From the Tom Brokaw/David Kaye interview;
TB: The president described Iraq as a gathering threat — a gathering danger. Was that an accurate description?
DK: I think that’s a very accurate description.
TB: But an imminent threat to the United States?
DK: Tom, an imminent threat is a political judgment. It’s not a technical judgment. I think Baghdad was actually becoming more dangerous in the last two years than even we realized. Saddam was not controlling the society any longer. In the marketplace of terrorism and of WMD, Iraq well could have been that supplier if the war had not intervened.
Not so long ago, the left loved David Kaye and his assertion that there were no WMDs to be found. With this interview, however – his assertions that Iraq (Baghdad) became more dangerous in the past two years . . and would have become much more dangerous if the US/Britian has not intervened – -well, that statement is being rejected out of hand by the left.
I guess it all depends which statement fits your agenda the best.
The truth of the matter, from the way I see it, is there may well have been no WMDs to be found – - but we’re certainly getting closer to the bottom of the story, which is much closer than we were back in the days of appeasement when no one knew anything because Saddam and his regieme kept the world guessing and fearing. If you can keep a population of people paranoid and in fear – they are easier to control and manipulate. Saddam knew that – and practiced it on a daily basis.
I know, I know – the left will come back and make the very same statement about George W. Bush keeping America paranoid and in fear. I can see that one coming a mile away. However, I don’t see Americans in living in a cloud a paranoia and fear that their government will shoot them in the streets, rape and maime their wives and children and feed them into the shredder if they dissent or disagree. Unless I’m missing something. Terrorists, and the fear of continued terror attacks, is what strikes fear into the heart of this American. I, for one, am quite satisfied to have an administration who isn’t afraid to stand up to decades of appeasement in the name of the security of this country, in an attempt to get to the bottom of the story, whatever that story may be.
It seems there are failings in our intelligence programs – - that kind of knowlege and evidence laid bare can only serve to improve the programs and act as a catalyst of change and needed restructuring.
Saddam was not controlling the society any longer. In the marketplace of terrorism and of WMD, Iraq well could have been that supplier if the war had not intervened.
We’ll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world’s most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world’s most destructive weapons.
Our war on terror is well begun, but it is only begun. This campaign may not be finished on our watch — yet it must be and it will be waged on our watch.
These are simply my ideas and opinons — I am pleased to have an administration who will not wait while danger gathers. That strikes home to me – - and it strikes hard. It may strike differently for you – - but I know where my vote is going in 2004.
The fact is Kaye said not only did Saddam NOT have stockpiles of weapons, but that he hadn’t had them since the first gulf war.
I like your statement about appeasement. Was it ”appeasment” when Reagan/Bush were making sure Saddam had every weapon he needed during the Iran-Iraq war including hardware for Soviet weapons? (Just before we sold weapons to Iran. That’s another story.)
Don’t forget. While Saddam was a brutal dictator gassing Kurds and filling mass graves, raped, tourtured, murdered, etc., his own citizens, your government, under Ronald Reagan and Bush’s daddy were helping him and International Corporations, including Halliburton made a lot of money.
You forgot the lies in other State of the Union addresses:
”Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda.” George W. Bush, President
State of the Union Speech
1/28/2003
”The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.”
George W. Bush, President
State of the Union Address
1/28/2003
”Already, the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations.”
George W. Bush, President
State of the Union Address – 2004
1/20/2004
dg – nothing like beating a dead horse
I do have to admire your persistence, however.
The fact that the US supported Saddam back in the day isn’t breaking news – - of course we did. He’s an ally, turned foe, dg – I think most have acknowledged that. Lessons learned, and all that.
As far as the Saddam/Al Qaeda connection – - why your own democrats brought that to light:
And British Intelligence and ours did report that Saddam sought to purchase uranium from Africa – - that’s since been reported as inaccurate information – - but you say that GW lied when he said that? It was no lie – - those were the actual intelligence reports.
And your last quote from Bush, that you’ve concluded to be a lie – isn’t. The Kay Report does, in fact state:
Bush quoted that Kay report almost verbatim.
