Foxfyre wrote:Question: If the UN believed Saddam did not have WMD, why did they devote years to financing an expensive inspection team who were charged to look for them?
Foxfyre, these new-democrats keep changing their positions as they
fall on their faces with their current ones. The new-democrats supported John Kerry's position: "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time." The new-democrats say we should have taken more time to determine whether or not Saddam had WMD. They ignore the now obvious harmful consequences of taking more time. They ignore Saddam's repeated interruptions and limitations on the UN inspection teams. They ignore the now obvious reason for those interruptions and limitations. They ignore Saddam's obvious need for more time to hide whatever he did not want the UN inspectors to find. They ignore the fact that the last such interruption before the UN inspectors were invited back one last time, lasted more than a month. Certainly that was enough time to hide much of what Saddam did not want the UN inspectors to find.
If all that did not succeed in motivating both the French and Russians to commit to
not veto an invasion, why would the new-democrats think both these two countries would ever commit to
not veto an invasion of Iraq? Why would the new-democrats back a candidate who thinks such commitments could come soon enough to permit our continuing survival? Furthermore, why would the new-democrats back a candidate who continues to think the invasion of Iraq was "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time?"
I ask you these questions in the desperate hope you or others might shed some light on their answers.