To remove the tyrant--whose WMD probably went to Syria (or some other holding place) during the year that President Bush tried to persuade the craven and corrupt Left in America, Europe, and Asia to support our efforts--was the only responsible thing to do under the circumstances.
After all the politically- (and financially-) motivated slander, libel, and treason, it turns out now that even the New York Times concedes (even if unintentionally) that Saddam was a real threat. It appears that had not the President sent in our best and bravest, Saddam would have had a nuclear weapon three years ago. From lgf:
Here’s the New York Times’ November surprise: U.S. Web Archive Is Said to Reveal a Nuclear Guide.Charles Johnson is right: Thank you, President Bush. Thank you, American military.
Apparently, in 1991 Saddam Hussein was about a year away from a nuclear bomb, and possessed detailed plans to build one. The Times wouldn’t be publishing this if they thought it would help the GOP, and the angle here is that the Bush administration was sloppy with intelligence secrets, since some of the plans were made publicly available on the Iraq documents web site.
But it’s a weak last-minute play, that could just as easily be interpreted as a positive story for the Bush administration since it lends credence to fears of Iraqi WMD.
UPDATE at 11/2/06 10:17:02 pm:
Note paragraph 14 (hat tip: LGF readers):Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq had abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.Is the New York Times actually conceding that Saddam was just a year away from having a nuclear weapon in 2002?