Wayne already wrote you a good reply...
Be sure to read my reply to Wayne.
...but I'll add that, as a friend pointed out to me, it is known that chemical and biological agents can exist in very small packages easily moved around, and we gave Saddam plenty of time to move the stuff.
I pretty much covered that in my reply to Wayne, but let me ask the question in another way:
Do you think that Saddam is the only possible source of WMD for terrorists? What is Iraq? The Walmart of WMD? And as you say a potent weapon can be put in a very small package indeed. Do you know what your neighbor has in his garage? Timothy McVeigh didn't need to cavort with Saddam to make his bomb.
Add to this the fact that in combination with fertilizer, various forms of WMD's can be created.
You're shitting me!
During our initial main push in Iraq, we discovered Tons of fertilizer...not where it might be expected...but instead seemingly needlessly well hidden.
Must have been some powerful shit! Hidden fertilizer...I missed that story. Newsmax?
It truly is plausible that the media fails to put 2 & 2 together here.
It's not the media's job to put 2 and 2 together...that's the CIA's job.
Last I knew those trailers remain controversial for a number of reasons. As I recall, certain Iraqi parties tried to run, i.e. drive of and escape with the things, when approached.
The Iraqis were looting anything of value. If it wasn't nailed down it was fair game.
But more, the weather balloon explanation given by those on your side simply isn't a reasonable explanation for their existence. Too complex, unnecessary, and expensive for the purpose.
Explanation given by my side? ROTFLMAO! That was the reason given by the Iraqis who were captured. And this was verified by the CIA. Are you trying to say that the CIA is a left wing organization now! You must have missed Powell's apology for believing the Iraqi informant "Curveball". The CIA called Cheney and warned him that the evidence of the trailers being mobile labs was not credible.
But regardless of that, my bottom line is I've every reason to believe Saddam and his sentiments posed a real threat. As Bush said at the time of his State of the Union Address given in 2003, in so many words, to wait until an obvious threat is imminent, is to wait too long. I do find that compelling given the nature of those who want to kill us.
Then why are we waiting to do the something about China, NK, Iran and Syria? All have WMD...and all likely have a motive to attack the US. Are we going to wait for these countries to go imminent?
That argument doesn't hold water, because terror can be inflicted easily and continuously by anyone so motivated. Attacking Iraq will not help to prevent a terrorist attack on the homeland.
Orca |