So, anyway – keep on keepin’ on, dg – - I still know where my vote is going in ’04
I know where my vote is going as well, dg. If you’re here to change minds, you’ll find you have your work cut out for you. However, if you’re here merely to express your opinion and to hear other opinions that may not coincide with yours any time soon, you’ve come to the right place!
As for the whole issue of the WMDs, though I don’t know very much about it, to me it sounds quite a bit like the Bay of Pigs incident with Kennedy. Kennedy was also operating with information he believed to be true, only to learn that it wasn’t.
When thinking about the whole WMD-issue, where issuing and reminding of little-known facts is concerned, I might make mention of the fact that several Democrats, including Kerry and Hillary Clinton, were touting the WMD-line long before Bush. Now bearing that in mind, why persecute Bush for at least taking pains to send our troops out there to see whether or not it was true rather than accepting the UN’s word without question? I mean, I thought we were supposed to question everything rather than to simply accept it as fact, right???
Apeasement? Neville Chamberlain could tell you a few things about that. As for me. Remember Pearl Harbor and 9/11.
You’re quoting the Weekly Standard as a definitive source? How extraordinary.
How about a more reliable source? Colin Powell sain on the 9th of January, when questioned about the al Qaeda / Iraq connection said “I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection”.
Case closed!
Yank — what source did you get that Colin Powell quote from? How reliable is that source?
Is it the BBC, by any chance? If it is, then I would definitely have my doubts, given their anti-American bias…
Isn’t it at all hypocritical of the Bush Administration to tout the brutality of Saddam Hussein when they were there helping him accumulate power? All those mass graves? How is it those atrocities are terrible now, but we could live with them at the time when they occoured? How ironic.
I may be beating a horse. But as for as the situation in Iraq now, I wouldn’t say that horse was dead.
If there is no dead horse, there wouldn’t be any mass graves, no Saddam to get rid of, and no issues whatsoever. Thus, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation were there no dead horse to beat, would we?
While I continue to decipher your last post (?) let me add that the atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein–including the use of chemical weapons on Iranians and the Kurds were done while Reagan/Bush knew and refused to condemn the acts:
Department of State Cable from George P. Shultz to United States Embassy in Jordan. “Chemical Weapons: Meeting With Iraqi Charge,” April 6, 1984.
Reports that Deputy Assistant Secretary of State James Placke discussed a draft United Nations’ resolution on chemical weapons use in the Iran-Iraq war with Iraqi interests section representative Nizar Hamdoon on March 29. Hamdoon said that Iraq would prefer a Security Council presidential statement to a resolution. Placke indicated that the U.S. could accept Iraqi proposals regarding points that should be included in the resolution if the Security Council approves them. He said that the U.S. would like the Iraqi government’s cooperation “in avoiding situations that would lead to difficult and possibly embarrassing situation[s]” regarding chemical weapons use, but noted that the U.S. did “not want this issue to dominate our bilateral relationship nor to detract from our common interest to see war brought to [an] early end.”
Source: Declassified under the Freedom of Information Act
Department of State, Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs Briefing Paper. “Iraqi Illegal Use of Chemical Weapons,” November 16, 1984.
Indicates that the U.S. concluded some time ago that Iraq had used “domestically produced lethal CW” in the Iran-Iraq war, developed in part through “the unwitting and, in some cases, we believe witting assistance” of numerous Western firms. The State Department’s Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs thinks that Iraq stopped using chemical weapons in response to a U.S. demarche in November 1983, and resumed their use in February 1984.
Source: Declassified through Congressional investigation
Not only did they help, they profited!!!
Well, you read and/or listen to a lot of news, and you have a most definite opinion, the latter of which is good and the former of which is really all what you have to say tells me personally.
I’m not saying it’s not true — it might be. But frankly, your approach is so heavy-handed that I am personally beyond caring. And gathering by the fact that only two people have bothered to respond to your posts so far, I think it’s a safe bet that the Garofalo/Dean sledge-hammer approach isn’t exactly getting you whatever responses you’re fishing for.
We must kill everyone on earth if we are ever to be safe. I am sick of the liberals in the Bush Administration who are doing the only sensible thing.