Originally posted by: Zut50
The recent discovery by the Bush administration's Iraq Survey Group (ISG) is fueling speculation, but is not proof, that the Iraqi dictator moved prohibited weapons of mass destruction (WMD) into Syria before the March 2003 invasion by a U.S.-led coalition.
What part of 'Iraq did not have any WMD' don't you understand? If the democrats were in power and presented this I wonder which side of the debate you'd be on then?
They wouldn't. That's the problem. I was clamoring for Clinton to do something more about bin Laden and others while in office and wished he actually had. I don't have a problem with Democrats as people. I have a fundemental problem with how most of them see the world. It's alot of "let build coalitions and talk and build treaties with friendship and cooperation" but when you actually ask many of them to DO something, nothing happens. All the while we watch WTC 93, the African Embassy bombings, the USS Cole, and 9/11 on the news.
I realize perfectly well that it's not proof, but you know what, it's kinda suspect that German, Russian, and French intellegence were telling all of them the same thing our intellegence was telling us. It's much more damning that there are literally tons of precursor materials all over Iraq locked up in ammo dumps that nobody in the press wants to acknowledge, even if David Kay did on Congressional record (see below 1). It's also pretty damning that the findings of the bipartisan Congressional 9/11 panel stated that evidence actually does support the fact that Saddam really was trying to broker deals for nuclear elements (see below 2). It's pretty damning that Saddam was paying the family of terrorists in Palestine $25,000 each to blow up Israelis.
There are all kinds of things out there that aren't defacto proof, but when you start putting them all together, some of us start to feel more strongly than ever that "something is rotten in Denmark." And all of this after Saddam had 11 years to hide this stuff and/or move it around.
1. A report on various things the press didn't cover about David Kay's testimony before Congress.
. Included is the pesticide claims and some interpretations of this information. It doesn't paint a rosy picture and it sure isn't vindication for Saddam.
2. From the Senate's Report on the Niger Incident.
. This starts on page 72:
(U) Conclusion 12. Until October 2002 when the Intelligence Community obtained the forged foreign language documents on the Iraq-Niger uranium deal, it was reasonable for the analysts to assess that IRaq may have been seeking uranium from Africa based on CIA reporting and other available intelligence.
(U) Conclusion 13. The report on the former ambassador's [Joseph Wilson] trip to Niger, disseminated in March 2002, did not change any analysts' assessments of the Iraq-Niger Uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original CIA reports on the uranium deal, the State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research analysts believed that the report supported their assessment that Nigher was unlikely to willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq.
It goes on to talk about how the CIA later had evidence their intelligence was wrong, but continued to allow the Bush administration to use the faulty information for speeches. It also notes that there is an FBI investigation into whether or not this was done on purpose as part of a "misinformation campaign." This is probably the continuing investigation as to whether the Bush admin was responsible for this but you'll notice they haven't found anything yet one way or the other.
Regardless, the Butler Inquiry
in England showed that the British didn't have these forged documents and their assessment was found to be spot on, which backs up Bush's contested "16 words" from his State of the Union address.
Oh and lest we forget the two tons of uranium
we removed from Iraq. No, it's not weapons grade, but you don't need that for a dirty bomb now do you?
The point is, there are all sorts of damning things we've found in Iraq that say he had the capabilities to make something nasty after the UN left him alone. Bush didn't allow that to happen and now those things are being found. Furthermore, you can read what Bush actually said about imminent threats.
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.
Bush said Saddam was a threat because he was trying to get them, not because he 100% had them.