Posted on 04/16/2003 6:35:05 AM PDT by Incorrigible
If they didn't have them, why didn't Iraq show us where and how they destroyed them?
Even So-Dumb isn't so damn dumb not to that someone from the Bush clan rarely makes a threat that's not followed up with action. So why didn't they show the UN Inspectors where and how they destroyed them? They admitted to having various AND LARGE quantities of WMD's in the mid-90's . . . SO WHAT HAPPENED TO THEM?
That's not too hard. All you have to do is....
Er, never mind.
"If we don't find fairly large stockpiles of these weapons, in quantities large enough to pose a strategic threat to the United States, then the president's credibility will be seriously undermined, and the legitimacy of the war repudiated," Cirincione said.
Here is the kicker. They don't just want evidence of WMD - they want enough to pose a strategic threat to the US. 9/11 was not a strategic threat to the US - a few buildings and 3,000 people (from a strategic point of view) is not a threat to the US.
The liberals are raising the bar. We now have to find enough WMD, ready to go (not just in the developmental stage) to threaten the continued existence of the US or it was an illegitimate war.
We aren't going to win this war of expectations. Why worry about it?
Precisely. We are dealing here with an audience for whom no proof at all will ever be considered sufficient. These, after all, were the same ones insisting that there was "no proof" of any linkage between Iraq and al Qaeda until the evidence demonstrating that linkage became overwhelming. Instead of admitting that they simply shifted their attack to WMD and looting. Should convincing evidence of WMD turn up they'll simply shift to the claims that it isn't enough and that it is fabricated. It is silly to desire the moral sanction of those who are determined never, under any circumstances, to grant it.
"There is no evidence that these weapons, in the amounts that have been discovered, could kill every human on the planet, as the Bush Administration claimed before rushing into this war."
Proof or speculation?
Terrible things. Maybe it should be US policy to attack every horrible dictator in the world. Agree?
Careful there. You got some sarcasm on your tie.
You'll find some here that would agree with the US doing that. Perhaps it would be better if the US had said nothing about WMD and laid the proof of terrorism support on the table and gone in to take out Saddam for the atrocities his regime has been guilty of performing on his own people. Then no one would could express anything except "shock and awe." And a grudging respect.
I and many Americans feel a straight out, stand up fight is preferable to letting the NSA and CIA handle things like they tried in El Salvador and other countries. Those turned out so well, don't you think?
I wasn't aware that El Salvador was a threat to our country.
You'll find some here that would agree with the US doing that
So many, it's frightening.
It's right there in the Constitution, "The Military shall be the world's policeman and shall attack every country who abuses anyone else."
</ sarcasm> (there, that keeps my tie clean)
Gort! Marenga.
Or as they used to say in the old days, repercussions?
You, the French the UN and what real army?
Or as they used to say in the old days, repercussions?
You, the French the UN and what real army?
Don't worry. The Gubmint is always able to make up a reason. The War on (some)Drugs or some such.
ESAD
BT
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.