt with, four years ago?

2- Why did Dashole say the same?

[KC_Conspirator]

Intelligence suggests, in fact, that Iraq is five or so years away from either securing or developing a bomb.

Thats not true. Richard Cohen is a liar.

[MamaLucci]

War Without Evidence
Washington Post ^ | 9/10/02 | Richard Cohen

I got some better headlines, Mr. Cohen....hows about:
Liberal Without Brain

Editorializing Without a Clue

Clinton Supporter Without Morals

[mewzilla]

I have another point that the libs never address. What if instead of using his WMDs, Saddamn sells them to someone else? What's to stop Hussein from doing that? And frankly, I can see Saddamn doing that before using the WMDs himself. How do the Dems and their supporters plan to guarantee that Hussein doesn't sell the weapons? How can they guarantee that he hasn't done it already?

[madvlad]

Cohen doesn't have any intelligence!!!

Mad Vlad

[AmishDude]

Billy McKinney, is that you?

Could you spell that for us?

[Travis McGee]

Cleanup on aisle 3.

[The Vast Right Wing]

Easy with the anti-semetic remarks there pal

[KineticKitty]

"But there is no -- that's no -- evidence that Iraq has nuclear weapons"

So therefore, we should wait until he does have them? DOH!

pssst, I do believe there is no --that's no-- evidence that Iraq DOES NOT have nuclear weapons either.

[malakhi]

damn godless liberal socialist media controlled JEWS will be the death of the USA

Would you care to revise and extend your remarks?

[marron]

It is not necessary to prove that Saddam has a nuke.

It is enough that we have been forced to keep a major force in the region for 10 years to keep the lid on this guy. It is enough that our pilots have been shot at every day for years, and that we can't pull them out without this guy unleashing another slaughter of his or his neighbor's citizens.

It has been 10 years. His psychotic sons are young yet. It could be 30 more that we have to sit on him.

A few days work, or war without end; which is it going to be?

[sheik yerbouty]

You seem a bit on the dull side. Then again, a pointy head could be considered sharp. Excogitate if you will!

[jbstrick]

Cactus... How appropriate of you to choose that screenname. You need to take your Jew hating rhetoric somewhere else.

[dirtboy]

The nuclear threat is not an imminent one, and it is not one, in any case, directed at the United States. We are a world away and have ample means to retaliate. Iraq would cease to exist.

Well, Bin Laden and the Taliban ceased to exist after our post 9-11 retaliation. That is small consolation to the victims of 9-11 and their families. The point is not to wait for Hussein to act. The point is to take him out before he acts - he already has proven what he is about.

[malakhi]

and the WHOLE DAMN MEDIA is liberal socialist JEWS .this group owns 91 percent of ALL MEDIA

Look, pinhead, the vast majority of the MEDIA is owned by corporate conglomerates that are owned by SHAREHOLDERS! Your 'statistic' is a lie. Where did you get it from, Stormfront?

[paulklenk]

You forgot something when you posted. Allow me:

"Barf, barf, and furthermore, barf."

[IowaHawk]

Four years ago? How about four months ago?

Remember when Newsweek ran that laughable cover story "BUSH KNEW"? The premise of the story was this: The incoming Bush Administration was given a briefing Power Point file from a Clinton flack, one slide from which had a single bullet point that mentioned Osama Bin Laden. We were to conclude, therefore, that this vital info should have tipped off Bush that a bunch of Islamofascists would fly passenger jets into the WTC on 9-11.

Today, the Administration has enough hard evidence establishing an Iraqi WMD program to fill a decent size Barnes and Noble. Curious how the very same "BUSH KNEW" idiots now consider this 'inconclusive.'

Beam me the F up.

[MEGoody]

"But there is no -- that's no -- evidence that Iraq has nuclear weapons."

While it is true that most seem to feel Iraq does not have nuclear weapons loaded and ready to fire, the claim that it will take 5 years for Saddam to finish development is an outright lie.

I suppose this author would have us wait around until Saddam uses them on us (or just sends someone into the country with a nuke in a briefcase). But of course, when this occurs, it will be the fault of the Republicans in this dweeb's viewpoint.