Weapons of political destruction

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by wonderwench, Feb 12, 2004.

  1. wonderwench
    Online

    wonderwench Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Thomas Sowell excellent commentary on the current political maneuver of insisting on Iron Clad Evidence.

    The issue of "weapons of mass destruction" is being played for all it is worth as a weapon of political destruction. In fact, it is being played for more than it is worth.

    The ultimate question is whether we should or should not have gone to war with the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq. Weapons inspector David Kay's statement that he does not believe that we are going to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has been trumpeted across the land, while his statement that Saddam Hussein was even more dangerous than we thought has been passed over in silence.

    Having a President of the United States lie us into a war is not only a disaster when it happens, it is a lasting catastrophe for future presidents and for the country, because a president's credibility is a whole nation's credibility in the world. We have still not recovered from President Lyndon Johnson's lying us into the Vietnam war.

    Those who see every war as another Vietnam have tried to depict President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair as having hyped the intelligence reports to justify an unjustifiable war. An investigation in Britain indicates that those who pushed that line at the left-wing BBC were the liars.

    The intelligence reports that Bush and Blair saw were also seen by Congressional leaders who proceeded to vote for war. Those who now talk about a need for "iron-clad proof" are talking election-year nonsense when it comes to national survival.

    When the planes flew into the World Trade Center, that was iron-clad proof. When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, that was iron-clad proof. We cannot wait for iron-clad proof in a nuclear age.

    The Manhattan Project that created the first atomic bomb was based on intelligence reports that Hitler's atomic bomb project was farther along than it turned out to be. Should we have waited and risked having Hitler get the first atomic bomb?

    What the President knew when he went to Congress for an authorization for war was that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction in the past, that international inspectors could not account for what happened to all of them that were supposed to have been destroyed and that the Iraqi dictator was refusing to comply with repeated UN resolutions on the subject.

    Was that enough or should President Bush have waited for that "iron-clad proof" we hear so much about? We had already waited for more than a decade, with Saddam Hussein playing cat and mouse games.

    Would we have been better off to have had more or better information from the intelligence agencies -- especially more agents on the ground to supplement satellite surveillance and other high-tech methods? No question.

    But many, if not most, of those in Congress who are now complaining loudly about intelligence failures are people who voted repeatedly to cut the budgets of the intelligence agencies and to restrict their operations. Senator John Kerry is just one of those who crippled these agencies and now complain that they were not effective enough.

    Everyone today agrees that we are grossly deficient in the numbers of Arabic-speaking people available to intelligence gathering and analysis. But you cannot now create Arabic-speaking intelligence agents overnight. Neither CIA Director George Tenet nor President Bush can be made scapegoats for decades of neglect before they got to Washington.

    Was the Iraqi war worth it and should we have gone to war if we had to do it over again, knowing what we know now? On net balance, yes.

    Among the things that we know now is that you get cooperation in the Middle East after you have demonstrated your willingness to use force. Would Libya have revealed and dismantled its weapons of mass destruction if the Qaddafi regime had not seen what happened in Iraq? Would Syria and Iran have taken a more conciliatory attitude if they had not seen what happened in Iraq?

    Negotiations are not a substitute for force. When international negotiations work, often it is because aggressors know what is going to happen if it doesn't work.


    http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20040210.shtml
     
  2. tim_duncan2000
    Offline

    tim_duncan2000 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2004
    Messages:
    694
    Thanks Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +66
    But Hitler didn't have an atomic bomb. Those LIARS!

    Those in Congress need to realize that you can't have it both ways. It's just not possible to make these cuts and still be able to gather intelligence in the best possible way.
     
  3. wonderwench
    Online

    wonderwench Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    It would be amusing if it weren't so disgusting.

    Listening to the shrill cacaphony of the various Dem candidates condemning the War in Iraq, when they actually voted for it. They must really look down on the voting masses as being some lower life forms with limited memory recall.
     
  4. jon_forward
    Offline

    jon_forward Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2003
    Messages:
    2,436
    Thanks Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    nashville.tn
    Ratings:
    +5
    I believe we are called the mindless masses...
     
  5. Psychoblues
    Offline

    Psychoblues Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    2,701
    Thanks Received:
    142
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Missisippi
    Ratings:
    +143
    Perhaps a re-examination of our reasons for going to war is prudent. "WMD's" and "imminent threat" were certainly heavily advertised by at least a compliant media as our reason's for going to war. As both have proven to be false I suggest that the Administration that propagated those reasons and the media that obediantly used their powers to advance the ideology should both be punished. Now, more than ever, I beg God to bless us and forgive us our trespasses.
     
  6. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    Don't put something in quotations that you can't backup. You've been made to look silly with this imminent threat crap several times already, would you like to make a repeat performance? You're like a repeating propoganda machine, of course without any credibility whatsoever.
     
  7. Psychoblues
    Offline

    Psychoblues Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    2,701
    Thanks Received:
    142
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Missisippi
    Ratings:
    +143
    Lemme git his straight, jimnyc. You're saying that "imminent threat" was not promulgated by this Administration and further that I've been made to "look silly" while claiming that they did. Have I got it right, at least so far?
     
  8. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    Yes, you do!

    Putting something into quotations usually means you are quoting what someone else said. In this case you are referring to the Bush administration. They DID NOT ever say Iraq was an imminent threat, so why quote it as so?
     
  9. jon_forward
    Offline

    jon_forward Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2003
    Messages:
    2,436
    Thanks Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    nashville.tn
    Ratings:
    +5
    Psychoblues, been over this imminent crap a thousand times...have you missed it every time???? as for the missing WMD....not all are missing anymore...we got the biggest one....saddam himself...
     
  10. Psychoblues
    Offline

    Psychoblues Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    2,701
    Thanks Received:
    142
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Missisippi
    Ratings:
    +143
    Just so we understand each other, I think "imminent treat" was/is the only reason, as intimated by Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleeza Rice and countless media as "our reason" for going to war. To deny that fact is just plain partisan, in my opinion. You can belittle me as a contributor to this board but you can't deny the "imminent threat" argument as somehow "folly", can you?
     

Share This Page