The Liberal View of the WMD Controversy

[Walter]

Richard (can't say Di*k on this board - it get's censored) Gephart and Howard Dean agree on one thing, this is clearly what Maddas was thinking!

[ItWillNeverWork]

But if saddam admitted he had no weapons left he would lose his position in the middle east as the regional hardman. His neighbouring countries, who all absolutley hated him, would then be more willing to take action against him.

Obviously Saddam wouldnt like that to happen and so it is perfectly plausable that he pretended to still have remaining WMD's.

I'm not saying that I believe completley that he was pretending, untill a time when WMD's are found we will never know, but it isnt as silly a theory as you make out.

[Walter]

That's a stretch. It was very clear after 1441 that such a stance would have serious consequences.

That means Maddas had to decide whether the threat from his neighbors was more imminent than the UN threat (with US backing).

If he concluded that he's more afraid of his neighbors, then he miscalculated the determination of the West.

Still sounds pretty dumb to me.

The only rationalization I can think of is that Maddas figured the peacenik libs in the US and Europe would stop enforcement of UN Res. 1441.

[ItWillNeverWork]

I guess it's somthing we'll never know. However, I still think it would have been wiser to give the UN inspecters the time they wanted in order to finish their job.

No-one likes war but sometimes it has to take place, problem is that we were led in earlier by politicians who overplayed the actual threat posed. If there was no immediate threat then why did we not wait a few months? Could have saved lives.

[MO]

Learning From the Pros

Sen. Hillary Clinton and former-President Bill Clinton are among the chief critics of the administration's handling of Iraq. Together with former-Secretary of State Madeline Albright, Sen. Carl Levin, Al Gore, and other prominent Democrats, they have launched a vicious campaign to discredit the administration of George W. Bush.

They now charge that, in reality, there never were any weapons of mass destruction. They say both the CIA and the president lied. They charge it was all concocted to make Dick Cheney and his friends at Halliburton rich.

They surely sound different than they did when they were facing the same Saddam Hussein that George Bush just deposed.

Just listen to what Bill Clinton said on Feb. 17, 1998, just before he ordered Operation Desert Fox against Saddam's Iraq: "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." He made this statement on a national broadcast.

At the time, Clinton's attack on Saddam's Iraq was being criticized as a "wag the dog" effort to deflect attention away from his scandals and upcoming impeachment.

Madeline Albright defended her boss, saying, "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

On Nov. 19, 1999, Albright told the world, "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

These are the warnings they gave America when they had the same intelligence access that the current administration has. The only thing that has changed is now they don't have access to the top-secret information the president has.

Clinton's national security adviser, Sandy Berger, justified the 1998 air war against Iraq by charging, "He [Saddam Hussein] will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has 10 times since 1983."

THESE ARE THE SAME WEAPONS THE DEMOCRATS NOW DENY EVER EXISTED.

Democratic Congressional Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi, has opposed the current war on Iraq from the beginning. But in 1998, she said, "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons-inspection process."

So what happened between 1998 and now? Did Saddam have a change of heart that everybody except the White House knew about? Was new intelligence uncovered that suggested that Saddam had abandoned his weapons programs?

Not according to the hugely partisan Senate Intelligence Committee. Democrat Sen. Carl Levin sits on that committee. In a letter to President Clinton signed by John Kerrey and Carl Levin, these two stalwarts pleaded, "[We] urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

And this was from Carl Levin and John Kerry – today's most persistent and vocal critics of President Bush and his policy that was based on Saddam's possession of weapons of mass destruction.

Their hypocrisy is almost beyond belief. They must think no one remembers their words of wisdom.

It is true that the Bush administration hasn't found Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. But if they deceived us about Iraq possessing them, they learned from the pros – the Clinton administration.

from: http:/hallindseyoracle.com/

[ItWillNeverWork]

It seems your democrats are as duplicitous as our 'labour' government then. My view about the overplaying of Iraqs threat does not come from the US political scene however.

I'm not sure how much coverage UK politics gets over in the US but Tony Blair has been through an extremley tough time. There has been cabinet resignations, suicides, inquiries and a lot of controversy about a claim, made in a septemer 2002 report by our government, that Iraq could have his WMD's ready within 45 minutes and that they posed a direct threat to us.

This now has turned out to be false and the truth was that the weapons posed no direct threat to our shores and that the 45 minutes reffered not to WMD's but to ordinary weaponry.

