....AND.........

So ... here's your scenario.  You're the president, and here is the information you have:

1. America is under attack.  Islamic terrorists are actively trying to kill as many Americans as they possibly can.
2. There was and is evidence that Saddam Hussein was supporting Islamic terrorists.  Saddam himself was making a big show of writing checks to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.
3. You know that Saddam Hussein had both chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.
4. You know that Saddam had already killed thousands of Iranians and Kurds with his chemical weapons.
5. You know that Saddam had begun one nuclear program, using uranium from Africa.  That program was slowed when Israeli fighter jets destroyed his nuclear facility in 1986.
6. Saddam had ignored 12 years of United Nations resolutions calling for him to destroy all of the equipment and materials connected with his chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs, and to present evidence to the UN that he had done so.
7. In 1998 Saddam ended all inspections in Iraq.  During the very time that terrorist attacks against the United States were reaching a new peak, and during this time you have no way of figuring out what Saddam is up to within his own borders.
8. You know that Saddam hates the United States and has a particular hatred for your father, the first President Bush.
9. You firmly believe that if Saddam managed to develop a nuclear device, he could, in all probability, make that device available to a terrorist organization.
10. You also know that our security efforts at our borders and ports would be completely ineffective in detecting and stopping a nuclear device from entering this country.

So, what do you do?  With that information can you really afford to sit back and just watch Saddam?  Can Saddam be watched that closely?  Could Saddam be watched closely enough to insure that he would not place either chemical, biological or nuclear weapons in the hands of any terrorist group?  This man, Saddam Hussein, was absolutely refusing to abide by any of the 17 UN resolutions.  The burden of proof had been on Saddam.  Prove that you have destroyed your weapons.  Show us how you did it.  Show us where you did it.  Give us the documentation.  Show us that those weapons and those weapons systems are gone and we'll  leave you alone.  But Saddam refused.

You're the president here, and you have two possible screw-ups you can commit.  You can attack Saddam and then fail to find those weapons of mass destruction.  Or, you can give Saddam more time and then try to explain to the American people why a nuclear device was detonated in the center of Chicago, or why thousands were killed when a poison gas was spread throughout the New York Subway system. 

Which mistake do you want?  Which screw-up do you want to explain to the American people?  Do you really want to try to explain to the American people that after Saddam kicked the inspectors out in 1998 that you thought he went on and did just exactly what the UN had demanded of him, and then didn't tell anybody?

Sometimes there are no really good choices.  Sometimes you have to chose between two options on the basis of which one would lead to the worst consequences, not necessarily the best result.  True leaders can make those decisions.  Demagogues cannot."

http://boortz.com/nuze/200309/09292003.html

___________________________________________

My question of the moment is what did Sen. Jay Rockefeller tell Assad on his visit to Syria in 2002 which may have prompted Saddam to truck out and hide any weapons of any kind that he had?????  See previous post

"Interesting Timeline"  https://blogs.lotterypost.com/konane/2005/11/interesting-timeline.htm