Friday, January 25, 2008

Bush Vindicated on WMD Issue?

Sphere: Related Content

Could be. If Saddam kept up the act to prevent hostile action from a vengeful neighbor, it would have been hard for our intel types to distinguish the truth behind the claims:

Saddam still wouldn't admit he had no weapons of mass destruction, even when it was obvious there would be military action against him because of the perception he did. Because, says Piro, "For him, it was critical that he was seen as still the strong, defiant Saddam. He thought that [faking having the weapons] would prevent the Iranians from reinvading Iraq," he tells Pelley.

He also intended and had the wherewithal to restart the weapons program. "Saddam] still had the engineers. The folks that he needed to reconstitute his program are still there," says Piro. "He wanted to pursue all of WMD…to reconstitute his entire WMD program." This included chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, Piro says.
This says to me that the lefty "Bush lied, people died" rhetoric turned out to be exactly that--empty rhetoric. Saddam ruled Iraq with an iron fist and just talking under ones breath about anything anti-Saddam could result in imprisonment, torture and death. How would our intel apparatus have been able to determine the validity of WMD claims under an oppressive regime such as his? Short answer, they wouldn't.

Bush has made some mistakes in the war in Iraq, de-Baathification being the biggest, but he did not lie us into war and that's quite certain now.

The anti-warriors and the slate of Dem presidential candidates can't even acknowledge that we are making progress in Iraq (except Hillary and she took credit), what do you think the reaction to these revelations will be?

Ed Drisoll and Don Surber have more and say it better.

No comments: