whitehouse.gov
Hey, whatta ya know. It's a Dick Cheney 2002 speech before the VFW 103rd National Convention. Let's examine some of his excerpts:
>>>"...The Iraqi regime has in fact been very busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents. And they continue to pursue the nuclear program they began so many years ago. These are not weapons for the purpose of defending Iraq; these are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam can hold the threat over the head of anyone he chooses, in his own region or beyond..."<<<
Saddam's regime "has in fact been very busy." Really? Hmmm. Saddam's regime must have been so busy that they entirely forgot to twice use these weapons defensively when the US twice invaded.
Anyone else find it ironic no Arab nation in Saddam's own region supported Bush's war, or wanted Bush's war, that the Arab League opposed it? But I guess it was nice of Cheney to speak on behalf of the region. After all, he was only trying to coddle some US war veterans into supporting yet another war campaign.
>>>"....But we now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. Among other sources, we've gotten this from the firsthand testimony of defectors -- including Saddam's own son-in-law, who was subsequently murdered at Saddam's direction. Many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon...."<<<
Interesting to see Cheney quoting Saddam's son-in-law, Kamel, in order to drum up war support from our veterans. If Cheney knew then, from Kamel, that Saddam was closer than thought to nuclear back in the late '80s, why didn't Cheney also disclose the other very important part to what Kamel stated: that Iraq had destroyed virtually all of its WMD after the first Gulf War?
So let's take a quick poll: Was Cheney honest, or misleading with this information? Why did he use half of Kamel's information but not disclose the other half?
fair.org
globalresearch.ca
>>>".... Saddam also devised an elaborate program to conceal his active efforts to build chemical and biological weapons. And one must keep in mind the history of U.N. inspection teams in Iraq. Even as they were conducting the most intrusive system of arms control in history, the inspectors missed a great deal. Before being barred from the country, the inspectors found and destroyed thousands of chemical weapons, and hundreds of tons of mustard gas and other nerve agents...."<<<
Rolf Ekeus, former chief UN weapons inspector, stated during his May 23rd, 2000 Harvard presentation: "I would say that we felt that in all areas we have eliminated Iraq's capabilities fundamentally." This statement appears in George
Gedda, "Iraqi Weapons Issue Under Wraps," The Associated Press, August 16, 2000.
Moreover, how can the UN weapons inspection team which--under then UN chief weapons inspector, Richard Butler--voluntarily withdrew from Iraq at Clinton's 1998 pre-bombing urging, be assigned the Cheney status of "barred?" And why was Bush so fond of saying "Saddam kicked out the inspectors...?" And how did Cheney know the inspectors missed a great deal? If they did, where is it? Cheney must have, conveniently, ignored Kamel's statement relative to the UN weapons inspectors: "You should not underestimate yourself, you are very effective in Iraq."
>>>".... Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us. And there is no doubt that his aggressive regional ambitions will lead him into future confrontations with his neighbors -- confrontations that will involve both the weapons he has today, and the ones he will continue to develop with his oil wealth...."<<<
What damage could possibly have resulted from the weapons Saddam had on hand at the time of the second US invasion? I think, in the thick of battle, he did manage to take down part of a Saudi mall with a missle that was shot across a water channel from southern Iraq.
>>>....Regime change in Iraq would bring about a number of benefits to the region. When the gravest of threats are eliminated, the freedom-loving peoples of the region will have a chance to promote the values that can bring lasting peace. As for the reaction of the Arab "street," the Middle East expert Professor Fouad Ajami predicts that after liberation, the streets in Basra and Baghdad are "sure to erupt in joy in the same way the throngs in Kabul greeted the Americans." Extremists in the region would have to rethink their strategy of Jihad. Moderates throughout the region would take heart. And our ability to advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process would be enhanced, just as it was following the liberation of Kuwait in 1991...."<<<
OK, think of what Cheney said above and then read this:
msnbc.msn.com |
