Hi michael97123; Re: "Carl just guessed but had no explanation at that time."
It was simple. The UN was going to authorize an invasion of Iraq if Saddam did not get rid of his WMDs. It's only logical to conclude that he would get rid of them.
This is fairly simple logic, and I was not the only person who propounded it. The reason it was ignored is that Bush used swore to us that he had secret proof that Saddam had WMDs. Bush was a fool, but 99.9% of the human population are fools, so they were reduced to using the only logic a fool can use, "who would you believe, Bush or Saddam".
Did Bush believe that Saddam had WMDs? Anyone who has extensively traded the stock market knows that a fool believes what he wants to believe, so I suspect that Bush did believe. And now, I suspect that Bush believes that he has a plan to win the war in Iraq.
But Bush is a fool, so why should you trust his plan to win in Iraq now, when your trust in his judgement on WMDs turned to dust?
Re: "Did scientists lie to saddam to save their ass?"
I doubt that many scientists told Saddam any such thing. What they would have told him is something like "look, we can get a WMD program started if you will just give me the spending authority." What Saddam said to them was something like "Sorry but with sanctions, we barely have enough money to keep our conventional forces ready, we just don't have the money to pursue expensive programs to develop weapons that may not work."
Better that you consider the motivation David Kay would have for saying that significant numbers of scientists were lying to Saddam. That's right, David Kay is lying to save Bush's ass.
Re: "Was saddam embarrassed to admit to arab world that he succumbed to western pressure and destroyed them?"
Saddam repeatedly told the world that Iraq had no WMDs. He asked for inspectors to return, (without the CIA spies). When inspectors did return, they were given free run of the country. Logically, the only reasonable conclusion is that Saddam knew that there were no WMDs to find.
-- Carl |
