I'm not convinced that Sada knows what he's talking about, but at the same time, I never really doubted that Saddam had WMDs when this fiasco started. The fact of the matter is, it's irrelevant. Saddam was no threat to us. If what Sada says is true, just the threat of sending in inspectors was enough for Saddam to ship all his WMDs accross the boarder. The inspections worked! He had no ties with Al Qaida! Maybe he was violating the UN orders. He definitely was an evil tyrant that the Iraqi people, along with the rest of the world, are better off with out. No doubt. But, at the time we invaded Iraq, we had bigger fish to fry. People need to get out of this narrow thinking that says, "Saddam deserved what he got," or that "We had the right to invade because he had weapons he wasn't supposed to have." Maybe that's all true, but that's not the criteria that should be considered. The question should be, "Is invading Iraq, right now, at this moment, the best thing for the US, first, and for the rest of the world, second?" The answer was, is, and will always be, NO.

When we waged an unlawful war against Iraq, with out support from the UN, we diverted our attention from the real terrorists, and inflamed hatred for America. This hatred is what drives them. We played directly into the hands of Al Qaida recruiting. They don't live in any single place. They live everywhere. No matter where you fight them, there will be more. Bush is absolutely right when he says everything changed on 9/11. So, why didn't he take a new approach, instead of repeating the exact behavior that created the enemy? The more innocent people are killed or harmed in this process, the more terrorists there will be. We have only begun to see the ill effects of this war. There will be suicide bombers in our streets before long. All because our leaders would rather use our military than our brains.

We must be precise in this war. We must be accurate and just. We can not risk being sloppy, greedy, arrogant, or imperialistic. They think we want to take over the middle east. They think it's a Christian war against Islam. You can pretend it doesn't matter what they think, but it does. It matters more than whether or not they have weapons. Weapons are everywhere. If they don't have them, they'll get them. We have to change their minds. It's the only way.

Vet:

Thank you for your service to this country. My father also served in Viet Nam, and I know how the war was "lost." It was in the media - not over in theatre.

In fact, UBL's #2 Zawahiri has SAID that this would be won like Viet Nam was - in the media!

I just had a friend in town this weekend who was in the first Gulf war. He was in Kuwait and said that one of the Iraqi Republican Guard's Generals who was fleeing Iraq to Kuwait, surrendered to him and his troops. Why? Because the tank that was going ahead of his convoy was blown up by one of our guys in a humvee. When they asked the General why they surrendered to them, he said that all of their tanks had been destroyed by the American forces, and that a vehicle with rubber wheels was able to even take HIS tank out! He was shocked!

Again, thanks for your service. It's because of people like you that I have the freedoms to have this blog and speak my mind.

Ms. U

"For
those who fought for it freedom has a flavor the protected will never
know." (Anonymous)

To John Riccio
Do you live in Naples? I went to Naples Pier today and saw a bunch of protestors
there expressing their displeasure over the war. That I can understand, although
I have an apposing view. What really bothered me were the crosses they set up on
the beach to supposedly morn and pray for those patriots who are now deceased.
To me it is a little exploitative of someone else’s loss and sacrifice.
As a Nam vet I can remember all too well how that
conflict was lost back here by misinformed, idealistic, pampered, civilians.
Many people cry “No More Vietnams”. I will vouch for that sentiment only
from the standpoint of loosing the battle here on the home front and wasting the
lives of those who pay the price.
For
all you silent majority types get your "x#@*$!^" out their and stand
with our troops. They are pulling their share of the cost of freedom lets not
let them down on this end.
“All that is necessary
for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” 
(Edmund Burke)

To-- Liberals are the ones getting crushed--
The general was told by captains That does not make him an eye witness.
To-- Ed --You forget we are the ones that kicked out the inspectors on March 18th just one day before we launched "Shock and Awe"
to--Ms. Underestimated---
Their were pleanty of people who knew there were no WMD One was the chief inspector Scott Ritter.

I agree with you, Ed... you have to consider 2 things: 1) The Democraps think Bush is the dumbest rock in the garden; and if so, 2) If he knew there WERE no WMDs, doesn't that make him the MOST brilliant man ever? Because EVERY other government, and every other American politician SAID he had them... right?

Bush would have been the ONLY person to "know" he didn't have any - the rest of the world was just stupid. Yeah, right...

Ms. U

Answer me this my liberal friends...if SADDAM did not have WMD's...why would he not just let the inspectors come in and not risk invasion? I believe SADDAM would not want them to be found cuz he would be counting on the contraversy to help his cause. If BUSH knew there were no WMD's then why would he risk goin thru such a sh*t storm for no reason?

I recently read an article about 3k people unaccounted for in New Orleans because of Hurrican Katrina. Does the fact that they are unaccounted for mean that they never existed?

Saddam's WMDs remain unaccounted for today. They did exist by his own declarations.

This is an interesting story. It is interesting because it is a potential explanation for not finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that has been ignored by those more interested in discrediting the Bush administration than in discovering the truth. I admit that it is something which is going to be difficult to prove and has a number of puzzling questions surrounding it. As our liberal friend puts it, how does Saddam get his weapons back? If he believed his time were up, what is his motive for turning the weapons over? I am sure there are other questions which need to be answered, and I think this thread would be a good place to start asking those questions and offering potential answers.

Funny,

You would rather accept the YODELLING from the likes of Kennedy, Clinton, Dean, and Kerry than a first hand account from an eye witness, which just happens to be Saddam's #2 Military advisor, who has been advising Saddam since the late 60's.

I bet if Bush's #2 military advisor made damaging accusations against the President's administration, then you would question his credibility? Yea, Right...er...Left or wherever Hillary portrays herself to be this week.

HATE TO POINT IT THE VERY OBVIOUS TO THE KNUCKLEHEADS ON THE RIGHT. BUT, IF THIS WERE TRUE AND THERE WERE SUCH WEAPONS EXPLAIN THE MOTIVE SADDAM HAD TO MOVE THEM IF HIS TIME WERE UP. IF HE EVER HAD ASPIRATIONS TO RETURN TO POWER HOW WAS HE GOING TO GET HIS WEAPONRY BACK? AND SECONDLY, WHERE IS THE WHITE HOUSE OR THE ADMINISTRATION ON THIS ? YOU'D THINK THEY'D BE STANDING ON TOP OF THE WASH.MONUMENT AND SCREAMING THIS OUT. "HEY WE FOUND EM"!!! BUT, NO. THEY HAVEN'T. PROVE IT. UNTIL YOU PUT THE WEAPONS IN HAND ITS ALL A FANTASY SPUN BY THOSE THAT STILL LOOK FOR A RATIONALE OF DESTROYING IRAQ. PSST...IT WAS FOR THE OIL ...AND EVEN THAT HAS NOT WORKED OUT.

Remember this is the same Bob Beckel that tried to blackmail the Electoral College to vote for Gore in 2000. Asshat doesn't beging to describe him.