If you give me a search warrent today, but can't execute it until a month from now, I can guarantee that you won't find anything illegal.

If you give me a search warrent today, but can't execute it until a month from now, I can guarantee that you won't find anything illegal.

 

 

We're not talking about a meth lab or a stash of marijuana in a private residence. We're talking about complex chemical and nuclear processes that require considerable infrastructure to implement on a scale sufficient to be "dangerous"--not something little Jimmy can do at the kitchen table with his Gilbert chemistry set. Plus, we had satellite surveillance capability that would make carrying off such a deception very, very difficult without leaving behind any evidence whatsover for professional weapons inspectors.

If you give me a search warrent today, but can't execute it until a month from now, I can guarantee that you won't find anything illegal.

 

And if the home you are going to search is owned by a lunatic and the search warrant is to look for weapons, when you are able to come in after a month, it may not be the safest search.

What does 'capitulate' mean in this context? Less than one month after passage of UN 1441, Iraq let the UNMOVIC inspectors back in. They found no evidence of weapons programs, and no viable WMD's, although they did find some relatively minor infractions to the UN weapons sanctions (which could have easily been due to poor records keeping or incompetent management on the part of the Iraqis). The inspectors were simply not given enough time to conclusively rule out the presence of WMD's.

 

By letting the UN weapons inspectors back in, Iraq had effectively capitulated. What else could Iraq have done to satisfy the UN mandates? Come clean on WMD's that they didn't possess? It is clear by the timing of events that the threat of force (backed by the buildup of U.S. military assets in the region, the bipartisan U.S. resolution, and UN 1441) was instrumental in making this happen. It does not require an implausible leap of logic to believe that if the inspectors would have been given more time (in the shadow of a large U.S. force parked on Iraq's doorstep), they would have come to the correct conclusion that Iraq did not possess WMD's or active weapons programs.

 

Unfortunately Bush badly misplayed the cards he was dealt with Iraq, and the American public is justifiably reluctant to support his use of a similar approach with Iran.

 

H, your recollection of the efforts and success of the inspectors may be correct, but I don't remember it that way. I remember reading a lot of first hand accounts by the inspectors stating that up to the very end when they were pulled out that they inspectors were constantly frustrated by Hussein in their efforts to investigate and look for WMDs. I remember reading that investigators were tailed as they left to investigate certain locations so those locations could be alerted that the inspectors were coming; I remember reading the investigators were stopped at entrances for hours while vehicles left back exits; I remember reading the investigators stating that when they eventually got access, it was not total access and there being evidence that rooms had been quickly and just recently "cleaned" of documents.

 

I'm sorry but you and I will just probably always disagree as to whether Hussein was ever going to come clean on his efforts and plans; large army parked on his borders or not.

I'm glad you think so, I disagree totally. And we are allowed to disagree with one another's opinion. That's good and what makes this country great.

 

But in my opinion, comments that Bush is trying to artificially start wars (and what the benefit to Bushthat has, I have no idea) is just as stupid as comments that the Dems are weak and trying to hurt America. Those comments display nothing more than extreme partisanship.

I believe that the pronouncement by Democrat Speaker of the House of Representatives declaring the war lost is indicative of the deliberate undermining of the war effort by some, not all, Congressional Democrats. Those who trashed General Petraeus (referred to by Soros' mouthpieces as General Betray-us) are further evidence of the left's intent to undermine the war effort.

 

The war in Iraq "is lost" and a US troop surge is failing to bring peace to the country, the leader of the Democratic majority in the US Congress, Harry Reid, said Thursday.

 

"I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week," Reid told journalists.

Iraq War is 'lost': US Democrat leader

You may believe that charges that some Democrats have undermined the war to be stupid - I believe that the charges are demonstrably true. Reid and his minions deperately wanted to see this war lost, which is why they have worked so hard to make it "Bush's War." Now that the surge is going so well, Democrats find themselves either wiping egg from their faces or denying the reality on the ground in Iraq. Hillary even suggested yesterday that her pledge to begin withdrawing troops in January 2009 is one of the reasons that the surge is working.

What does 'capitulate' mean in this context? Less than one month after passage of UN 1441, Iraq let the UNMOVIC inspectors back in. They found no evidence of weapons programs, and no viable WMD's, although they did find some relatively minor infractions to the UN weapons sanctions (which could have easily been due to poor records keeping or incompetent management on the part of the Iraqis). The inspectors were simply not given enough time to conclusively rule out the presence of WMD's.

 

By letting the UN weapons inspectors back in, Iraq had effectively capitulated. What else could Iraq have done to satisfy the UN mandates? Come clean on WMD's that they didn't possess? It is clear by the timing of events that the threat of force (backed by the buildup of U.S. military assets in the region, the bipartisan U.S. resolution, and UN 1441) was instrumental in making this happen. It does not require an implausible leap of logic to believe that if the inspectors would have been given more time (in the shadow of a large U.S. force parked on Iraq's doorstep), they would have come to the correct conclusion that Iraq did not possess WMD's or active weapons programs.

 

Unfortunately Bush badly misplayed the cards he was dealt with Iraq, and the American public is justifiably reluctant to support his use of a similar approach with Iran.

 

Agree 100%. Saddam couldn't move any weapons in or out of the country without us knowing about it and with the most powerful army in the world at your front door there was less incentive to be deceptive. It just goes to show that the Iraq war wasn't about WMD's. It was about regime change and other things. Interestingly, Iraq started trading it's oil in Euros rather than Dollars a little bit before the military action talk started.

[/b]

 

Perhaps your right and I apologize for the partisanship. But I worry about another needless war when we are fighting one already and haven't finished the justified war that we've forgotten about.

 

I worry about another war also. I have a son 19 and a son 16. I worry about it for them and for all the other young men and women in the military and those that may join the military. I worry about the effect it will have on our relationship with our European allies and the Arab countries. I worry about it's effect on our economy and our ability to fund other initiatives of our country. I worry about it for all kinds of reasons. And I believe that any President, Democratic or Republican, has those same worries and accordingly does not lightly make decisions of war. I would NEVER accuse anyone I do not know well, particularly a President, of lightly starting a war without good cause, even if I had not voted for that President. And if you stop and think about it, Bush loves and has great respect for the military; in my opinion, he's not the kind of person that would haphazardly send young men and women to risk their lives. Frankly I wouldn't think that of anyone that believes in a God.