Asking the Right Question
One of the few MSM outlets to report that yes, Virginia, there were WMDs in Iraq, the Washington Post nonetheless points out:
[T]he shells were old and were not the suspected weapons of mass destruction sought in Iraq after the 2003 invasion.
That is likely to become the mantra of our friends on the left, as well, who are determined that no evidence be adduced or released that might possibly justify the invasion of Iraq. So it's worth figuring out exactly whether what's been found matters, and why.
Are the WMD precisely what we believed to be in Iraq? No. But that doesn't mean that the fact they're there isn't significant. It is. It tells us a number of things -- all of which reinforce the rightness of the decision to go to Iraq in 2003.
First, we know dispositively that the UN -- despite all its efforts -- was unable to find these caches in the years after the Gulf War. So where does that leave all the lefties, who are insisting that the weapons inspectors needed just a little more time?
Second, we know that Saddam Hussein deliberately concealed the weapons, and lied to the entire world about it -- in violation of numerous UN declarations (it's a surprise to me that liberals like Peter Beinart, who believe in reestablishing the UN as a source of authority, are so unhappy that the US put some teeth into the otherwise impotent declarations emanating from that body).
Third, we know that Saddam was eager to reconstitute his weapons programs after sanctions were lifted. The existing stockpiles would have made that task easier for him and more dangerous for the rest of us.
Fourth, we know that Saddam Hussein was an ally of al-Zarqawi, and we know what WMDs in his hands would have meant.
Finally, it's worth pointing out that before the lefties get too far down the "it doesn't matter" road, they might want to recall that -- as Senator Santorum pointed out in yesterday's press conference (transcript here) -- there may well be other, more damning information that hasn't yet been declassified.
And then, it will once again be time to ask the Democratic senators and congressmen: Did you know all this, even as you repeatedly told Americans that the decision to go to Iraq was wrong, because there weren't any WMD's there?
[T]he shells were old and were not the suspected weapons of mass destruction sought in Iraq after the 2003 invasion.
That is likely to become the mantra of our friends on the left, as well, who are determined that no evidence be adduced or released that might possibly justify the invasion of Iraq. So it's worth figuring out exactly whether what's been found matters, and why.
Are the WMD precisely what we believed to be in Iraq? No. But that doesn't mean that the fact they're there isn't significant. It is. It tells us a number of things -- all of which reinforce the rightness of the decision to go to Iraq in 2003.
First, we know dispositively that the UN -- despite all its efforts -- was unable to find these caches in the years after the Gulf War. So where does that leave all the lefties, who are insisting that the weapons inspectors needed just a little more time?
Second, we know that Saddam Hussein deliberately concealed the weapons, and lied to the entire world about it -- in violation of numerous UN declarations (it's a surprise to me that liberals like Peter Beinart, who believe in reestablishing the UN as a source of authority, are so unhappy that the US put some teeth into the otherwise impotent declarations emanating from that body).
Third, we know that Saddam was eager to reconstitute his weapons programs after sanctions were lifted. The existing stockpiles would have made that task easier for him and more dangerous for the rest of us.
Fourth, we know that Saddam Hussein was an ally of al-Zarqawi, and we know what WMDs in his hands would have meant.
Finally, it's worth pointing out that before the lefties get too far down the "it doesn't matter" road, they might want to recall that -- as Senator Santorum pointed out in yesterday's press conference (transcript here) -- there may well be other, more damning information that hasn't yet been declassified.
And then, it will once again be time to ask the Democratic senators and congressmen: Did you know all this, even as you repeatedly told Americans that the decision to go to Iraq was wrong, because there weren't any WMD's there?
posted by LadybugUSA at 10:03 AM
17 Comments:
What is it you're fond of saying, Ditto?
"Move on, there's nothing to see here."
"...there MAY well be other, more damning information that hasn't yet been declassified." (emphasis added)
Carol, you are becoming increasingly desperate. Please breathe.
Most of us here, non-Dheads, know there were many many more reasons to go into Iraq than just WMD. And the breaking up of the largest international fraud in history (oil for food) was but one of the many many positive outcomes.
I can't be quantified, but I know in my heart that many many innocent lives have been spared because of the Islamic Jihadists that have been killed over there.
I also know, that many many brave American soldiers have lost their lives because of the defeatist attitudes in our MSM and blogosphere that encourage the terrorists to keep it up. I mean Kerry - July 1st, 2007, he wants to make that Jihadist independence day.
Carol Carol Carol,
You are EMBARRASSING YOURSELF. If you want a decent career in ten years then START READING CREDIBLE SOURCES about this subject.
FACT - The Iraq Survey Group, a group set up by the PENTAGON, investigated Iraq in the aftermath of the war and concluded that there were NO WMD IN IRAQ.
Copioneer,
There would be NO so called "Jihadists" running around Iraq had America not invaded.
"I can't be quantified, but I know in my heart that many many innocent lives have been spared because of the Islamic Jihadists that have been killed over there."
Trust your feelings. Whatever you do, never trust in facts.
