January 01, 2005

WMD"s Random thoughts

I keep hearing the same old tired meme from the Leftist Moonbat Brigades that there haven't been any WMD's found in Iraq, thus President Bush is a liar and probably Hitler incarnate.

The Moonbats keep throwing around numbers of upwards of 100,000+ Iraqis killed by the vicious American Armed Services, never mind that they can't cite any reliable sources for these numbers.

Some on the Left have gone so far as to equate the "insurgent's" in Iraq with the Minutemen of the Revolutionary War.

The Left claim that President Bush rushed to war without even trying to get the rest of the world on board, disregarding the facts that:

A:Saddam had violated the terms of the cease fire from the Trip to the Sandbox 1, and thus we were not starting a new war at all, but finishing the old one.

And B: we had obtained no less than 14 UN resolutions, none of which Saddam had acceded too.

AND C: It was shown at the time, and and has since been graphicly proven by the Oil for Food scandals that those countries that the Left think HAD to sign on to make the invasion "legal" (IE France, Germany, and Russia) were actually profiting by illicit oil deals with the Iraqi regime, as did some of the top leaders in the UN itself, ergo there would NEVER have been agreement to go into Iraq from that putrid body of self serving, dictator loving, misery abetting collection of waste of human protoplasm on the Hudson.

Ok... the left says "where are the WMD's?" First of all, Saddam had had enough time in the run-up to hostilities to hide/move everything he had five times over. There are those (unconfirmed) intelligence reports about convoys of trucks into Syria.

Not to mention the fact that we did find warehouse after warehouse that did contain conventional weapons of types that Saddam was not supposed to have possesed any longer.

Remember that 320 TONS of high explosives that we supposedly weren't guarding well enough to prevent their theft? The left says "No weapons" and then blames our soldiers because weapons materials were stolen? Can't have it both ways people. Those explosives were of a type that are only useful in high grade weapons systems and atomic research. And they were gone before we reached them. He moved this material, who's to say what else had been moved/hidden/exported?

In trying to do some research for this screed, I came across an article done in Newsmax on Oct. 8, 2004 where they had found a 500 TON stockpile of Uranium. This was the first time I'd heard of that. WHY wasn't it reported all over the MSM?

Remember that one of the reasons for the Cause Belli was to stop Saddam BEFORE he became too great a threat. I think that the Uranium stockpile in and of itself are prima facia eveidence that President Bush was correct in his assesment that Saddam was a threat that would only become more serious and dangerous to stop without action being taken as soon as feasible.

The Left would say, why Iraq, why not North Korea? I would say that if we had waited, Iraq would have had the same nuclear deterrant factor that precludes the same type of action in N.K. at the moment. As one expert put it:

"You have a warehouse containing 500 tons of natural uranium; you need 25 kilograms of U235 to build one weapon. How many nuclear weapons can you build? The answer is 142."

Saddam had at least some of the components to enable him to enrich that Uranium, and was working to complete the means to do so, according to Dr. Mahdi Obeidi, who ran Saddam's nuclear centrifuge program until 1997.

So tell me, would YOU trust a man of Saddams history the means/time to become a nuclear power if you could prevent it? Or would you tell your constituants "oh sorry, I thought it would be ok, and I didn't want to be seen as a warmonger" after a nuclear weapon went off in downtown Manhatten? Yes it would have been years before it happened, you'd be out of office by the time it did happen, but isn't it your sworn responsibility to prevent it if you can?

Oh, and there were no ties between Saddam and Bin Ladin? (don't forget Salmon Pak!) Tell me...would YOU put up $60 million for a gift to demonstrate unity with someone you weren't at least thinking of allying with?

I sure could use an enemy that would pay me only $1 M just to shut me up! (Any of you Moonbats interested in shutting down my blog? Send me a certified check and it's a done deal!)

So Saddam, left to work unopposed, would have become a nuclear power, he did have at least speaking ties with Al Qiada and certainly supported other terrorist organizations (remember, HE was paying $25,000 per family of suicide bombers for Hamas in Israel)

He could have provided nuclear weapons to terrorists.
Speculative? Yes, at the time we invaded, but given the stakes, would you bet YOUR childs life he wouldn't do so? Was the war preemptive? yes! But remember the rules of evidence used in law; if a person has the means, the motive and makes plausible threats to do so, it can be grounds to convict. When the stakes are so high, I prefer to err on the side of caution, the alternative if your wrong are just too great to bear.

As many problems as I do have with President Bush on many other issues, I'm grateful that he is a man with a clear understanding of the danger we face from Islamoterrorism, and the guts to actually do something about it other than just talking about it.

Posted by Delftsman3 at January 1, 2005 05:33 PM

re: "Oh, and there were no ties between Saddam and Bin Ladin? (don't forget Salmon Pak!)"

Alas, the left has worked very hard to dismiss Salmon Pak. Every time I bring it up on a board, some Moonbat comes along and shrugs it off. Never mind that it was IRAQIS who told us that al Qaeda were training there! That was what gave it such a ring of truth to me. Iraqis who worked there in clerical and services jobs said that they were forbidden to speak to al Qaeda. That rings SO true to me! After all, Saddam would want to support "the enemy of my enemy"... but wouldn't want his own people contaminated with their sick philosophies. That bit about not being allowed to speak to al Qaeda was what sold me!

Posted by: mamapajamas at January 2, 2005 07:32 AM

The left will do anything to hid the facts.They just cant abide by the fact that we are doing something decent in Iraq and not exploiting the place.Check out my fisk of Boobert Mcllend at Blog-gig Him and dumb yeah are my only posters lol Cheers and Happy New Years to you ,Mama,and Anna

Posted by: LCNEilV at January 2, 2005 01:28 PM

Like a child's security blanket, the left can't leave their playbook behind when they venture out.

Posted by: Jack at January 2, 2005 07:48 PM

I have found that without a few rants or pre-fab complaints the left have nothing to talk about. Try as they may, theirs will never be a Grand Old Party.

SlagleRock Out!

Posted by: SlagleRock at January 3, 2005 12:37 AM

Yeah but ya have to admit, they're fun to play with.

Posted by: Satan at January 5, 2005 04:49 PM

I'd like to say two things. First, the Bush administration has told so many lies leading up to the war that it has lost all credibility as a source. The best example is Powell's UN presentation. I've read accounts by UN inspectors and have personally met a UN inspector. Both say that Powell's account was not merely false--it was ludicrous. (One has to smile at the idea that Saddam was hiding a missile launcher the size of a football stadium and the UN inspectors--who could fly anywhere instantly without notification--somehow couldn't find it!) Secondly, regarding the Al Qaeda link: it's hard to understand why Saddam--the great secularist of the Islamic world--would cooperate with a group of radicals trying to create a pan-Islamic caliphate. I'm sure that at some point people's paths may have crossed. By the same token, I'm sure that US intelligence meets with all sorts of creeps all the time (Challabi--a convicted felon, for example, or Allawi--who our CIA says was a hitman).

Posted by: Karlo at January 5, 2005 10:01 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?