Friday, October 08, 2004
WMD Bottom Line
Who can deny this? In spite of the media spin, isn't this the ultimate truth?
He didn't have stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, but he could have reconstituted his programs in a matter of months.
And really, what is the difference? Yes, our intelligence was incorrect to say Saddam still had stockpiles of WMD, but it was correct to say he was a WMD threat. And isn't that the key issue?
Comments:
<< Home
The difference is this:
Iraq in 2003 = low level threat to US and friends.
Iran in 2003 = High level threat to everyone.
Iraq in 2003 = low level contacts with terrorists.
Iran in 2003 = High level contacts with terrorists.
$ spent in cleaning up Iraq since 2003? about 300 Billion.
$ spent in cleaning up Iran since 2003? about 0.
Containing up and coming nuclear threats in Iran, N. Korea, Pakistan, India, and Israel should be our 1st priority.
Containing Soviet stockpiles of WMD should be our next 1st priority. Remember, the Soviets have lost track of 75% of their suitcase nukes. Where will these weapons resurface?
Of all the threats facing us in 2003 to throw $300 Billion at, Iraq was pretty low on the list. Now we do not have the $ or the troops to deal with those issues, but we still have to.
Iraq was years away from developing nuclear weapons. What they could reconstitute in a matter of months was their chemical weapon project. Any country with a reasonable industrial base can easily construct chemical weapons.
Conventional 9/11 = Bad
Chemical 9/11 = Also, bad.
Nuclear 9/11 = Inconceivably bad
Post a Comment
Iraq in 2003 = low level threat to US and friends.
Iran in 2003 = High level threat to everyone.
Iraq in 2003 = low level contacts with terrorists.
Iran in 2003 = High level contacts with terrorists.
$ spent in cleaning up Iraq since 2003? about 300 Billion.
$ spent in cleaning up Iran since 2003? about 0.
Containing up and coming nuclear threats in Iran, N. Korea, Pakistan, India, and Israel should be our 1st priority.
Containing Soviet stockpiles of WMD should be our next 1st priority. Remember, the Soviets have lost track of 75% of their suitcase nukes. Where will these weapons resurface?
Of all the threats facing us in 2003 to throw $300 Billion at, Iraq was pretty low on the list. Now we do not have the $ or the troops to deal with those issues, but we still have to.
Iraq was years away from developing nuclear weapons. What they could reconstitute in a matter of months was their chemical weapon project. Any country with a reasonable industrial base can easily construct chemical weapons.
Conventional 9/11 = Bad
Chemical 9/11 = Also, bad.
Nuclear 9/11 = Inconceivably bad
# posted by 
: October 10, 2004 at 3:47 PM
: October 10, 2004 at 3:47 PM<< Home
