Well, there you go. If Saddam was willing to fly his MiG-29s and other advanced aircraft to mortal enemy Iran rather than have them captured by the US in Desert Storm, it's certainly reasonable to assume that he would send WMDs to fellow Ba'athist dictatorship Syria. Duh!
If this guy had said this stuff PRIOR to the war starting, Bush would never have believed him. Its rather ironic that Republicans are now running to embrace this former Baathist leader because what he says supports their claims. Smells kind of fishy to me. Until they FIND WMDs somewhere, I'll have my doubts. Especially since other top officials have reported that they were destroyed.
Well realistically, I don't think Republicans are running to "embrace" Sada, it was John Stewart that gushed at him at the very end of the interview. And would you be willing to support an invasion into Syria to find them?
No, I'm not a huge fan of the wild goose chase, but that does bring up an interesting point. To all those pro-war types out there: what is the difference between the oppressive, dangerous regime in Syria and the dangerous, oppressive regime that existed in Iraq? Why DID we invade one and not the other (or Iran, or North Korea...) Its one of those mysteries I've yet to solve regarding the Iraq war. Why Iraq?
Because as far as we knew, Iraq had WMDs, its location is strategic, and Saddam was obviously a tyrant.
Think also about location. You have US forces in Afghanistan and now Iraq, that creates a hammer and anvil situation for Iran.
Steven Den Beste makes a persuasive case that the main goal of the GWOT is to democracy drive is focused on Saudi Arabia. His case starts here: http://denbeste.nu/essays/
strate..._overview.shtml
and continues throughout the rest of his blog.
Whatever happened to the old rule of logic that you can't prove a negative? The disloyal opposition are out there screaming "there were no WMDs in Iraq" in defiance of that basic rule, but any evidence to the contrary is dismissed. It's time to give up the mantra, lefties! I guess "we haven't found enough evidence to satisfy us that there actually were WMDs in Iraq" doesn't look so good on a protest sign.
Haha, G Rex, I am imagining such a sign now. Too bad so many lefties are too stupid to spell Iraq correctly in the first place, much less write all that one a sign. If I had a dime for every time I saw it spelled "Irak..."
You dopes still don't get it. You are being had. Does the name "Ahmed Chalibi" mean anything you? Let me refresh your memory. He was another huckster who saw some dollar signs in lying to you.
Brit Hume saying something and Georges Sada trying to make money from a book does not amount to evidence.
These conspiracy theorists make money from idiots like you. Get out the tin foil hat boys. The next thing you know you will be saying that planes never hit the pentagon.
If stupid was bricks Jess could build a freaking castle.
...and Michael Moore trying to make money from "documentaries" is totally credible. Right.
Funny, I only made one comment, and yet, you singled me- the only girl- out as being stupid. That's interesting, Jason. I take it you haven't been able to get laid and are taking your frustrations with women out on me.
I don't watch Fox News either. And you know what they say about those who assume...
Jason, if stupid were bricks, you could build the Taj Mahal, the Great Pyramid, Westminister Abbey, the Hoover Dam, and all of University of Delaware. And that's just one day's worth for you.
Jess -
I thought you were one of the boys. My bad. Anyhow - Here is one for Duffy (to show that I am all about equal treatment for the gals.)
Think also about location. You have US forces in Afghanistan and now Iraq, that creates a hammer and anvil situation for Iran.
Holy cow! I never thought of that! But we need to be sure to invade kamchatka first in order to cover our rear.
Also - if we roll double 6's, that would totally kick ass! When do we get our card for invading Iraq anyway? We'll the troops from turning in a set in order to go for Iran.
G Rex -
...and Michael Moore trying to make money from "documentaries" is totally credible. Right.
Ouch! You forgot to mention that Clinton got a blow job on Al Franken's private jet as they transported the WMD's to Syria. Seriously, that was weak.
What a bunch of overindulged, intellectually lazy frat boys (and girl).
Wait a second. So the ones who keep finding new info are the lazy ones, while the one who keeps repeating the same thing for 3 years is not lazy?
Even IF, and that's a huge IF, there were WMDs in Iraq as this many claims (and will make tons of money doing so until discredited), that does not change the fact that this administration had no plan on how to deal with things once the invasion took place. What to do now is the debate we should be having, not what we should have done. While it may make those on the right feel better about their unwavering support for the failing policies of a failing president, it is merely an act of self-gratification.
Stewart tends to be nice to all of his guest - it is, after all, a comedy show. However, how long before the right drags this guy all over TV to try to prove a point that in no way will affect the outcome of the present Iraq situation? Why not work towards real solutions instead?
Commenting by HaloScan
