andyfox
07-27-2003, 12:23 AM
Dick Cheney called critics of the Bush administration irresponsible in a speech on Thursday because they wanted to ignore intelligence warnings that Saddam Hussein was reconstituting Iraq's nuclear program.
Cheny cited a National Intelligence Estimate that Hussein "if left unchecked, [would] probably have a nuclear weapon during this decade."
"Having lost thousands of Americans on a single morning, we are not going to answer further danger by simply issuing a diplomatic protest . . . We will not wait in false comfort . . .we will act, and act decisively."
What is Cheney talking about? The United State did indeed act decisively in the wake of 9-11 by going after the terrorist organization responsible and the government that hoarbored that organization. It got rid of the Taliban and put it to Al Qaeda.
Hussein had nothing to do with 9-11. Cheney did not cite any evidence that he did, because that evidence does not exist. We did not simply issue a diplomatic protest or wait in false comfort.
How would Hussein "probably" having a nuclear weapon "during this decade" constitute a threat to us? WOuld Hussein have the means to deliver the weapon? Had Hussein threatened to deliver the weapon? Was Iraq's military formidable? Which country surrounded the other with 250,000 troops and was thus more of a threat to the other country? And what about Cheney's remarks on March 19 on Meet the Press where he said Hussein, in fact, had a nuclear program? Which is it: did he have one on March 19 or would he have one by the end of the decade?
"At a safe remove from the danger, some are now trying to cast doubt upon the decision to liberate Iraq," said Cheney. What danger? President Bush said himself there was no imminent danger. Liberating Iraq had nothing to do with any danger Hussein posed to us, it had to do with doing away with Hussein's regime insofar as it was dangerous to the Iraqi people, not the American people.
Cheny cited a National Intelligence Estimate that Hussein "if left unchecked, [would] probably have a nuclear weapon during this decade."
"Having lost thousands of Americans on a single morning, we are not going to answer further danger by simply issuing a diplomatic protest . . . We will not wait in false comfort . . .we will act, and act decisively."
What is Cheney talking about? The United State did indeed act decisively in the wake of 9-11 by going after the terrorist organization responsible and the government that hoarbored that organization. It got rid of the Taliban and put it to Al Qaeda.
Hussein had nothing to do with 9-11. Cheney did not cite any evidence that he did, because that evidence does not exist. We did not simply issue a diplomatic protest or wait in false comfort.
How would Hussein "probably" having a nuclear weapon "during this decade" constitute a threat to us? WOuld Hussein have the means to deliver the weapon? Had Hussein threatened to deliver the weapon? Was Iraq's military formidable? Which country surrounded the other with 250,000 troops and was thus more of a threat to the other country? And what about Cheney's remarks on March 19 on Meet the Press where he said Hussein, in fact, had a nuclear program? Which is it: did he have one on March 19 or would he have one by the end of the decade?
"At a safe remove from the danger, some are now trying to cast doubt upon the decision to liberate Iraq," said Cheney. What danger? President Bush said himself there was no imminent danger. Liberating Iraq had nothing to do with any danger Hussein posed to us, it had to do with doing away with Hussein's regime insofar as it was dangerous to the Iraqi people, not the American people.