Follow Me on Pinterest
Latest Pins:
For Advertising Info, Write.
alex[at]bulletinmarketing.com
Premium Left blogad
Advertisment
Advertisement
WMD Stockpiles Or No Stockpiles: 11 Reasons Why We Were Right To Hit Iraq

Written By : John Hawkins
October 8, 2004

Since the Duelfer report has now definitively revealed that Saddam had no stockpiles of WMDs, I thought it was worth pointing out just SOME of the many reasons why taking out Saddam was the right thing to do.

ADVERTISEMENT

1) Without question, Iraq was a nation that provided “safe haven” for terrorists with “global reach”. Among them were terrormaster Abu Nidal, Abdul Rahman Yasin, one of the conspirators in the 1993 WTC bombing, “Khala Khadr al-Salahat, the man who reputedly made the bomb for the Libyans that brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over…Scotland,”Abu Abbas, mastermind of the October 1985 Achille Lauro hijacking and murder of Leon Klinghoffer,” & “Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, formerly the director of an al Qaeda training base in Afghanistan” who is now believed to be leading Al-Qaeda’s forces in Iraq. Quite frankly, any war on terrorism that didn’t tackle that nest of vipers would have been a war in name only.

2) As George Bush has said many times, the war on terrorism CANNOT BE WON without stopping rogue nations from supporting terrorist groups. Since we had more than a decade of experience that showed it was impossible to reason with Saddam, it was clear that war was the only way to stop him from supporting terrorists. In other words, as long as Saddam Hussein remained in power, the war on terrorism would have been unwinnable.

3) As Vladimir Putin revealed, Russian intelligence believed Saddam was planning terrorist attacks inside the US,

“I can confirm that after the events of September 11, 2001, and up to the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services and Russian intelligence several times received…information that official organs of Saddam’s regime were preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the United States and beyond its borders, at U.S. military and civilian locations.”

Because George Bush acted, we may have been spared Iraqi terrorist attacks here in the United States.

4) One of the likely reasons that we’ve seen such a decrease in Palestinian terrorist attacks in Israel is because Saddam is no longer around to pay the families of suicide bombers $25,000 per homicide bombing. How many buses and pizza parlors full of Israeli women and children would have been blown into chunks by now if John Kerry had his way and Saddam were left in power?

5) While Iraq has not been implicated in the 9/11 attacks, Iraq has had ties to Al-Qaeda for more than a decade. The evidence of this is irrefutable and the people who are denying it are doing so for political purposes. Here are just a couple of quotes that prove what I’m saying…

“(Abu Musab al) Zarqawi was said to have received medical treatment in Baghdad in May and June of 2002 after being wounded in Afghanistan during the war. His leg was amputated, U.S. officials say, by a surgeon in Iraq. Before the war, Secretary of State Colin Powell pointed to Zarqawi’s al Qaeda-affiliated group that he said was operating inside Baghdad, as evidence of ties between al Qaeda and Iraq.” — Today, Abu Musab al Zarqawi, who was in Iraq before the war began, is leading terrorist attacks against the Coalition and Iraqi people.

“Credible reporting states that al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.” — CIA Director George Tenet in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee on October 7, 2002

6) Because we’re fighting in the Middle-East, terrorists who might otherwise be coming to America to kill civilians are coming into Iraq to fight our troops. George Bush prefers it that way. He’d rather have the best trained soldiers ever to walk the planet fighting the terrorists in Iraq rather than here at home. If John Kerry had his way, we might have civilians being attacked by those same terrorists in the streets of New York, LA, or Chicago. Which makes more sense; soldiers fighting the terrorists in Iraq or civilians being attacked by them here in the US?

7) Even though the Deulfer report has revealed there were no stockpiles of WMD in Iraq, it also says that they were waiting for an opportunity to produce them,

“ISG has no evidence that IIS Directorate of Criminology (M16) scientists were producing CW or BW agents in these laboratories. However, sources indicate that M16 was planning to produce several CW agents including sulfur mustard, nitrogen mustard, and Sarin.”

What the Deulfer report is saying echoes what the man Deulfer replaced, David Kay, said earlier,

“Even those senior officials we have interviewed who claim no direct knowledge of any on-going prohibited activities readily acknowledge that Saddam intended to resume these programs whenever the external restrictions were removed.”

Weren’t we better off taking Saddam out when he didn’t have WMDs than waiting until he did have them in stock?

8) Iraq was not completely free of WMDs. “10 or 12 sarin and mustard gas shells” have been found. Furthermore, it’s of course possible that there are more we haven’t found yet. There was also plenty of radioactive material Saddam could have given to terrorists to make a dirty bomb. So did Saddam Hussein have the capability of giving WMDs to terrorists? Yes, he did. Apparently, John Kerry has no problem with that.

9) Because we invaded Iraq, nations like Iran and North Korea cannot blithely disregard the idea that we will attack them and they’ll be much more likely to make a deal with us, just as Libya did. As Mark Steyn said,

“You don’t invade Iraq in order to invade everywhere else, you invade Iraq so you don’t have to invade everywhere else.”

10) Obviously Saddam had such poor judgement that it was dangerous to allow him to stay in power. Just look at this quote…

“It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world….He has supported and harbored terrorist groups, particularly radical Palestinian groups such as Abu Nidal, and he has given money to families of suicide murderers in Israel. …We should not go to war because these things are in his past, but we should be prepared to go to war because of what they tell us about the future.”

You know who said that back on 10/09/02? John Kerry. He was right the first time.

11) By taking out Saddam Hussein, we freed more than 25 million Iraqis and are helping them towards Democracy. This is no small thing given that Democrats justified military intervention in places like Bosnia and Haiti SOLELY on humanitarian grounds.

Conclusion: Would America be safer if a madman like Saddam Hussein were still around? John Kerry thinks so and that’s one of the many reasons that he would make a poor Commander and Chief.

Comments are closed.

Advertisement
Featured Video

The Big Obamacare Typo or Lie?

php developer india
Around The Web
Advertisement
Previous Features

Ads

Ted Nugent’s Davy Crockett Rant
Politically Correct Fairy Tales
The 50 Greatest Bad-Ass Action Movie Quotes Of All-Time
The Top 25 C.S. Lewis Quotes
5 Black Swans That Could Obliterate America’s Future
7 Reasons Marriage Is Falling Apart in America
Advertisement
User Info