« Hillary Clinton | Home | Your Average Joe Liberal Can’t Win in ‘04 »
We Don’t Know the Half Of It
By Matt Margolis | August 3, 2003
There’s a decent amount of time left before the next presidential election… However, things occurring today and in the months ahead of us are going to have a profound impact on not just the election itself, but even before that, who is going to run against George W. Bush. With information such as what was reported in this article, the staunch anti-war liberals vying for the Democratic nomination are going to have an extraordinarily difficult time maintaining support for their campaigns.
New evidence of Saddam Hussein’s possession of weapons of mass destruction was provided last June by a top weapons expert, now dead, and it could have an enormous impact on the 2004 presidential election.
Ooooh, I like this already.
The stunning revelation by the British scientist, who committed suicide last month over the issue of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction could have anti-war Democrats running for cover.
In my estimation, they’ve been running for cover for a long time. Honestly, I question just how much they believe anything they are saying, and really just say things because they hate the fact that George W. Bush is President, and care more about discrediting him, rather than proving themselves worthy of the job.
According to Britain’s Sunday Times, Dr. David Kelly had amassed convincing evidence that Saddam Hussein had built and tested a dirty nuclear bomb as long ago as 1987, and was perfectly capable of building the deadly weapons right up to the final months of his regime. Moreover the radiological weapons could have been used by terrorists to create panic and widespread contamination in a crowded city.
I hope those desperate liberals will shut up now. Are we that lucky?
Dr. Kelly presented evidence of the bomb to the British government back in 1995 and recommended to Foreign Office officials that it be highlighted in the government’s intelligence dossier on Iraq, which spelled out the reasons justifying an attack on Saddam’s regime. However, the Times reports, despite secret Iraqi documents being produced to prove its existence, for unexplained reasons it was not included.
For “unexplained reasons”… That’s pretty interesting…
In a June interview with the newspaper, Kelly revealed that Saddam originally built the dread weapon capable of causing cancer and birth defects for use against Iranian troops during the Iran-Iraq war as a tactical weapon and an instrument of terror.
Saddam Hussein, really? The warm and compassionate man – as described by his daughters? Never!
Moreover Kelly insisted that said Iraq still “possessed the know-how and the materials to build a radiological weapon, “adding that the threat posed by such weapons was potentially more serious than some other weapons of mass destruction because Iraq still retained the main ingredients to build dirty bombs such as nuclear material and high explosives.
Well this isn’t good for the Democrats…. Is it? They’ve invested so much of their campaigns on the stupid notion that America has been mislead into war… that there were no WMDs… They’ve consistently avoided real issues and resorted to gutless attacks on George W. Bush, that the moment they clearly will have nothing to run on when all the evidence comes outs.
When the Times asked why this shocking information was not featured in the British government’s case for going to war against Iraq, Kelly said he did not know, but added that there were people in government who were skeptical about the potency of such a weapon.
Sounds similar to Democrats doubting the justification to go to war just because a Republican is in the oval office.
In private, Kelly is said to have believed the evidence should have been included in the dossier because of the possibility that Iraq could reactivate the program even after it had been stripped of other non-conventional weapons.
This is very big stuff. It all comes down to what kind of risk are we willing to take. Liberals can bitch and moan about 16 words in a State of The Union speech all they want – it doesn’t change the fact that by mentioning it, the chance that it might be true has been addressed, and when/or if it is found to be true, everyone will be glad it was put out there, and when/or if it is determined to be inaccurate, we can be assured that George W. Bush has at least looked at all possible sources of intelligence in an effort to protect us. I don’t care what any little-brained liberal says, I’d rather Bush follow all questionable leads and find them all false, than not follow some questionable leads that may prove true and we don’t find out until more Americans die.
Later, in July, during his testimony to a Parliamentary foreign affairs select committee in remarks which the Times says have been largely overlooked, Kelly told John Maples, a former Conservative spokesman on defense and foreign affairs:
I hope this bothers people. Why would such information be “overlooked”? What is our goal here - to fight the War on Terror, or to win political battles?
“On one inspection that I led…the acknowledgment was made by General Fahi Shaheen, together with Brigadier Hassan (two senior Iraqi weapons specialists), that they had undertaken experiments with radiological weapons in 1987.”
And the Times added that when Maples asked: “Do you think that is true?” Kelly replied: “Undoubtedly it is true.” Maples pressed Kelly for details as to why the matter of the dirty bombs had not been included in the government’s dossier, saying, “A dirty nuclear bomb, I would have thought, was pretty significant.” Kelly explained only, “You cannot include everything.”
I always though that “inspections work.” I guess not.
The revelation that Saddam had the capability of building dirty bombs and had once done so and tested the lethal weapons that could have been supplied to terrorists groups could provide convincing proof that Iraq did indeed have weapons of mass destruction - a fact being discounted by Democrat presidential candidates and many in their party.
It’s amazing the things that Democrats will say to try to become President.
As the Times noted, one of the main reasons for invading Iraq cited by both the British and American governments was the danger that Saddam could pass weapons of mass destruction to al-Qaida terrorists. Kelly’s revelations bolster that claim.
Unfortunately this information does not help the Democrats’ agenda; therefore it must be false, according to the self-proclaimed superior knowledge of liberals both young and old.
I can’t wait for this election. The Democrats have been digging their own graves. More stuff is going to be reveal in due time. We probably don’t even know the half of it.
Topics: Bush 2004 |
Related Posts:
August 3rd, 2003 at 11:33 pm
Debka also has an interesting article out along these lines (granted, as it’s Debka, take it with a grain (or two) of salt
August 4th, 2003 at 12:04 am
Hah!
Just read this article!
August 4th, 2003 at 8:37 am
The Dems would say he didn’t have WMDs even he used them before his statue went down.
August 4th, 2003 at 10:48 am
Lets get this straight this is Newsmax, putting words in a deadmans mouth. And this is supposed to be somehow justification for 250 American Soldiers lives?
August 4th, 2003 at 5:49 pm
UY,
The original source is the UK Sunday Times.
August 4th, 2003 at 5:51 pm
um yeah…. still hiding under the cloak of anonymity???
August 4th, 2003 at 5:58 pm
Speaking of WMD, check this out
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030804-121410-8530r.htm
(UY: the source is the London Daily Telegraph)
August 6th, 2003 at 2:37 pm
[Crickets chirping…] UY must be gazing at the lint in his navel, since his little “IT WAS NEWSMAX PROPAGANDA!” lead balloon wouldn’t fly, no matter how hard he wished & willed it to take wing.
Back to riding the short bus for you, UY.
August 7th, 2003 at 1:14 pm
B.C., since it doesnt link to the original article, I really dont give a fuck what it was originally based on.
Oh and the phrase “Newsmax Propaganda” is redundant
August 8th, 2003 at 11:31 pm
(sigh)
It’s http://www.timesonline.co.uk
And PLEASE, PLEASE don’t leave them any messages, UY.
I don’t want them to think most Americans are like you. (or “U” in UY speak)
August 9th, 2003 at 1:08 pm
Are you retarded? I know its an actual newspaper. How about a link to the article that Newsmax used as source material?
August 11th, 2003 at 11:56 pm
READ. THE. ARTICLE.
Besides,
Did you know “retarded” is a derogatory term for the mentally challenged?
Hatemonger
August 12th, 2003 at 2:23 am
How about a link to the friggin original article? Theres not even a date attached to when the supposed original ran, so you might be able to find it yourself. After that then you can stun me with more witty repartee.