« Check Out Wizbang Politics For Election News | Main | This Is How The MSM Helps Voters »

Who Was It Who Said Saddam Was No Threat?

Jim Addison posted news of Saddam's verdict and KIm Priestap posted reaction from Saddam, the White House and around the blogosphere. Pat Hynes at Ankle Biting Pundits is posting reminders of what some prominent Democrats have said about Saddam -- you know what they said after we went into Iraq, as opposed to what they said back when Clinton was in office, back when they were for Saddam after they were against him. Readers are posting additional examples in the ABP comments. Do any of you remember any others?

It will be interesting to see whether or not this news, and particularly news of Iraqis dancing in the streets over the news, will have an effect on the election here. The polls, which seem to be moving in favor of the GOP in many races, were done before this news broke. We probably won't really know how this news does or doesn't affect the election until Tuesday night. What will definitely affect the outcome of the election is our get out the vote effort. Do your part.

Update: Vilmar at Right Wing Howler has been told by an Iraqi that there is a possibility that Saddam could escape the death penalty if he turns 70 before his appeals run out. Vilmar is looking for an expert to tell him whether or not this is true. Anyone know?


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Who Was It Who Said Saddam Was No Threat?:

» In Search Of Utopia linked with I just love hypocrisy... Dont you?

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with Bush hails verdict as milestone for Iraq

Comments (26)

......Saddam could escap... (Below threshold)
Old Coot:

......Saddam could escape the death penalty if he turns 70 before his appeals run out.

Then what? Maybe sentence him to live with Lee and his ilk at the Old Trolls Home?

back when Clinton was in... (Below threshold)
Brian:

back when Clinton was in office, back when they were for Saddam after they were against him.

Kind of like when when the Republicans were for Saddam before they were against him.

The dems are whining about ... (Below threshold)

The dems are whining about the 'timing' of this- Cripes- the Republicans SHOULD be celebrating a massive victory of terror & deserve every gain they can get from this- the dems can whine all they like- but the plain simple fact is that if they were in power, Saddam and his scum sons would still be murdering multitudes of innocent Iraqi civilians- their policy has ALWAYS been cut and run and then comply with the terrorists


Christian news and commentary at: target="_blank">sacredscoop.com ...

The ony time republicans ha... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

The ony time republicans have helped Saddam was to help him stop someone much worse, the crazies in Iran. Sometimes it pays to sick a bad dog on a bad dog, the loser will stay on they're home ground, at least for a while. I don't believe republicans have helped him in the past 18 + years except to help him leave the fine life style he was accostumed to. Now the democrats allowing him to suck billions of dollars out of the oil for food program and buy thousands of tons of weapons and develop a nuclear bomb is another thing. As verified by the NYT's he was within a year of building a nuclear bomb and everything required was at hand. Add that he had to programs and material to build doxens of different types of WMD and you can count yourself (thanks to Presiden Bush) lucky that one member of your family is still alive. Don't you just love the NYT's when they're a** is in a crack and they're trying to avoid closing up. Win, lose or draw Tuesday, this information will destroy the democratic party as it is today within two years. Americans aren't stupid, well maybe the Kerry/Kennedy type and most democrats are, but the ones I know are different people this weekend. You don't have to hit them in the head but once to get their attention and the NYT's hit was a hard one.

"It will be interesting ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"It will be interesting to see whether or not this news, and particularly news of Iraqis dancing in the streets over the news, will have an effect on the election here."

The GOP still doesn't get it. They are so accustomed to listening to their doctrine and ignoring the voices of the American people, that they seriously think the timing of the verdict, orchestrated by the GOP pulling the puppet strings in Iraq, will do some political good.

I predict the opposite. Americans will recognize this as just another manipulation. It's time to return honesty and integrity to the front burner. The corrupt manipulators are being run out of town. Americans are tired of being terrorized by the Republicans elected to represent them.

Where is the "chaos" in Iraq, predicted by the Republican't administration, which supposedly would result from the reading of the verdict? Where is the violent reaction?

The Republicans got it wrong again! Now that's a surprise. Bush and company haven't been right about Iraq from the get-go.

