Article

2004-01-24 Iraq

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2004-01-24 12:49:29 AM|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 "But clearly this is not the immediate threat many assumed before the war," he also said. "The WMD threat appears to have been longer term..."

The White House should have made this argument before the war. I think there's more than a few people eating crow in the administration right now.

Posted by Rafael 2004-1-24 7:35:59 AM|| 2004-1-24 7:35:59 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Not so sure myself.
Look, Saddam was a threat to us as well as his own people. Even if you disagree on the WMD issue, you have to admit that his removal was a good thing for the Iraqi people.

At best you can complain about being fooled into doing the right thing. Are you sure you want to make that case?

Posted by Ben 2004-1-24 8:00:12 AM|| 2004-1-24 8:00:12 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 I think the media in general is being incrediably transparent in its efforts to try to break apart and undermine the Allies.They constantly jump on the 'no WMD found' bandwagon but fail to realise if left unchecked Saddam would have reaquired these weapon and and lets face it he's used them before so he'll have no qualms about using them again.The media fail to realise he could also used WMD on a stratigic assymetrical attack on homeland America,think kinda Bin-Laden style but perhaps a bomb with chems in detonated in say Washington or New York.

Posted by Jon Shep U.K 2004-1-24 8:33:59 AM|| 2004-1-24 8:33:59 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 I still haven't seen where anyone in the Bush administration called Iraq an "immediate" or "iminent" threat. In fact, I remember Bush himself saying the threat was NOT iminent.

Why people keep CLAIMING he did is a mystery to me.

But Duelfer has one thing right -- Saddam still had a WMD program that he could have ramped up the minute sanctions were lifted. Remember, the people who wanted to keep Saddam in power were those who had claimed the sanctions had to be lifted for the good of Iraq's children...

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-1-24 10:11:47 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2004-1-24 10:11:47 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Most of the people in the world - including 100% of the "news professionals" in the United States, still don't see Bush's master plan to fight terror. What a bunch of dumba$$es.

You can pick at terror around the periphery, or you can get right in the middle of the entire terror network and fight from there. George Bush decided it wasn't worthwhile to try to fight terror from the fringes. The invasion of Iraq had a four-fold purpose:
1) Topple Hussein and end his terrorist regime;
2) Stop the potential development of WMD by the Iraqi regime, and keep such weapons out of the hands of terrorists;
3) Establish a base of operations in the heart of the terrorist-producing Middle East from which to operate;
and 4) use bases in that central location (Iraq) to attack terrorists and terror sponsors in Iran, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and in the newly-independent Muslim states in the southern portion of the old Soviet empire.

Very few Americans comprehend those last two goals, or understand their necessity. Terrorist leaders DO understand that if the United States establishes a firm hold in Iraq, the entire Middle East terror war against the "infidel" is doomed. That's why they keep sending in cannon fodder to disrupt the US activities. We need to keep whacking the "foreign jihadis", and choke off any internal support for them or their goals. If it means busting a few Imams and hanging them from lamp posts, so be it.

This is going to be a long war. It's best to fight from a position of strength within the heart of your enemy's territory than from far away. I just hope that the people involved don't lose sight of the overall goal: the destruction of militant islam. That's the only way any of the rest of us will ever be allowed to live in peace.

Posted by Old Patriot 2004-1-24 1:01:03 PM|| [http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm] 2004-1-24 1:01:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Old Patriot,
3&4 Were why I supported going into Iraq, from the pragmatic point of view.
1 should have been done in 1991. At least we corrected our error
The WMD thing never really had anything to do with my decision to support dropping the cease-fire and going back in.

Posted by Kathy K 2004-1-24 1:27:29 PM|| [site-essential.com/] 2004-1-24 1:27:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Ben, you're preaching to the choir :) It was a quiet hope of mine that WMD would be found, just to shut up the critics and anti-war crowd. I would have supported the war even without the WMD argument.
But anyone with several brain cells knows that what matters is the long term development capability of these WMD. Saddam would have been a constant threat and thorn in the side of the US. I just wish Duelfer had said this before the war. It's as if Bush was banking on finding something in Iraq, and he didn't. And now Duelfer will be viewed, by those with fewer than several brain cells, to be doing damage control.
I think it was David Spade who used a great analogy once: if you're hiding weed in your room, and your mother tells you she's going to inspect your room in one hour, guess what, there ain't gonna be any weed in your room when she gets there. (dedicated to Stevee).

Posted by Rafael 2004-1-24 1:53:58 PM|| 2004-1-24 1:53:58 PM|| Front Page Top

00:35 Silly Old Buffer
00:08 Mike Sylwester
23:10 Russell
23:07 Garrison
23:03 ed
22:55 whitecollar redneck
22:49 Gasse Katze
22:47 Gasse Katze
22:40 ed
22:35 Gasse Katze
22:15 mojo
22:09 mojo
22:01 phil_b
21:56 wuzzalib
21:43 mhw
21:15 phil_b
20:56 Cheddarhead
20:52 Cheddarhead
20:40 Stephen
20:25 Quana
20:20 gawdamman
20:19 gawdamman
20:03 Steve White
19:58 bartelson