Let us revisit Iraq WMDs … again
By Tom Quiner
- Believed Saddam Hussein had WMDs
Here’s what the Quiner’s Diner reader said:
“Joe, from your link it seems you believe there were WMD under the control of the Iraqis. Really?”
The “really?” is the tip off that he is a member of the “Bush lied” crowd.
For the record, here is specifically what the President said:
“Saddam Hussein has huge stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons. And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he’ll use the arsenal.”
Only it wasn’t President Bush who spoke it. Thus spoke then President Clinton.
- Believed Saddam Hussein had WMDs
President Clinton’s thoughts on Mr. Hussein are worth revisiting in light of countless assertions that “Bush lied”. Before the U.S. invaded Iraq, most of the world, including Kofi Annan (then the Secretary-General of the United Nations) and current Secretary of State, John Kerry, believed Iraq housed weapons of mass destruction. To think otherwise, one had to assume Mr. Hussein destroyed the weapons, but didn’t report it to U.N. inspectors even though it would’ve gotten sanctions against Iraq lifted. That doesn’t make sense.
Hussein encouraged the belief that he possesses such weapons with statements like this, made in 20o0:
“Iraq will not disarm until others in the region do. A rifle for a rifle, a stick for a stick, a stone for a stone.”
- Believed Saddam Hussein had WMDs
Finally, in 2004 after his capture, Hussein acknowledged the truth about WMDs to FBI interrogator, George Piro. He said most of the weapons had been destroyed by United Nations weapons inspectors in the 90s. Iraq destroyed the rest themselves. But Hussein pretended he still had them. In his mind, that perception was critical to deter Iran from attacking Iraq:
“It was very important for him to project that because that was what kept him, in his mind, in power. That capability kept the Iranians away. It kept them from reinvading Iraq,” said Agent Piro.
Why, then, didn’t Hussein ‘fess up when he saw U.S. forces preparing to attack Iraq because of this very perception he had so carefully inculcated?
“… he told me he initially miscalculated President Bush. And President Bush’s intentions. He thought the United States would retaliate with the same type of attack as we did in 1998 under Operation Desert Fox. Which was a four-day aerial attack. So he expected that initially,” Piro says.
Bush-haters are uninterested in such evidence. Their mind is made up. But think about the logic they must employ.
In their mind, President Bush and Prime Minister Blair launched a war based on a lie (no weapons of mass destruction) that would soon reveal the lie when no such weapons were found. Doesn’t make sense.
If weapons HAD been found, the same people would probably have said that Bush planted the weapons to justify going to war against Iraq.
There are certainly honorable differences of opinion on whether the U.S. should have gone to war with Iraq. Let’s debate the merits of the war honestly and can the phony argument that President Bush lied. If he did, so did President Clinton.
[…] Source: Let us revisit Iraq WMDs … again […]
The biggest liberal lie other than Bush Jr. Destableized The Mid East by invading Iraq, Is that Isreal was behind 911, and materminded the whole thing, even though the pilots were of Arabic decent and had Arabic names, Israel somehow still gets blamed by libs
The ‘Blame Game’ certainly is played by the Left. Thanks for writing, Darrell.
Darrel, thank you for bringing Israel to our attention.The lies that the Democrats wielded about Bush and Israel have come back to haunt them. It is indeed the consensus of the Pentagon heads (albeit mostly made known after they retired) that the hasty removal of troops from Iraq by the current Commander-in-Chief is what destabilized the country to the point of inestimable damage to the entire Middle East! These Dems are really delusional.
Yes, they are. These are SERIOUS praying times! God help the USA, and bless Israel always! Amen.
Amen!
The “go to war with Iraq” bandwagon filled up quickly by the Democrats when it was convenient. Now it has become inconvenient for them so they default to the current relativism which is to attack Bush and the Republicans for their perfidies. “Whatever gets them through the night” is the practice of the Democrats’ religion. They are immature and set adrift from the truth. It was never (in the current iteration of the Democratic party) the truth that mattered. It was always about winning the election and ruling their world. The means of doing so never mattered to them. As they removed God from their consideration, they also stopped caring about the means of getting to their end.
The gullible and dumbed-down public swallow the party platform just as easily as sinners succumb to the devil. It becomes more slippery and easier the farther down they sink. That they don’t care about God is very telling and is a sign of rebellion against Him for what doesn’t feel good. That is called immaturity and emotionalism. The Dems are simply no longer able to mature, having been in default for so long against God. There does not seem to be an anthropological reason for this arrested development (mental and emotional), thus I believe what St. Paul says in Romans 1:18-32.
Your points are always well-stated. Thanks for writing.