|
|
|
|
5/30/04 WMD? Yes! Liberals and the media elite need to wake up and smell the coffee. They persist in supporting their unsupportable argument that George W. Bush misled the nation leading up to war with Iraq by saying "we have found no Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in Iraq." Therefore, they have reasoned since two days after major combat operations ended, because "no WMD have yet been found," the Bush position, shared at the time with every nation in the world that had a position, that Iraq had WMD, was a lie. Well, boys and girls, we have found WMD in Iraq. The most significant of two recent findings was a shell used in the construction of an Improvised Explosive Device (IED), containing enough of the components of the Sarin nerve agent to kill 30,000 people, had it been delivered efficiently (fortunately, it was not). Let me repeat: we have found WMD in Iraq. This absolutely shatters the negative case built by the media elite, because as any logician knows, a negative case is disproved by a single positive result. There is now no evidence to suggest that the Bush argument on WMD was incorrect, much less that it was a lie (which could never have been proved since he and everyone else had good reason for believing it even if it had turned out not to be true). The circumstances of the discovery lend powerful support to the Bush argument that Iraq possessed prohibited weapons when the war began. Liberals and neolibs like Scott Ritter may claim the weapon was a "dud" found on some practice range, but the likelihood that Saddam loyalists are scouring practice ranges looking for live weapons to add to roadside bombs seems remote enough that, until positive evidence comes along to suggest so, it is a hypothesis worth rejecting out of hand. It may be that the people who put it in the IED did not know it had nerve agent, but that would be quite a fortuitous coincidence for them. It seems more likely they knew it was a chemical shell, but knew little enough about how it works that they had little chance of inflicting added damage with it. But the liberals can no longer argue that Iraq did not have weapons held over from stocks they claimed had been destroyed. Indications are quite strong that they did. Only time will tell, but whenever you hear a liberal make the WMD argument, you can laugh and walk away. The argument is a desperate attempt to ignore reality and foist on the world the fantasy of liberalism. Modified: 09/10/2004 |
|
|
All Original Content (C) 2003, 2004, 2005 SoothSeeker.Com
SoothSeeker Welcomes your Comments at letters@soothseeker.com Report problems to webmaster@soothseeker.com
Hits on this site:
|