What do we really know about Saddam and the weapons of mass destruction?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by OPTIONAL777, Jan 20, 2003.

  1. What do we really know about weapons of mass destruction that Saddam may or may not possess?

    What do we really know about what his true intentions are?

    We know what we have seen first hand, we know what we have read in left wing publications, right wing publications, and moderate publications.

    We have the words of Bush and other members of his administration.

    We have the words of Saddam and his administration.

    We have the words of Blair, the U.N. members, Iraqui ambassadors, and others.

    So, imagine being in a court of law, and hearing the available evidence, and trying to determine fact from fiction, innuendo from proof, following a money trail to find motivation, etc.

    It is less than clear cut, in my opinion.

    Perhaps it is what we don't know that is driving Bush to act sooner than later to remove Saddam from power.

    Recently, there was a murder trial here in San Diego, that captured the national attention, as it involved the disappearance and eventual death of a young girl. A real soap opera. The parents were into a swinging lifestyle, complete with drug use, and wife swapping activity. The accused man was found with illegal child pornography on his computer.

    Yet, as I watched this trial proceed (it was televised) I was torn because it didn't completely add up. Something seemed to be missing. There was physical evidence that tied the accused to the disappearance and potential murder, DNA, some fibers, etc..... but there was never proof of murder, no murder weapon, a decomposed body that couldn't verify the exact cause of death, and no clear cut motivation or opportunity.

    Right up to the end of the trial, I was torn, and based on the evidence I could not have removed all reasonable doubt, as the prosecution could not explain just how the girl had vanished from her home. There was no physical evidence that the accused had ever been in the home. The had no real motivation for the suggested kidnap and potential murder.

    The trial was quite controversial, to say the least, and opinions were everywhere....with a large number just saying "I think he is guilty...because I feel that way."

    Well, he was found guilty, sentenced to die, and then it was revealed after the trial and court documents that had been sealed were released, that the accused was in the process of cutting a deal with the D.A. to reveal where the body of the missing girl was in exchange for life in prison (the girl had not been found at the time of the negotiation of a plea bargain).

    As providence would have it, the DA was ready to cut the deal, and within hours of them signing off on the deal, the body was discovered, and the deal was taken off the table by the DA.

    The general public did not know this, the jury did not know this, but the accused, the judge, the defense attorney, and the prosecutor all knew of the deal that was being negotiated before the girl's body was found.

    After the trial when this news came out, people were outraged, as if that material fact of the negotiation had been made known prior to the trial, the fact that the accused knew where the body was, the trial would have been over very quickly. He was guilty, and those on the inside of the process knew it. However, due to the legal process, the fully incriminating information of the deal was sealed from the legal process until after the trial.


    So, how does this local trial relate to the convicted criminal known as Saddam Hussein (convicted by the U.N. after the Gulf war, and sentenced to sanctions and weapons inspections) and the current state of affairs?

    Does anyone really think we the people, in America or abroad really have all the facts?

    Do we know what negotiations might have already taken place concerning Saddam already?

    Does Bush and company have information they cannot reveal, due to the sensitivity of the data, and the unwillingness or inability to reveal what is really known in order to protect someone?

    Is it possible that Bush knows with certainty that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, because he has knowledge of the individuals or individual that perhaps brokered the deal in which Saddam recently acquired them?

    Pure speculation, although not too far from a real probability. The world has very dirty hands when politics are involved.

    It would be very interesting to really have all the facts.

    Perhaps some day the real truth will come out.

    For the time being, the leftists will focus on Bush being wrong, the right wingers will focus on Bush being right, and I just sit here wishing I had enough information to come to a level of certainty about what the right course of action is.
  2. rs7


    That is easily explained. It is very simple. You have what is a rare quality among those that argue politics. And that is an OPEN MIND.

    If people could make decisions based on facts and not on emotions, we would not have a fraction of the conflicts to deal with in the first place.

    But unfortunately, it is all too obvious that the majority of the people who do not participate in debate have no opinion. So they provide no solutions. And the majority of those that do participate have such strong pre-conceived opinions that they only further to widen the schisms of whatever issues are under discussion.

    And when someone like you or me will admit to not knowing what the "only" solution may be, then, as we just saw in that other thread, a guy like Max401 will say that we are being self contradictory. Which to him, is a bad thing. Issues must be black or white to the extremists. And so that leaves very little room for negotiation. Or for the chance of coming to an agreement.

    Traderfut and Wild will always find a way to make America wrong. Max and Aphie will always find a way to make America right, and the rest of the world wrong. "Staunch Republicans" will always think of Democrats as "liberal assholes". And left wing extremists will always think of conservatives as being fascists. Clinton, to his detractors, will always be a goat for having lied about sex, and Nixon, to his detractors, will always be the crook that got caught.

    What these guys actually accomplished as Presidents will be overlooked for at least a generation or two. Because politics are so unreasonably biased. And this is so sad to me. To me, it is really sad that most Americans go into a voting booth and vote a straight party line. They don't know the candidates, or the issues.. I always wonder what they do when they get to vote for a judge. No party affiliation. Do they go "eeny meeny minee moe"? Or do they just leave the ballots blank?

    How do they vote for school board members? By how familiar the names are because one candidate could afford more posters than the other? Unfortunately, I think that is exactly what happens.

    Moderation is very unfashionable I suppose. And mediation is a lost art. Too bad.

    But take solace my friend. Being undecided is truly a feather in your cap. It means that you are being fair at least to yourself. So let the zealots rant. The world will find a way to go on. The better leaders will prevail (at least they have so far), and the Saddams and the Bin Ladens will find their ways into the history books as what they are. Evil cowards. That is the easy part to predict as far as where our future will take us. The hard part is going to be going through the uncertainty of how to resolve the big issues as they unfold. And who should be making the decisions.

    We have been lucky so far. But luck runs out eventually. How did the Supreme court take it upon themselves to appoint a President? And did we learn a lesson from that fiasco? Or will things just hum along until the next time?

    As it turned out, a Florida recount would have yielded the result we got anyway. But imagine if it had not? So while I have faith in our system of government, what really scares me right now is that Dubya, no matter what the outcome of our impending showdown with Iraq, will still be in a position to stack the deck for the rest of most of our lives with his ability to appoint Supreme Court justices. And the fact that he is so indebted to the religious right is downright scary. Because the separation of church and state can go right down the tubes. And that is one of the essential foundations of our government.

    Our constitution has worked beautifully for the most part for over 200 years. Yes, I know Traderfut will tell us about slavery and persecution. But we are a flexible government. We have the ability to change built right into our system. But now the Christian Right and the Republican party have formed an allegiance that threatens to dismantle our foundations of freedom.

    I can already imagine the responses I will get for saying this. I could write a response for Wild right now. As I could for Daniel_M and for Aphie. And for Fairplay. And for Traderfut. But Dan will write his own, Aphie will come up with something that may surprise me, and the other guys will just cut and paste what I could find for them almost without effort. And Max will just be pissed. All so predictable.

    This should NOT be a political issue. But it has become one. How did we get here? How do we deal with this? To me, this is scary. To me, this is where we truly need an OPTIONAL777 to sit on the Supreme Court. Because we need people who admit to not knowing what their decisions will be before presented with the facts.

    Thank Optional,
    and peace to you,