Snippets:

(1) Saddam Hussein’s WMD programs:

Weapons inspector David Key came back from Iraq, saying he had found solid evidence of the existence of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs, but not chemical, biological, or nuclear missiles on the launching pad.

At least to me, that doesn’t sound like bad news. Thank God, Saddam Hussein hadn’t been able to put such weapons on the launching pad. Otherwise, he could have killed tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers. Apparently, the Bush doctrine of preemption nipped Saddam Hussein’s WMD programs in the bud.

David Kay’s interim report on Saddam Hussein’s WMD programs may also be an indication that both the CIA and Britain’s intelligence service, MI-6, did obtain reliable intelligence information about the existence of Saddam Hussein’s WMD programs.

The gap between David Kay’s findings and the pre-Iraq-war intelligence is that both CIA and MI-6 had received intelligence that Saddam Hussein not only had WMD programs but possessed weapons of mass destruction, whereas so far only evidence of WMD programs has been found.

Simple logic would lead one to think that if a man has a program, whatever it may be, he would use it to do something or produce something. So there are two possibilities with Saddam Hussein’s WMD programs: (1) He did produce some WMD’s with his WMD programs. (2) His WMD programs were in their early stages, so he hadn’t yet had the time to produce WMD’s and put them on the launching pad.

Since the CIA-MI-6 intelligence information on the existence of Saddam Hussein’s WMD programs has proven to be accurate, it is premature to conclude that the CIA-MI-6 intelligence information about Saddam Hussein possessing weapons of mass destruction is inaccurate.

It may also be premature to conclude that MI-6's intelligence about Saddam Hussein having tried to acquire uranium from Niger is pure English literary fiction. True, there is a forged document claiming Saddam Hussein had tried to acquire uranium from Niger. But the forgery may have been designed to discredit MI-6's intelligence.

British prime minister Tony Blair still sticks by MI-6's claim that Saddam Hussein had tried to acquired uranium from Niger, because MI-6's claim is based on sources other than the forged document. While the CIA cannot independently confirm MI-6's claim, that is no reason to under-estimate MI-6's competence.

Saddam Hussein may have moved his WMD’s to new secret locations when the U.S. told the U.N. it had intelligence information about their existence. When a criminal gets wind of an upcoming police search, wouldn’t he try to destroy evidence and move his valuable possessions to a secret location? Would he be so dumb as to place the smoking gun on his door step for the police to pick up?

(2) Saddam Hussein apologists:

It is shocking to watch so many Saddam Hussein apologists appear on TV preaching the un-justifiability of the Iraq War.

The problem is if to oust Saddam Hussein with his WMD programs (no matter how crude they may have been), ties with terrorist organizations, torture chambers and mass graves was unjustifiable, then, the conclusion would be Saddam Hussein’s WMD programs, ties with terrorist organizations, torture chambers and mass graves were justifiable institutions with legitimate purposes.

According to the apologists, America’s homeland would have been perfectly safe and secure if Saddam Hussein had been allowed to keep his WMD programs. They choose to ignore the fact that there was no guarantee that Saddam Hussein would deny terrorists access to WMD technologies.

Although plenty of evidence indicates that Saddam Hussein’s regime was a sponsor of terror, the apologists continue to claim "Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with terrorism". In fact, the Saddam Hussein regime harbored terrorists, funded terrorists, and trained terrorists. It also provided intelligence assistance to terrorists.

According to media reports, former Iraqi intelligence chief Faruk Hijazi (now in U.S. custody) has confirmed that he had met with Osama bin Laden and associates on multiple occasions. A February 19, 1998, memo from Iraqi intelligence reported planned meetings with an al-Qaeda representative visiting Baghdad. Days later, al-Qaeda issued a "fatwa" alleging U.S. crimes against Iraq.

U.S. investigators have found 1993 memos from Saddam Hussein’s regime directing Iraqi intelligence to assist Palestinian Islamic Jihad, as well as Afghan-based "holy warriors" against the U.S. peacekeeping mission in Somalia. Documents recently found in Tikrit, Iraq, indicate Saddam Hussein provided Abdul Rahman Yasin (one of the culprits in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing) with monthly payments and a home.

But according to the apologists, Saddam Hussein’s WMD programs "did not pose an imminent threat". Does that mean the United States should have waited until Saddam Hussein had developed full-fledged WMD programs, put his WMD’s on the launching pad, and killed tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers?

By the way, how imminent is imminent enough? Is it true that they are just playing dirty politics with global security?

If they are serious about global security, they should support U.S. efforts at regime change in any country where the political leadership seeks to destabilize global security through sponsorship of terrorism. Didn’t Saddam Hussein’s regime match that profile?

(3) The irony of inaction and incompetence:

The irony of all this fuss is that these Saddam Hussein apologists all want to be somebody. A couple of them even want to be president of the United States. They have one common interest. That is, they all want to see George W. Bush fail. They all want to see a left-leaning apologist administration take over, so that they can get a piece of the action and serve, say, as "advisors".

The public should remember that it was exactly such advisors’ see-no-imminent-threat mentality that lulled America into letting its guards down before 9/11. Read the following paragraphs and you’ll see the quality of analysis some of our "advisors" have provided in the past:

Former CIA officer Larry Johnson wrote under the title "The Declining Terrorist Threat" in New York Times on July 10, 2001 (i.e. two months before 9/11) that "Americans have little to fear" from terrorism unless they travel or work in certain hot spots. He said, "Early signs suggest that the decade beginning in 2000 will continue the downward trend" in terrorist activity.

Three months before 9/11, Mr. Larry Johnson told U.S. News and World Report, "Bin Laden has an international network of contacts, but it’s more analogous to the Elvis Presley fan club than a corporation like General Motor."

Well, in the final analysis, it is up to the voters to decide whom they should trust. If they elect a bunch of incompetent politicians who see inaction as virtue, they will have to live with the consequence. They should know incompetent politicians, once voted into office, will appoint incompetent "advisors" who, unable to see imminent threat themselves, tend to dismiss signs of danger as "insignificant".

Robert M. Liu