SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: PROLIFE who wrote (652180)10/27/2004 1:41:57 PM
From: pompsander  Read Replies (3) of 769670
 
Here's the problem with the weapons issue....even given the best possible spin to the GWB side of things.

1. One of the most recently given reasons for going into IRAQ was that we wanted to keep "weapons out of the hands of terrorists".

2. The weapons in question were under the control of Saddam's military...they were inventoried, tracked and stamped by the UN. We knew what existed and where it was. They were not in the hands of terrorists, nor were they going to be...ever...unless you buy into the idea that Saddam was providing such weapons to terrorists....no substantiation for this in any reports or studies....only connection between Saddam and terrorists was "not operational".

3. U.N. weapons inspectors on the ground saw the stuff in January, properly stored and catalogued.

So, if we don't invade Iraq, that is how things would have stayed.

4. But then everything changed. We ordered out the weapons inspectors. Chain of control disrupted.

5. When it is clear U.S. is coming in, come what may, something happens to the material. Whether before our troops reach the site or after....there is a result that would not have happened otherwise. Which is...

6. The stuff is lost, gone...unaccounted for. Whereabouts unknown.

GWB says it is not his fault. Things happen in war. But at some point you have to say what if we had given the inspectors more time? Invaded later or not at all? Tightened the noose in other ways? Would we have the same result as we have today? Would the weapons be in the hands of "terrorists" or insurgents, probably being used against our troops and who knows where else?

So,
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News