So, bearing in mind the reason our government gave us for going to war was saddams immediate threat, you can see why I hold the position I do.

The question is not 'Did Saddam once have weapons?' It is 'Did our government overplay the current threat in order to go to war earlier than was neccessary?'

[Walter]

Let's say on September 10, 2001 GWB had highly credible evidence that OBL was about to attack the USA on 9/11 and took pre-emptive action based on that evidence, wiped out OBL, arrested 25 potential highjackers and avoided the entire tragedy.

I can tell you the political reaction would be identical to yours...blame to GWB for having a thirst for conflict, dubious bases, etc., except that the furor would have been much, much worse because our collective psyche would not have been injured by the actual event.

Prevention is much better than reaction...although it can be political suicide.

Sorry...the war on Iraq was justified and the starter cartoon explains clearly why.

[ItWillNeverWork]

But Tony Blair did not have any "highly credible evidence" to suggest that saddam posed an immediate threat. Quite the contrary, the evidence that suggested there was no imediate threat.

Maybe in a years time it would have been neccesary to go to war but I was lied to by my elected leaders in order that I agreed to go to war. This is wrong, whatever spin is put on it.

[lordjulius7]

If Saddam was only pretending to have WMD, he wouldn't have needed to obstruct the inspectors. He could have allowed them to roam at will, secure in the knowledge they wouldn't find anything.

[ItWillNeverWork]

But the obstruction was all part of the pretence, infact it was the mainstay of his pretence.

Also lets not forget, it is the CIA who are putting forward this theory. The CIA are hardly what you might call liberal.

[lordjulius7]

It's only just dawned on you that Blair is a liar? If Blair announces it's raining, I put my umbrella back on the shelf and grab a short sleeved shirt. Of course he lied, the man doesn't know how to tell the truth.
But just because he couldn't resist keeping his hand in and exaggerating the imminence of the threat doesn't mean Saddam had no WMD at all, or that he was no threat. We know he had the weapons, and I simply can't buy the idea that he disarmed in secret then brought about his own destruction rather than admit so. More likely, the endless UN gabfest left him plenty of time to either hide them or ship them to other terror-supporting nations ( Syria, the Lebanon, France ). When the hammer finally came down, they were safely stashed.

[Walter]

The issue isn't the veracity of Blair or GWB, the issue is fundamental logic.

I would really like someone to develop a credible case for the point of view that Maddas did not pose a credible threat based on what everyone, including Clinton, Blix, Blair and Bush knew at the time.

So far IWNW presented the only such theory, that Maddas was more afraid of his neighbors than of the "West." That may well be the case, especially given the fantasy world his handlers created for Maddas.

However, that theory can explain only part of the issue presented in the cartoon. Maddas had to balance the two threats and the credibility of the threats for military action. It makes no sense for him to act as he ultimately did if he did not possess WMD's.

[ItWillNeverWork]

"I would really like someone to develop a credible case for the point of view that Maddas did not pose a credible threat based on what everyone, including Clinton, Blix, Blair and Bush knew at the time."

But regardless of whether or not saddam was pretending there was still evidence to show that he did not pose an immediate threat.

Arguing over whether Saddam was pretending or not is simply a side show, it is unimportant in the bigger picture. Firstly, because dictators are not especially known for making rational decisions. And Secondly but MOST IMPORTANTLY, the intelligence reports that our governments were given did not indicate an imminant threat. Full Stop.

[Walter]

"...there was still evidence to show that he did not pose an immediate threat."

What, exactly, was that evidence?

BTW, glad to see you signed on as a registered member of this Board. Welcome.

[lordjulius7]

"Arguing over whether Saddam was pretending or not is simply a side show"

Well, yes. But it was you who opened THAT particular can o'worms, mate.
Not an iminent threat? True. I, for one, never claimed he was. The sensible thing was to get rid of him BEFORE he became an iminent threat.
Indeed, though he wasn't an iminent threat to Britain or the US, he was most certainly an iminent threat to Israel, in that he was funding and enflaming the Palestinian attacks upon that state.
Moreover, his very survival in power threatened the west. Every year Saddam remained in power, defying the world, he encouraged every terrrorist group and every despot to believe that the west did not have the stomach to fight back. By dealing with him once and for all, we send a clear message to the rest of the middle east.