Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by freeandfun1, Oct 11, 2004.
Democrats and WMD
You know, that just makes no sense to me at all. If Saddam did, in fact, have no WMDs after the first Gulf War, then why were inspectors frequently denied acces to some sites or delay for hours or days before they were allowed into others? What about the intercepted communications just before and just after the start of GW II which suggested that high-ranking Iraqis were engaged in hiding equipment?
I know that the point of your thread is that the Clinton administration and Democrats in general had been saying the same thing for years, but it still puzzles me that weapons inspectors would claim that Saddam had discontinued his WMD program. I have seen no proof of that assertion. The only thing the inspectors can point to is that they have found no large stockpiles of WMDs. There could be any number of reasons for that.
One thing they cannot explain away - if Saddam had no WMDs, then why did he continue to thwart the inspectors on a regular basis. If Saddam had nothing to hide, then why the constant confrontations?
There are very few verifiable facts which can be relied upon in this situation.
Fact: Saddam DID posess WMDs after GW I.
Fact: Saddam used toxic agents against his own people.
Fact: No substantial cache of WMDs has been discovered.
So if we can agree that Saddam did posess WMDs, there are only a limited number of conclusions we can logically come to.
1. Saddam destroyed all of his WMDs prior to GW II, but refused to allow inspectors to verify that fact. Highly unlikely.
2. Saddam used his remaining supply of toxic agents in his attacks against the Kurds. Possible, but not probable.
3. Saddam hid his remaining supply of WMDs somewhere in Iraq or transferred them to a neighboring terrorist nation such as Iran or Syria.
The basis for the accusations of the left claiming that George Bush lied is based on the flimsiest of pretexts. But leftists are frequently guilty of selective reasoning. After all, they accuse GW of lying, but they swear that kerry is telling the truth. Can't place much stock in the opinions of those who are the willing and eager dupes of the Democratic party's propoganda machine. Democrats would have made great little nazis. They hate with passion and they swallow the party line with abandon.
I know exactly what you mean Merlin. It makes no sense. im certain there are WMDs somewhere. I cant believe Saddam would be stupid enough not to simply prove he dismantled the weapons if he had. if he had then they would have lifted sanctions and he could have restarted at a time when less pressure was on him. It just makes no sense.
I think Bush is wise to concede that we dont have evidence for WMDs right now though. Even if he still believes they existed and im sure he does, conceding the point to the Democrats will keep the main question of, if they exist where are they now question out of the campaign and thats a more costly campaign issue. If Kerry was at all smart he would be conceding that he believed there are WMDs and still does and that President Bush is so incompetant that they may be in the hands of the terrorists. But Kerry is a complete moron. So i think we are safe
And who knows maybe we will have a late october surprise.
Merlin I believe that situation 1 is not highly unlikely and is in fact probably what happened. Saddam bluffed the entire world to ensure his security. As long as everyone thought he had WMD than no one in the ME would bother him. That, to me, is why he kicked out the inspectors. He didn't want everyone to know that he was disarmed. The guy is a megalomaniac and used fear and threats to stay in power.
I've been a frequent user of this message board since August, and I swear I must have seen that same long list of Democrats and Republicans saying Saddam had WMDs, from 1991 through 2004, literally 20 or 25 times. In all seriousness, at least 20 times. Its the same point over and over again: either everyone was wrong or everyone was right, and we may never know.
Why do conservatives get off on posting this stuff ad nauseum? How many liberals on this message board actually believe Dubya willfully and knowingly flat-out lied to the American public? I'm of the opinion that they touted and flouted shaky intelligence, but it was intelligence nonetheless-- who cares what Clinton thought back in the 90s? We know Kerry panders re: the war in Iraq, and we know Bush does the same-- do we have to remind ourselves of it 500 times a day?
I agree NE...everyone believed he had WMD. I personally was a little more skeptical given the reluctance of the rest of the world to act but believed nonetheless.
The PROBLEM was the way he took us to war. I am not and have never been convinced that Bush exhausted all possibilities before going to war.
Can we please stop posting that list?
Coming up on election day, not bloody likely, MJ.
It continues to be an issue as long as kerry and the libs continue to claim the George Bush lied and that he led this country to war on fabrications. You libs rode that horse to death. Now you just get tired of having the facts waved in your face. I think you'll find a distinct lack of sympathy on this point.
You had your turn, you did your worst. Now it's too late to whine - the boomerang is coming back. Get used to it.
Again don't lump NE and I into the generalization you are making about liberals.
When did I ever call Bush a liar on WMD?
What the fuck are you talking about? I never said Bush lied, nor did John Kerry-- he specifically AVOIDED saying Bush lied during the last debate. There's a big difference between misleading and outright bald-face lying. Having the facts waved in my face? I SUPPORTED THE WAR, AND I THINK SADDAM BEING DEPOSED IS A GOOD THING.
You know what Merlin, I AM gettting used to it-- getting used to you putting words in my mouth and making blanket assumptions about me. STOP THAT.
Separate names with a comma.