Quote:
Originally posted by faust9Lets see what the Kay report says
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/02/kay.report/
Again, SH wanted the programs, but the UN was thwarting him. Pretty un-immenent. Lets focus our attention on Iraq instead of OBL or other terrorist organizations (exactly what Clarke was complaining about).
I am going to say a little something on this subject, I know I am in for it, but:
Everyone, I mean everyone thought SH had weapons and programs. The UN did because they were conducting what? Say it with me. WEAPONS INSPECTIONS. They thought he had them.
The UN resolutions dictated that SH disarm in a verifiable manner. He did not. I think we all could agree about that.
If Saddam was bluffing to intimidate his enemies or his people or both, that is nobody's fault but SH's. There is no way to control that type of thing. If he actually thought that he could win against a full blown US military attack, that only proves he was delusional. Also note, who could control that? The fact was he WAS obstructing inspectors, breaking the ceasefire agreement, and supporting terrorists namely palestinian ones.
I don't know if I totally missed it or what, but when I heard Bush speak, it sounded like, to me, that risk was too great that this psycho, SH would pass off WMDs to terrorist groups.
Put yourself in GWB's shoes for a moment:
1. 9/11 happened. Those nuisance terror groups just became a real and visible threat. We found out in a real way that they were not just confined to overseas attacks. We also were just taught that these rag-tag band of thugs is a worldwide threat that was backed by rogue states. This war was now on our doorstep.
2. GWB already had this guy attempt to assassinate a president, no less than his father. I personally would use any power that I had to bring SH to justice if it was my father. So I see a good son in GWB. I may be way off in this one, but I don't see a problem with it, in light of everything else we know. Not to mention that SH has somehow avoided responsibility for so long.
3. SH has already used WMDs on no less than his own countrymen, no less. I don't think this can be stressed enough. Using them on an enemy that you are at war with is one thing, but inside his own country on people that are under his care. This frames his mindset very well. So using them on the "infidel" "devils" would not be to difficult a decision for him to make.
4. SH had already unprovoked attacked one of, if not more of our allies, namely Israel. This showed that he was willing to lash out against not only the US but our allies even if they had nothing to do with the US/Iraq conflict. Also goes to state of mind.
5. Terrorists had at least some degree of immunity in Iraq. In a big brother type state it is very unbelievable that SH did not know that they were there. And the new evidence showing that the 90's WTC bomber was put on the payroll, certainly points that he did. It is not unreasonable to think he may provide WMDs to them to assist. We know that Iraq provided training to terrorists.
6. SH vowed revenge for the first Gulf War. Given the other facts there is no reason not to believe he meant it or would follow through.
7. The UN felt he was hiding something. The US had every reason to believe that he was, since he would not fully disclose. Once again, how can you justify taking the chance that he did have them? As president that truly wanted to protect the US from this new threat, you can't.
Anti-war people here are saying bush was wrong to preemptively attack Iraq. I am not so sure. Because of the uncertainty of Iraq's capability to produce and deliver WMDs, coupled with the obvious risk of ignoring it, I contend that GWB had little choice but to rid the world of the threat, perceived or real.
If a man take you and your family hostage, makes it clear that he is willing to kill your whole family if need be, with a gun he has hidden behind his shirt, he is a legitimate threat even if his weapon is fake. There is no court in the free world that would hold you responsible for killing the guy if you got the chance. (minus the circuit court of appeals in San Fran.)
Just like that father that has a responsibility to protect his family from a threat real or perceived, GWB had that responsibility for a whole nation on his shoulders. Sometime if not many times preemptive action is what is needed.
If GWB had not gone and dealt with Iraq and an attack sponsored by them hit the US, the same people that are accusing the president of not doing enough about Al Qaeda before 9/11 would be doing the same thing about Iraq, not to mention the further damage to the economy. I think if you are honest you will agree.
[/B]
