HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Jan 30, 2004 According to the democratic polls the thing they are most concerned with is health care(this is because they see anything short of socialized medicine as an unpardonalble sin). Yet the issue that will decide the election is the war. David Kays report has sparked an orgy of celebration among the democrats. But should it? Typically leftists are only giving half the story. David Kay said there were no weapons, but said Hussein was actively trying to acquire them. Particuarly a biological weapon made from ricin.Wasn't that the whole point;to stop his acquisition of WMD in violation of UN resolutions? Not according to Ted Kennedy. This fool needs to see a working bomb to believe that Iraq was a threat. Even then he would have been oppossed to the war, after all we have a republican president. He had no such qualms in 1998 when President Clinton attacked Iraq. What if the justification for going to war with Germany in world war 2 had been that Hitler was trying to build an atomic bomb? Hitler didn't have the bomb-should we have left him in power? Was Kay right in his assesment? There are those that insist that the weapons were transported to Syria. What if that turns out to be true? Would the democrats say it was worth it then? Hardly. So the whole thing can be blamed on bad intelligence. Well I have always thought that the CIA stood for Clowns In Action. Is the President to blame for bad intelligence? Clinton claimed that there was mass murder going on in Kosovo to justify his war there. But no mass graves, no slaughter, and the only albanians killed were thought to be members of the KLA (which was on the state departments list of terrorist organizations.) But Clinton was never blamed for faulty intelligence. No doubt our intelligence services need to be reformed; but does the President bear the blame? Partly. He can fire the head of the CIA, but he can't control what information they come up with. Yet there are those who insist that President Bush did control what intel they came up with. If he can control the intel, then why not control the outcome of Kays inspections? What about us finding a dangerous WMD in Iraq? Hussein himself. Bill O'reilly dissmisses such talk as "right wing spin". I suppose the hundreds of thousands buried in mass graves throughout the country are Baathist spin? What we do know is that terrorists traveled freely through Iraq with Saddam Husseins approval. Saddam gave $25,000 to families of palestinian terrorists. We know Saddam was spending large amounts of money to get WMD, if his scientists hadn't spent the money elsewhere he would have had them. That makes the war and his removal worth it. Should we have waited until Saddam got scientists who would have actually made the weapons he wanted? Bush wasn't wrong about Saddam and the war was right. ------------ Email Craig Chamberlain: craig_chamberlain@hotmail.com Comment on this column in the forum. Tell a friend about this site! ------------ |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
