I think he might be guilty of plagarism. His comments sound a lot like this:

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?

Or maybe he was reading this speech:

Second, without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm.

So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new.

Or maybe Thompson just agrees with this guy:

Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.

Or, well, maybe he just read all of this.

Whatever, it sure looks like his thoughts on this topic aren't original.

I think he might be guilty of being an idiot. Saddam could not beat Iran and as was pointed out, made a pretty grievous miscalculation as to his former arms suppliers coming to Kuwait's aid. Republicans seem to be in a rut wherein they never adjust their assessment of someone's capability regardless of how much ineptness they display. Saddam, a secular leader, was never going to be allowed to control Mecca. Iran already knew they could defeat him or at least fight him to a standstill. Kuwait had allies to powerful to attack again. What nation(s) exactly does Fred think Saddam would have taken and, how?

I'm pretty sure that I don't want this clown anywhere near the controls of the foreign policy machine in the U.S. He just might figure out a way to be worse than W. At least with W, no one expected any thing.

CAFKIA

----------------------------------------------------------- 

It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.
  - William G. McAdoo

The WMD rationale is sooooooooooooooooo 2003.

____________________________

Respect mah authoritah!

Saddam was pinned down. Iraqi Kurdistan was de facto independent. Iran was too big and powerful. We were flying above him, had a garrison in Kuwait, not to mention Qatar, and we and NATO would guarantee Turkey's borders. We were protecting Saudi, too. Was Saddam going to become "regional dictator" by invading Syria? Jordan? Azerbaijan?

Fred has to keep admitting he doesn't know stuff because there's a lot of basic stuff he hasn't got a clue about.

Liberty and justice for all.

My new home