Weapons of Mass Distortion

The Wall Street Journal ^ | Monday, June 2, 2003 | Editorial

[BOBTHENAILER]

To certain critics of U.S. policy in Iraq, the only thing worse than going to war with Saddam Hussein is the fact that we won. This they can never forgive -- which is why they are now trying to make a war crime out of the fact that the allies haven't yet found caches of weapons of mass destruction.

[GraniteStateConservative]

Well, we didn't call it "Operation Iraqi Disarmament."

[BOBTHENAILER]

They have no morality or ethics so the irony of them attacking the U.S. while turning a blind eye to the mass graves, torture chambers, and children's prisons left behind by their hero is lost on them.

Very well said.

[BOBTHENAILER]

Those in the know are not climbing out on the same branch that the liberal press seems intent on

and they are busily chainsawing that limb right out from under 'em.

[Free the USA]

'You Lied to Us'
6/02/03 | William Safire
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/921587/posts

[BartMan1]

ping

[Blood of Tyrants]

I have read that theory, too. Bush may be letting the cacophany reach it's crescendo before he lays the cards on the table and his cards will contain all aces; proof of Saddam's death, proof of blister agents, proof of nerve agents, proof of biological weapons (maybe even smallpox), and an unxpected wildcard; a nuclear weapons program that was close to producing a working nuke.

[ex-snook]

Now if we only had an understanding of: (1) How and who duped Bush and Powell with forged nuclear documents. (2) What was the urgent threat that the clown Saddam and his idiot sons posed which required immediate action after some dozen years of bombing, 40000 sorties without a plane down, inspections, no-fly zoning and blockading.

[BOBTHENAILER]

When weighing the murky evidence of an aggressive tyranny's weapons, President Bush and Prime Minister Blair were obliged to take no chances. The burden on proof was on Saddam. By his contempt, he invited invasion; by its response, the coalition established the credibility of its resolve. There was no "intelligence hoax."

Thanks for the link.

[Miss Marple]

I do not believe that the President is withholding the information for domestic political reasons, nor to make the media look bad. I believe he is withholding it until they can get verification from a third party and also they are documenting everything, including arms sales from European nations and perhaps collusion with Fifth Columnists in the USA.

The last thing the military wants to do is say "Lookee here! We found barrels of weaponized anthrax at Wahdi Al Saddam and we are guarding them with units of the 3rd Infantry!" I can think of no scarier thing than to have the entire world know exactly where the bad stuff is, especially the bad guys. I would guess that as things are found they are being documented, vidoetaped, and destroyed.

When security is in place, and perhaps when the French and Germans have been notified that we have the goods on them (Funny how Chirac didn't embarass the President at the G-8 Summit, isn't it?) I imagine this information will be released.

Damage to the DNC and the media will be a collateral benefit, but not the purpose of waiting. However, many of these leftists are unable to think rationally about the President, and so keep inching further out on that limb.

It is very dangerous to be out on that limb when we have a President who is skillful with a chainsaw.

[BOBTHENAILER]

When security is in place, and perhaps when the French and Germans have been notified that we have the goods on them (Funny how Chirac didn't embarass the President at the G-8 Summit, isn't it?) I imagine this information will be released.

We both know there is a reason Chirac didn't try and embarass Bush. He's WAY out on that limb and knows well the skill with which our President wields that chainsaw.

[VRWC_minion]

In other words, Bush Inc. may be letting the leftist politicians and media dig their holes a little deeper before the big finds are made

THe one thing that is predictable is that the left is going to attack something, anything. By letting them stay focuses a while on an issue that Bush controls he keeps them from finding an issue that might provide some traction.

I don't think this is the sole reason though for retaining facts. I believe that there is an ongoing investigation and that it can hinder an investigation if information is released especially when its never certain what the captured Iraq's are saying.

[doc]

"Whether or not WMD is found takes nothing away from the Iraq war victory. The allies liberated a country of 22 million people, rid the world of a terrorist ally and have begun a process that may well create a more stable and prosperous Arab world. The credibility gap lies with those who were opposed to achieving all of that."
Granted Sadaam's regime did not belong in power, but how many countries can we say that about. Why are we not attacking them? The Bush administrations WHOLE premise for this war was about large cache's of WMD. This administration was duped by misleading foreign intelligence. As for democrats supporting this war, they know where there bread is buttered. If they dared to oppose this war there would have been a major campaign to oust them out of office, both through the media and campaign funding.

[cantfindagoodscreenname]

Just a little update from yesterday's wild thread on the on-going WMD circus. Pinging all democRAT attack dogs.

Do you have a link for this? I missed it.

[xkaydet65]

That's a plan Machiavelli would be proud of. Bush and company are not Machiavelli. The one thing about Bush that resonates with most people is that they find him believable. If we had found WMD it would have been revealed a New York Minute after discovery.

I'm one of the few here that has a problem with the results so far. If there are no WMDs and President Bush was aware then he joins LBJ and the Tonkin Gulf, FDR and the deliberate misrepresentations of U Boat attacks on American ships in the fall of 1941, and Nixon's " Iam not a crook..." On the other hand if he was not aware, then something is very wrong with our intel, and in a world such as we live in today that fact is unacceptable.

If the WMDs are found, GREAT. If not than we have some trouble.

[BOBTHENAILER]

Whether or not WMD is found takes nothing away from the Iraq war victory. The allies liberated a country of 22 million people, rid the world of a terrorist ally and have begun a process that may well create a more stable and prosperous Arab world. The credibility gap lies with those who were opposed to achieving all of that."

Agreed on all counts.

Granted Sadaam's regime did not belong in power, but how many countries can we say that about. Why are we not attacking them?

Many reasons, some political, some strategic and some for timing and logistic reasons.

The Bush administrations WHOLE premise for this war was about large cache's of WMD. This administration was duped by misleading foreign intelligence.

Not true at all. There were and always have been at least THREE reasons: WMD, support for terrorists and liberation of a people brutalized far worse than the Kosovars.

As for democrats supporting this war, they know where there bread is buttered. If they dared to oppose this war there would have been a major campaign to oust them out of office, both through the media and campaign funding.

False again. There were many RATs vocally opposed to the war.

[Calpernia]

BUMP!

[BOBTHENAILER]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/921269/posts

Here ya go

[visitor]

wild thread...rto

[dead]

Your post seems to say that you are not open to the possibility that the timing of the release of certain information regarding WMDs in Iraq could have a political motivation. Yet, you are open to the possibility that Bush knowingly lied about their existence entirely.

I think that political considerations could certainly play a part in the timing of the release of information, especially when the best course of action is debatable. For instance, there might be some positives to releasing some information early (strengthing our bargaining position in debates over control of Iraq, easing domestic political pressure on Blair, sending a message to other rogue nations) and their might be some negatives (exposing intelligence methods, increasing the risk that the WMDs might themselves becoming tempting terrorist targets, risking other potential finds.)

At that point, I think political considerations would inevitably be included in the equation.

[OldFriend]

Interesting too is the left's ignoring the very same statements made by X42 years ago. They gave him unanimous support to go to war with Iraq.