Saddam's Atom Bomb
Wait a minute. I thought, according to our friends on the left, that Iraq didn't pose a threat to the U.S. So what's this? The New York Times admitting -- in as obfuscatory a mannter as possible -- that there were plans for an Iraqi atom bomb?
Here's a key paragraph:
Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq had abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.
So here's what the liberals at the Times want everyone to believe: A regime that had nuclear weapons plans that were so detailed that posting them poses a security threat nonetheless should have been allowed to remain in power -- in a post 9/11 world. Right?
Here's a key paragraph:
Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq had abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.
So here's what the liberals at the Times want everyone to believe: A regime that had nuclear weapons plans that were so detailed that posting them poses a security threat nonetheless should have been allowed to remain in power -- in a post 9/11 world. Right?
posted by LadybugUSA at 9:07 AM
6 Comments:
Well, let's not forget that the left-wing in the UN, Europe and elsewhere were getting nice benefits out of the Oil-for-Food "program". So, yes, the lefties are mad at the U.S. for stopping that. Who cares if Saddam had an A-Bomb? He'd have either dropped it on Kurds, Iran or Isreal, so what harm is there to the U.S.?
sheesh
Leave it up to VDH to really clarify Iraq. Brilliant!
The US waited and Tojo acted. This time the US did not wait and Saddam did act on his threats.
Great VDH essay, COPioneer. I agree. Brilliant! The litany of reasons for our invasion should be posted in conspicuous places, so that the libs can't forget them. They'll ignore them, but they won't forget them.
Saddam Hussein was decades from building a nuclear weapon that he could have detonated with thermonuclear certainty. The essence of the article is in this comment:
A senior American intelligence official who deals routinely with atomic issues said the documents showed “where the Iraqis failed and how to get around the failures.” The documents, he added, could perhaps help Iran or other nations making a serious effort to develop nuclear arms, but probably not terrorists or poorly equipped states. The official, who requested anonymity because of his agency’s rules against public comment, called the papers “a road map that helps you get from point A to point B, but only if you already have a car.”
Many nations have the same plans that were posted on this now defunct site, but it does not mean they have a burgeoning nuclear program. Also what of the back dating of documents? We know that prior to the Gulf War the Iraqi regime sought WMD his ability to bring these wishes to reality were hamstrung due primarily to poor science and poor equipment quality. North Korea has nuclear weapons and the most advanced program in the "Axis of Evil" yet no action was taken against them as a potential proliferator post 9/11.
This is because:
1) Such an act would have cost tens of thousands of American lives, thus it would have been political suicide even if it would have been the right course for America.
2)A cruise missile strike on North Korea would not have offered the atmosphere of political payback for major Bush administration supporters, Bechtel, parsons, halliburton, Fluor et cetera that a protracted campaign of reverse seige ( American sealing itself behind the walls of the Green Zone) provided.
3) North Korea does not have the energy resources America could exploit if their campagin went well.
4) Kim Jong Il and his people were not racially equipped to play the Bguiman that Arab Ba'athist Saddam Hussein's regime were in a post 9/11 Muslim hating world.
All of this folly can be fixed however and it can be called Bush derangement syndrom or anything you like. The real issue is that the Americans I have spoken with want change not ideology, action, not talking points and ethics not mealy mouthed lip service to "family values". America needs oversight first and a return to the center like that propoed by Senator John Danforth in his groundbreaking book "Faith and Politics".
Conservatism is not a dead political position but what is seen by millions of people today in America as conservatism is nothing more that the most brutish of billy club and gunboat patriotism mixed with cultish religious fervor driven by men like Ted Haggard who themselves are living a lie.
I can only hope that people do go out and vote this coming Tuesday and vote for a change that can steer America back toward bipartisan good government and away from the Rove-Haggard-Cheney troika of hackery, hypocrisy, and hubris.
C.E.
I'm sorry Cav. Exactly what office was Haggard elected to? I don't even remember his campaign.
I would also say that the N Korea had nukes argument is lame, considering the difference in the situation. Hussein had already proven his desire to support terror, attack a US president, invade his neighbors, kill his own people, shoot at American planes patrolling the no-fly zone, ignore UN resolutions, etc, etc, etc. Input by China would have been quite negative following an air strike, which would have been premature considering the extent of Korea's nuclear program was uncertain. To say that all those companies and supporters are in it for cash is libelous and without support. To say we're in it for oil is childish naivete. To throw race into the mix is even more so. Thus, I don't see that you have the insight to determine folly and I'm suspicious of any American you would talk to, or rather would talk to you. The real issue is that Americans don't want to be blown up and the Dems, the only available alternative to the status quo, are woefully insufficient to allay those fears.
Post a Comment
<< Home