Wednesday, June 29, 2005

WMD: Saddam was the WMD

To Matt Hurley's post (9/11 and Saddam), one should also add:

(+)

  • Saddam repeatedly violated the Persian Gulf War cease-fire agreement by firing on U.S. fighter jets patrolling the no-fly zone.
  • The attempted assassination of former President Bush; which incidentally was convincing enough for Clinton to launch retaliatory attacks.
  • The Joint Resolution authorized by Congress (voted for by both Republicans and Democrats):

    Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;


  • Then read in its entirety the President's explanation of his attack on Iraq where he states:

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Oh, by the way...that's President Clinton talking in 1998. Pesky little things those facts.

Rush said it best today on his radio show when he suggested the George W. Bush should admit his mistake. His mistake was believing the Democrats when they said they would support the Iraq War effort by voting for it in the joint resolution and then wanting to turn tail and run when things got a bit dicey.

Update: This from NRO's Media Blog (Hat Tip: Kevin Holtsberry Dot Com) is a slam dunk argument if ever there was one:

Osama bin Laden hated the United States because of the presence of our military in Saudi Arabia — a presence necessitated by the brutal, expansionist nature of the dictator next door. Military bases in Saudi Arabia, economic sanctions against Iraq and enforcement of the no-fly zones were all part of an Iraq policy that failed us on September 11. After 9/11, we had two choices to remedy that failed policy: disengage from Iraq and leave Saddam free to develop weapons, massacre the Kurds and the Shiites, and attack his neighbors; or undertake efforts to change the regime, a goal of U.S. policy since the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act.


Update 2: Powerline has also caught on to the Democrats' hypocrisy alluded to above with the Iraq War Resolution.

Update 3: The Iraq - al Qaeda Link

Update 4: ABC News claims Saddam-al Qaida link

2 Comments:

Blogger geoff said...

One problem about Al-Qaeda being in Iraq before the war: their camps were in the northern no-fly zone, where Saddam had no authority and no ability to strike without our interference. Also--the much-touted mass graves were from the early '90s and were largely a result of the US military standing down (on Bush I's orders) while Saddam buthchered Shia insurgents trying to overthrow his ass after Bush incited them to revolt.

Sorry to be contrary, I'm simply old enough to remember when Conservatives thought Saddam was a great guy and a friend worthy of our support (even AFTER he used WMD "against his own people"--who was his major supporter at the time? THE US--so why don't we put the morons who thought that was a good idea in JAIL?). These goofballs (amongst them Cheney and Rumsfeld) are the same jerks who helped arm and train the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan (Reagan called them "freedom fighters") and turned a bunch of fanatics sitting in caves into Al-Qaeda in the first place.

I'm a "liberal" who, like traditional "liberals," is all for overthrowing dictators and replacing them in nation-buidling exercises with more palatable regimes. Conservatives traditionally are against such BS. Why the change? 9-11 is a valid reason. But even Conservatives have to admit that this war is not running as well as it should have been, and the Administration takes no blame and fires no one--oh, wait. They DID fire Lawrence Lindsay for suggesting the war would cost $500 billion (he was right). Oh, and they also fired Paul O'Neill for saying the Iraq war was a bad idea. They only fire people who are CORRECT.

How to win this war? Call for general sacrifice, call for more enlistment amongst war supporters, call for people to buy bonds and stop using gas so much--"go shop" is all we heard from Bush after 9/11.

And here is video of Rice and Powell declaring in 2001 that Saddam was contained and had no WMD and was no threat to anyone! Hmmm...

Unfortunately ideologues of both political affiliations in the US refuse to care about bad behavior perpetrated by those with whom they share ideological affinities.

June 29, 2005 at 5:17 PM  
Blogger Porkopolis said...

Geoff:

No apology needed to be contrary. Discussion and debate for settling differences is still a viable option inspite of all the war in the world.

As for no connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, I'll refer you to Saddam's al Qaeda Connection.

Support of Saddam (appropriations voted on by Congress) was against the Iranians...the ones that illegally took U.S Hostages from our Embassy during the Carter Administration. You offer no proof that the gasing of the Kurds was official U.S. government property.

The Mujahadeen were fighting against the Soviet invasion and deserved our support then (all appropriations approved by Congress) and also deserved to be crushed under our boot when they transformed into the Taliban and supported Al-Qaeda.

The video clip you reference is very curious. It doesn't share the actual question posed to either Powell or Rice for context and appears to cut them off in mid-stream of their responses.

Their statements are not necessarily inconsistent with the position that Saddam may have been neutered militarily, put still a potent force from a terrorist support viewpoint, which became the major concern after 9/11 and was expressed in the Joint Resolution.

Your "go-shop" reference is disingenuous and the facts don't support it.

Your comments don't address the basic facts offered about the Joint Resolution and/or Clinton's statements and actions.

June 29, 2005 at 6:41 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home