Those rootin’-tootin’ uber-patriots over at Front Page are at it again! Their latest contribution to DC’s quest for eternal war and bigger government is to claim George W. Bush was right to break the UN Charter and invade Iraq. Below are quotes from the article, with certain phrases highlighted:
- [Saddam] “had the ability to quickly produce weapons of mass destruction, and the will to use both against its enemies.”
- The Duelfer Report, the final assessment of the Iraq Survey Group, states that a former Iraqi intelligence officer testified that the M16 Directorate “had a plan to produce and weaponize nitrogen mustard in rifle grenades and a plan to bottle sarin and sulfur mustard in perfume sprayer and medicine bottles which they would ship to the United States and Europe.” The plot was not launched because of an inability to get the ingredients for the weapons. [Oh, really, killer perfume sprayers? Using cutting-edge weaponry from World War I?]
- The ISG confirmed that dual-use facilities had “assets that could be converted for BW [biological weapons] agent production within 4 to 5 weeks after the decision to do so.” One site had the ability to “provide the core of an alternative break-out capability…perhaps within 2 to 3 weeks.” Furthermore, Iraqi intelligence operated “a set of undeclared covert laboratories to research and test various chemicals and poisons, primarily for intelligence operations” and Iraq “intended to develop smallpox and possibly other viral pathogens.”
- The first director of the ISG, David Kay, also raised the point that corruption was extremely high in the Iraqi government, leading to a strong possibility that terrorists could purchase weapons from officials.
That’s right — Saddam could’ve done this and he might’ve done that. It reminds me of an old joke about a pacifist reporter grilling a three-star general who’s training Boy Scouts how to use guns:
Interviewer: “Don’t you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?”
LTG Reinwald: “I don’t see how, we will be teaching them proper range discipline before they even touch a firearm.”
Interviewer: “But you’re equipping them to become violent killers.”
LTG Reinwald: “Well, you’re equipped to be a prostitute, but you’re not one, are you?”
But the last justification for invading Iraq is my favorite:
- These facts bolster the case for removing Saddam Hussein without even mentioning the possibility that WMDs went to Syria.
That’s so mind-numbingly moronic it hurts my head to consider that people actually believed it at the time. Imagine you’re a power-mad dictator who “continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” So what do you do when an army of 466,985 foreign troops sits within firing range in next-door Kuwait ready to invade your country with the expressed aim of deposing you? Why, naturally, you get rid of your only means of stopping them. Of course. Are we supposed to believe Saddam was saving his super-weapons for some special occasion?
How stupid are we?
Stupid enough to believe the same people who now want the overstretched and plain flat broke US to invade Iran. One of the commenters on the Front Page article made this perfectly clear:
“In a post-9/11 world, the threat that Saddam Hussein posed could not be tolerated—and the world should know why.”
Then how could an Iran with nuclear weapons be tolerated in a post 9/11 world?
The answer is it can’t! Iran must be stopped at all cost, and the USA and not Israel must lead the charge. If Saddam represented a threat that couldn’t be tolerated, then Iran represents a far greater threat than Saddam ever could.
Heaven help us.