Read How Bush Helped Osama Recruit Here

Lies That Led To War: Read The WMD B.S. Here

Under Construction


construction ...




Weblog Commenting and Trackback by

Friday, April 16, 2004

The Best Possible Scenario: We've Been Lied To

Unlike many liberals, I agree with my conservative brethren that we will indeed find weapons of mass destruction. The question is, "How and where"? How do we know they exist, and where will they be found? Paradoxically, the best possible scenario is not that the Administration is telling the truth about WMDs. The best scenario is that we've been duped into a war.

There are two possible scenarios. Scenario number one is that, as Scott Ritter argued, there were no WMD's in Iraq when we invaded. Let's assume for a moment he's a horrible, corrupt late-term abortionist terrorist-coddling liberal hack, and dismiss this scenario out of hand, and instead believe, like all red-blooded, patriotic Americans, that Bush is sayin' what he means an' means what he says. Saddam had massive stockpiles of weapons, and this justifies the war we started.

Remember when Rumsfeld claimed, prior to the war, that he knew where they were?

"We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad".

Of course, some would question his trustworthiness and integrity, but Rumsfeld would know--after all, when he was defense secretary in the eighties, he could've kept the receipts.

Of course, twenty years is a long time, and a lot could have happened to those weapons since. Some were used on the Iraqis, some were used on the Kurds, and perhaps some were destroyed in Gulf War I--a possible explanation for Gulf War Syndrome.

Let's assume that a substantial portion of these weapons are still around...The next question is, where are they now? If they're still in Iraq, could they still be deployed?
If so, by whom? The Bush Administration has argued that the Iraq war has become a magnet for terrorists around the world, and that it's better to engage the enemy there than in N.Y. or L.A...In other words, the Administration thinks it's better to have terrorists in a place where they might have access to biological, chemical, and even nuclear weapon material. Does this make sense to you?

If we put these two assumptions together--that Iraq has WMDs andthat Iraq is "terrorist flypaper", then aren't we increasing the likelihood that weapons will end up in the hands of terrorists?

CBS news reported today that nuclear material has been removed from apparently unguarded powerplants in Iraq...Where might that material end up? Will it be used on the troops in the form of a dirty bomb, or could it end up smuggled outside the country. If terrorists can get in, they can get out, can't they?

Some Iraqi nuclear facilities appear to be unguarded, and radioactive materials are being taken out of the country, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency reported after reviewing satellite images and equipment that has turned up in European scrapyards.

CBS News Article

I sincerely hope I've been lied to...At the very least, nuclear material has been removed from Iraq. What else might have slipped through? One year later, we've found squat and we're not even looking for the weapons anymore.

If they were there and we still can't find them, in all likelihood, they're in the hands of the enemy, and Richard Clarke's assertion that "we've undermined the war on terrorism" is all the more valid.

Comments on ""


post a comment
Hit Counter

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?