The Mysterious Case Of Iraq's Missing WMD

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.yankton.net/stories/012804/opE_20040128044.shtml

Let's refresh our memories: Why did we go to war with Iraq a year ago?

Based on the arguments put forth by the Bush administration, we were mobilizing for war because Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction which could be used on Iraq's neighbors or could be funneled to terrorists who might strike again at U.S. soil. Thus, Iraq's WMD aims were portrayed as part of the war on terrorism unleashed on 9/11.

President Bush used his State of the Union speech a year ago to spell out the threat Saddam posed to stability in the Persian Gulf region and, thus, American security. "Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction," he told Congress on Jan. 28, 2003. "But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate or attack." Just before war was unleashed last March, the president proclaimed, ŒŒIntelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.''

Last February, Secretary of State Colin Powell made a strong case before a skeptical United Nations on why war with Iraq was not only necessary, but also impatiently imperative. The belly of the Iraqi beast was pregnant with bad intentions, we were told, and these intentions had to be gutted without a moment to spare. This sentiment was echoed throughout the administration, with Condoleeza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld making similar statements. snip

As citizens of the world's only superpower, we cannot tolerate such muscle-flexing recklessness -- especially when it puts our soldiers in harm's way. We've been hearing reasons, excuses and rationalizations for more than a year. Now it's time for some explanations.

more

[NJCher]

1. Yankton, South Dakota!

When Yankton gets on board, you know gwb is in trouble!


Cher

[Ardee]

2. please keep up

Where once this administration spoke of stockpiles of weaponry, including estimates of tonnage,now they speak of weapons plans . Where they once spoke of Clintons ineptitude in the face of terrorism they now speak of continuing the plans laid down by Clinton.
Where they once prattled about imminent threats from Iraq they now say the world is better off without this guy.

Ten years from now Iraq will have a fundamentalist Islamic government as will Afghanistan , again. We will be far, far worse off then than we were prior to 9/11 and we have the ill considered empire building of George W. Bush to thank.

[HootieMcBoob]

3. Don't forget that the inspections were in progress

Hans blix and Baradei had requested a few more months to complete their investigation. They said that they were making real progress and that Iraq was cooperating. But Bush/Cheney and the rest of them could not wait. Why not? If, as they say now, they didn't think/never said Iraq was an "immanent threat" what would it have mattered? Would they have believed the inspectors under any circumstances? Remember the Office of Special Plans was set up to come up with intelligence that would justify war and Cheney was at the CIA pushing for intelligence that would justify going to war also.

The inspections were working. The inspectors after the first gulf war said they had destroyed over 90% of Iraq's WMD. There were 12 years of sanctions following. Clinton bombed the hell out of the place and destroyed even more (against the wishes of republicans).

These guys wanted this war more than they wanted anything ever in their lives. They are the worst excuses for humans that ever walked the planet.

[spindoctor]

4. But the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein in it!!

So shut up....shut up!!