So why did so many people in so many governments believe that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction?
Saddam Hussein allowed the world to believe he had weapons of mass destruction to deter rival Iran and did not think the United States would stage a major invasion, according to an FBI interrogator who questioned the Iraqi leader after his capture.
And that statement is from FoxNews, which got it from the Associated Press, which got it from CBS' 60 Minutes. No right-wing conspiracy here, certainly not with the inclusion of those last two sources.
The Associated Press spoke to a close aide of Saddam's in August 2003, who said that Saddam did not expect a U.S. invasion and deliberately kept the world guessing about his weapons program, although he already had gotten rid of it.
Saddam publicly denied having unconventional weapons before the U.S. invasion, but prevented U.N. inspectors from working in the country from 1998 until 2002 and when they finally returned in November 2002, they often complained that Iraq wasn't fully cooperating.
The Duelfer Report acknowledges that the program had been halted, but that Saddam was ready to reinstate it as soon as sanctions were lifted.
Piro (the interrogator) added that Saddam had the intention of restarting an Iraqi weapons program at the time, and had engineers available for chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
The war was legal, just, and right. Despite his faults as Chief Executive, President Bush was clearly the right man in the right job at the right time. For that I am exceedingly thankful.
Update, 1/27/08: Kerplunk has more details, and I like the title of his post: Saddam lied, people died.
7 comments:
To say "legal, just, and right" is quite a stretch based on the presented evidence, but the invasion was admittedly about oil--even according to the President.
What do you think about this report:
http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Default.aspx?src=home&context=overview&id=945
I think you are mistaken about my statement being a stretch, and the report you mentioned either intentionally or unintentionally mixes "lying" with "said things we now know weren't correct".
In reference to the comment I made above, based on their "about us" page I'll assume it was intentional. They don't look very "non-partisan and non-advocacy" to me.
I have always thought that whatever nuclear or biological weapons Saddam had were transported to Syria during the year or two standoff where the U.N. was busy playing political games. I am sure at some point the Palestinians will have them in their arsenal.
The war was legal? What war? Near as I can tell, no declaration of war was ever made. And the president can make no such declaration. There is no war. Just a Bush misadventure costing American lives and treasure. Twenty million dollars per hour (and that's a Republican figure)!
Just curious: what rate of expenditure would you deem too high for this Crusade? Apparently $20M/h doesn't strike you as unreasonable. What rate would?
It's going to take a long time of Democratic presidents and legislatures to clean up the mess Bush has made of the world.
By the standards used by the Center for Public Integrity, any child who answers a question incorrectly on a test is a liar. They are attempting to totally corrupt the meaning of the word lie. That they attempt to argue in such a dishonest manner shows the weakness of any honest arguments they have in support of their position. In short, they know they cannot win on merit so all they have left are lies. I am left with nothing but pity for those who have allowed their hatred of Bush to cloud their intellectual and moral honesty. While I think Bush has only done a few things right, the sufferers of BDS rarely attack those things I think he has done wrong and instead waste their energy on ludicrous arguments and studies and attempts to redefine the meanings of words. I am reminded of a certain political figure and the meaning of the word "is." So let's see, most of the liberal arguers don't know the meaning of the word is; they don't know the difference between breach and over-top; they don't know the difference between lie and incorrect. Need I go on? When they start to use more honest and logical arguments they may convince me of the merits of their positions, but until then, no way. Instead, I will continue to look upon them as blithering idiots.
> It's going to take a long time of Democratic presidents and legislatures to clean up the mess Bush has made of the world.
What makes you thing there's going to be a Democrat in the Whitehouse any time in the future? You guys are still huffing and puffing about the 2000 and the 2004 presidential claiming Bush stole both of them. Well, you're right and he'll pass the secret on to the annointed one at the Republic convention.
And since you obviously missed it - Iraq is so 2007.
Body count's down, there's been an election or two, the insurgents are looking to open KFC franchises. I'm telling you, Iraq just isn't where cutting edge progressives are putting their ample supply of moral outrage these days. Global warming and socialized medicine are still good for soaking up the excess compassion and environmental responsibility that seeps from your pores but both of them are getting a bit long in the tooth.
Don't know what to tell you guys except to be patient. Some issue's bound to come along that you can pretend to be sincerely upset about.
Post a Comment