As verified by the NYT's... (Below threshold)
Brian:

As verified by the NYT's he was within a year of building a nuclear bomb

You're either being deliberately dishonest or you don't read carefully. The report said (by unnamed "experts", by the way) that he was supposedly 1 year away from a bomb in 1991! At which point we went in, destroyed his capabilities, established inspections, and he hasn't been near that goal in the 15 years since.

Add that he had to programs

He had no programs. According to Bush, he had only "program-related activities". Whatever that means.

This one has been killing m... (Below threshold)

This one has been killing me for nearly three years - "Iraq was better off under Saddam."

Right. Much better that murder and mayem was government sanctioned and done quietly so as not to offend the delicate sensibilites of others outside the country. Better when CNN kept their secrets, eh?

Brian ~ YOU are the moron w... (Below threshold)

Brian ~ YOU are the moron who can't read. The NYT article noted the documents were from 1990-91 AND 2002.

Last March, t... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Last March, the federal government set up a Web site to make public a vast archive of Iraqi documents captured during the war. The Bush administration did so under pressure from Congressional Republicans who had said they hoped to "leverage the Internet" to find new evidence of the prewar dangers posed by Saddam Hussein.

But in recent weeks, the site has posted some documents that weapons experts say are a danger themselves: detailed accounts of Iraq's secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb.

Documents detailing research before the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

Link to the NYT article.

Don't listen to lying Republicans who lie to the American people in an attempt to further their failed doctrine.

Brian, the U.S. military ha... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

Brian, the U.S. military has removed every conponent needed to build a nuclear bomb, inluding 1.8 tons of yellow cake uranium. Get a life. get real before the democrats get you killed, and they will do that to millions if they are in charge of national security.

By the way, are we still in the Balkin's (Slicks war) helping the wrong side? Or did we bomb the Chinese embassy again.

It doesn't matter when the ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

It doesn't matter when the documents were from. It only matters what they said. And what they said was that he was supposedly a year away in 1991.

Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq had abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein's scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.

I believe the "moron who can't read" ball is back in your court.

Almost forgot, getting old ... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

Almost forgot, getting old will do that to you. Brian, when did we capture the documents that the NYT's says would allow even someone as stupid as a democrat to build a nuclear bomg? Wasn't that 2003?
Most conservatives read Captain's Quarters and already knew about the documents plus those that link Saddam directly with Usama, and the WMD hidden/transported to Syria by the truckload.

Saddam was set to kill you and your family and you're still too stupid to see it.

Brian ~ YOU are th... (Below threshold)
jpe:
Brian ~ YOU are the moron who can't read. The NYT article noted the documents were from 1990-91 AND 2002.

Wow. That's dumb even for a righty blog. Congrats for raising the bar.

Scrap, not sure what your p... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Scrap, not sure what your point is. None of what you said is in contention. Whatever they had in 1991, we neutralized it. And then...

As reported in the IAEA's update report of 27 January 2003, and confirmed in the subsequent statements of the Director General before the Security Council on 14 February and 7 March 2003, the IAEA has found to date no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq.
Seriously Jim, you're not t... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Seriously Jim, you're not that dumb, you are deliberately misreading it. The documents were provided to inspectors in the 90s and again in 2002 (remember, when they went back in?). Those documents detailed their nuclear program from 1991, and what had happened to all the components of that program. That the documents were provided to inspectors again in 2002 does not mean that they had the facilities in 2002, only that they had a photocopier.

Now I know you guys really wanted that NYTimes report to support some ridiculous "Saddam was a year away from a bomb in 2002" notion, even if it meant ignoring where in the report said notion was flatly contradicted, but it just didn't float. Paul, Kim, Lorie, and Jay all got in on the action, ignoring much of the article and ignoring the fact that the Iraq Survey Group couldn't find any WMDs, let alone nuclear facilities! This probably worked on some of the lower life forms that frequent this site, but you are not that dumb. So there is but one conclusion to draw here...

Who are you trying to kid?