There are plenty of people around the world who know in their heart that the world is flat. The fact that they honestly and earnestly believe this does not make them right.
Salient,
You can do better than this. I've seen it.
"ISG states there are NO WMD in Iraq."
The CIA said it was a "Slam Dunk". Can you use one of these statements to support an argument without considering the other?
"There would be NO so called "Jihadists" running around Iraq had America not invaded."
What were the terrorist traing camps there for? Why was Zarqawi receiving medical attention in Sadaam's hospitals?
"There are plenty of people around the world who know in their heart that the world is flat."
Really?
"The fact that they honestly and earnestly believe this does not make them right."
Now you may be onto something. The probelm is I'm not so sure even the radical left "honestly" believes some of the drivel they're spouting.
As Dick Cheney would say, "Carol is in her final throes."
"Chief weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer, has now issued a comprehensive report that confirms the earlier conclusion of David Kay that Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there."
George W. Bush
October 2004
The President doesn't even believe these were the weapons that our intelligence believed were there. Carol, maybe you and Greg should grill the President as to why he lied to the American people about this.
So, in your view, Bush knew they weren't there, but said they were anyway?
It seems that, post-Clinton, y'all have been just champing at the bit to call someone a liar...
Twister,
It seems to me you've got your logic backwards again. You're quoting Duelfer saying there are NO WMD in an attempt to "prove" there are no WMD in Iraq.
Doesn't it actually work the other way around? Isn't it true that having actually found WMD in Iraq proves that Deulfer was mistaken?
Or, according to leftist logic, doesn't that make Duelfer a liar?
I think you should believe the actual facts on the ground rather than reports from weapons inspectors past (Blix, etc.) or even those who have spoken using those reports as the foundation of their statements (Bush).
The facts on the ground are that WMD HAVE BEEN FOUND in Iraq.
I don't fault former weapons inspectors for not finding them. I don't fault those in leadership positions for relying on those earlier reports.
But I do fault anyone who, now that WMD HAVE BEEN FOUND in Iraq, still claims that there are no WMD in Iraq.
Again, to answer your question, I say believe the facts on the ground: WMD HAVE BEEN FOUND in Iraq.
And in a perfect world the 500 odd shells would be the only 500 odd shells to be found, and the good guys will have found them all before the Qaeda-types.
Greg is apparently having trouble with his reading comprehension again. He writes, "It seems to me you've got your logic backwards again. You're quoting Duelfer saying there are NO WMD in an attempt to 'prove' there are no WMD in Iraq."
No, I've quoted the President of the United States of America admitting that the WMD we went to war over weren't there. The President made this statement more than a year after this latest batch of shells was purportedly found.
I'm sorry that including the name and the date wasn't enough to provide you a bit of a clue.
eLarson wrote, " So, in your view, Bush knew they weren't there, but said they were anyway?"
No, the President explicitly acknowledged (a year after the shells making news currently were found) that Iraq didn't have WMD.
Carol may believe this bogus story. All y'all may lap up the big plate of poo Carol served up. The President, however, is one of the vast majority who doesn't believe it.
Greg, who apparently thinks capitalization makes him appear more intelligent writes, "Again, to answer your question, I say believe the facts on the ground: WMD HAVE BEEN FOUND in Iraq."
Greg, these "WMD" that "HAVE BEEN FOUND" in Iraq, first turned up in 2003. (Only the report has recently been declassified.)
A year AFTER the "WMD HAVE BEEN FOUND" in Iraq, President George W/ Bush said, "Chief weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer, has now issued a comprehensive report that confirms the earlier conclusion of David Kay that Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there."
Greg, I know you need a willing suspension of disbelief to digest most of the poo Carol shovels your way, but please try to comprehend this one very simple fact...
Even the President who led us into war over purported Iraqi WMD doesn't agree with your "facts on the ground."
Just to keep a full accounting, these "WMD" were discussed in the Deulfer report. Here's the relevant passage...
While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible Indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered.
The President agreed that these were not the weapons we thought were there.
I see why you call yourself "Twister"...
No, the President explicitly acknowledged (a year after the shells making news currently were found) that Iraq didn't have WMD
So what are you saying? By saying claiming that Bush "lied us into a war" (and, oh boy, isn't sweet to get to call a Republican president a liar after 8 years of hearing it about Clinton?), you are categorically asserting that Bush knew full-well that there were none, but told us all there were.
And why? Why in the HELL would anyone do that?
eLarson, you are a despicable, lying, right wing pile of poo.
I wrote, "Even the President who led us into war over purported Iraqi WMD..."
eLarson quotes me as saying, "claiming that Bush 'lied us into a war'..."
eLarson then goes off onto some completely pointless tirade based on my use of the word "lied".
Way to go eLarson, your fine work has earned you a coveted Platt-Liebau award (a Carol) for your "inventive" use of facts to bolster your argument.
Ad-hominem bullshit aside, I stand corrected. You never claimed Bush Lied.
Post a Comment
<< Home