Okay, I'll bring this point... (Below threshold)

Okay, I'll bring this point up one more time - They weren't supposed to have such documentation. It was supposed to have been destroyed. They kept it against the stated IAEA regulation. Anyone want to guess why?

Mantis: What is 1.8 tons of... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

Mantis: What is 1.8 tons of enriched uranium and several tons of yellow cake. All the plans, according to the NYT's that would allow a retarded monkey to build a bomb. That is only a few of the documents that show Saddam's WMD program still in progress and his close ties to Usama. Check Captians quarters archives for documents that have been searched and converted to english that even a graduate of the failed education might be able to read, unless you played football, then all bets are off even for the 5th year seniors.

Putting the retarded democrats in charge of National Defense is like putting the inmates in charge of the Asylum. Someone, a lot of someones are going to get killed in the United States.

Is that why every terrorists organization has endorsed the dimwits this election cycle? Not one has endorsed the republicans.

Democrats are crying for their love child Saddam (murderer of millions) to be set free.

Lee, Brian and now the idio... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

Lee, Brian and now the idiot Mantis. Fools you can try to twist the truth, but it will not work. We captured that inforamtion after 2003. Which means and lets see if you can spin this, it was in Saddam's hands, the information necessary to build a Nuke. He had the nuclear materical the triggers and the will. With sanctions lifted what was to stop him? Your will? Fools.

"Vilmar at Right Wing Howle... (Below threshold)
theExecutioner:

"Vilmar at Right Wing Howler has been told by an Iraqi that there is a possibility that Saddam could escape the death penalty if he turns 70 before his appeals run out."

-no doubt because some Democratic leaning U.S. lawyer drags it out.

I'm curious: Were ... (Below threshold)
Lurking Observer:

I'm curious:

Were Lee, Brian, muirgeo and the rest in favor of the first Gulf War? After all, if Rummy was shaking hands with Saddam in 1984, he hadn't undone that handshake by 1991.

So, I'm curious---were y'all so all-fired up in favor of that war, or was that, too, a "war for oil," a war in which Saddam (whom we had supported) was merely acting in his own best interests?

And let's remember, the knowledge about the state of Saddam's nuclear program became known only after we'd engaged in a war with Saddam, so the question is: Were you in favor of war with Iraq even before you knew about the state of his nuclear program?

Somehow, I have my doubts....

a retarded monkey to build ... (Below threshold)
seamus:

a retarded monkey to build a bomb.

Scraps, why would Saddam let your mother build a bomb?

Were Lee, Brian, muirgeo... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Were Lee, Brian, muirgeo and the rest in favor of the first Gulf War?

Speaking for myself, of course.

So, I'm curious---were y'all so all-fired up in favor of that war, or was that, too, a "war for oil,"

Saddam invaded Kuwait, or don't you remember? Sheesh, it's bad enough having to tear apart all the lies on here, without also having to give you a history lesson.

Thanks, Lorie! This is a c... (Below threshold)

Thanks, Lorie! This is a case where I hope I am wrong and Saddam is not able to weasel his way out of the death sentence.

An Enlightened Intellectual... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

An Enlightened Intellectual from the Left weighs in with the typically insightful commentary....

seamus:


Scraps, why would Saddam let your mother build a bomb?

I uderstand where leftist a... (Below threshold)
spurwing plover:

I uderstand where leftist actor ED ASNER is a big admier of JOE STALIN even thought that fact that STALIN killed far more then did HITLER did just shows what a fictional news paper editor is often more like the real ones

Did they say Saddam's the d... (Below threshold)
Robert:

Did they say Saddam's the decider?

Did they say he has Executive Privelege to fight the war on terror any way he sees fit?

Did they say that those who wanted to tie Saddam's hands are defeatists who wanted him to lose the War with Iran?

Re: The documents on how to build the bomb being on the InterNet for all to see.
This is what happens when you have a moron for President who takes advice from the likes of PowerLine, Michelle Malkin, and the other fools in the right-wing blogosphere who try desperately to hold onto fallacies like the threat of Saddam's 2002 WMD program.

Or is this just another case of Clinton's Penis holding sway?




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy