Jung Chang and Jon Halliday, authors of an already controversial biography of the Chinese dictator, will be speaking on the book this Thursday night at the University of Washington. The book begins with this chilling sentence:
Mao tse-tung, who for decades held absolute power over the lives of one-quarter of the world's population, was responsible for well over 70 million deaths in peacetime, more than any other twentieth-century leader.
I plan to be there to buy their book, to listen to the authors, and to hear from those who oppose their uncompromising view of Mao. I may be wrong, but I suspect that not everyone on the UW campus shares their views. In particular, I expect to hear from many who will say that Mao killed "only" 40 or 50 million and that his good deeds make up for some of that death toll.
The talk will be at 7 PM in the Peterson Room of the Allen Library. As far as I can tell, you do not need tickets for this talk, but you may want to call the UW Bookstore just to be sure.
(You can find my brief discussion of Nicholas Kristof's review of the book here.)
Posted by Jim Miller at November 01, 2005 08:46 AM | Email ThisI may be wrong as well, but I doubt that your expectations will be dashed. To the contrary.
It is hard to imagine the type of deliberate invincible ignorance cultivated by any university
that would foster insane justifications for insane propositions by ignoring history, logic, and common sense.
I hope you follow through with another thread commenting on the outcome of your foray amongst the intellectual elites.
You've got a stronger stomach than I do. Shoot, I can barely make it across the University of Texas campus without becoming deathly ill. Hence, I rarely make it to the UT campus. Hold your breath while you're there.
Posted by: Danny on November 1, 2005 09:21 AMMaybe somesday the Chinese will realize they can't have a market-driven, capitalist economy and society with a bunch of communist losers in charge. China's leadership must realize, at this point, that communism was a crappy idea. They're probably trying to figure out how they can hold on to power and have the good life for China. Unfortunately, the good life for China means the commuist leadership must go.
Posted by: Libertarian on November 1, 2005 09:22 AMWhat is appalling is that she was in the school system for decades passing this sort of tripe on to the children in her charge.
Posted by: Larry on November 1, 2005 09:40 AMA liberal will trade 70 million dead for universal health care any day.
They were probably all homophobes and religious nuts anyway. Just a bunch of stupid people.
R. J. Rummel coined the the term democide;
Democide: The murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder.
His extensive research chronicles the death by totalitarian regimes, 20th century communist regimes are the clear "winners" in the grim totals.
Browse Rummel's work, and the next time you see a Che shirt, or someone lionizing Mao, you'll what to rub their smug, arrogant face in a mass grave.
Posted by: JCM on November 1, 2005 09:57 AMUntil recently, I wouldn't have thought that discussions of people like Chairman Mao would be something little kids would be interested in anyway. I honestly don't think my high school kids could even tell you who he was (that's pretty embarrassing!).
However, my seven-year-old son loves to watch the history channel, and he came to me one day wanting to know who was worse, Joseph Stalin or Adolph Hitler...Genocide (or democide?) didn't seem like a very "correct" topic of discussion for a kid this age, but we had a good talk anyway! He wanted to know, on the overall scale of "bad", where Saddam Hussein fit in. Then he wanted to know about bin Laden. I am hoping he came away with the impression that everyone on his list of villains was equally and eternally damnable.
Mao Tse Tung never came up, but he certainly could have. I remember when I was about six, I had a piano teacher who had come(fled) from mainland China with her husband (the minister of our Presbyterian church). For some reason I don't know, their son and his wife were still in China. I remember they were very concerned and fearful for their family and friends who remained behind. At the time I couldn't really comprehend the situation. I thought they were very interesting people, and I would have liked to know more about them. I am curious if any refugees like them will show up at the reading to give the pro-Mao people a history lesson. Now, that would be interesting!
Posted by: Peggy U on November 1, 2005 10:42 AMIt is sad indictment of our education system that history is not really taught. The popular history book in schools, A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn, will spend more time on western colonialism than communism. Zinn as far as can tell is a fellow traveler with Chomsky.
Is it any wonder we have skulls full of mush wander college campuses where Che shirts or idolizing Moa?
Posted by: JCM on November 1, 2005 11:14 AMA few rich white males that owned many slaves wrote some documents.
The whites then double crossed the native Americans
Former slave owners started a civil war
Whites went and stole land from the Mexicans
Whites then raped the natural resources of this country
Then we interned the Japanese because they looked different.
Then MLK came along (the next 10 chapters are dedicated to this)
The KKK were supported by all whites.
We now found someone else to hate - those wonderful peaceful Muslims. It shows the racism in our whole educational system, they didn't even teach them how to fly planes safely causing them to crash into buildings.
We are warmongers that do not do as the UN and French say.
The neocons are now trying to take this country back to what they consider the good old days fighting the enlightened progressive minds by nominating racist, sexist, homophobic, environment destroying judges to the supreme court.
That ladies and gentlemen and womyn, and transgender, and inverted gender, .... is the concise version.
Posted by: fred on November 1, 2005 12:00 PMLaughing and crying at the same time.
Posted by: JCM on November 1, 2005 12:14 PMdo many of you have bellbottoms, pork chop sideburns and drive camaros? the reason i ask is because many of your facile connections between the left and support of mao, fidel, communism, etc. are dated.
if anything, the right's "toe the line"/speak from talking points, eat any dissenters is more reminiscent of the red guard (but not the same) circa 1960's china.
remember, we are in iraq b/c saddam had wmd and in 45 minutes could put a nuclear cloud over some major city. until you fully get an answer to why condi and others marketed the war the way they did, maybe our collective silence demonstrates the reverance we have for our party leaders in a manner not dissimilar to that the chinese have for theirs.
Posted by: dinesh on November 1, 2005 02:32 PMWhen was the last time American mobs murdered people for thoughtcrimes? What's the body count at? I fail to see any correlation in what you are saying. It's perfectly safe for people to voice dissent in America.
Political operatives speaking from talking points? Oh my goodness, really? I'm shocked. SHOCKED!
By the way, yes, I have pork-chop sideburns.
Almost everybody I've ever met in my life is extremely critical of their "leaders." Pointing the finger like that doesn't suit you. Tsk, tsk.
Posted by: Kyle on November 1, 2005 02:49 PMObviously you prefer that Saddam was back in power, so it is only a small step in logic to assume you love Mao.
Here's your assertion:
1. Saddam didn't have WMDs;
2. WMDs are the only reason to invade Iraq;
Therefore, we shouldn't have invaded Iraq.
If there were NO other reasons (forget those 300,000 innocent victims in mass graves - dinesh never met them) to overthrow Iraq, certainly the U.N. would have found no reason to remove him. Therefore he should still be in power according to your logical construct - correct?
Saddam, Mao, Hitler, Stalin, what's the difference? Are you saying that if Attila the Hun or Stalin didn't have WMDs, they'd be fine leaders and should still be in power?
"maybe our collective silence demonstrates the reverance we have for our party leaders in a manner not dissimilar to that the chinese have for theirs" - well, as many secrets as the Clinton Administration gave to the Chinese, I'm not sure you can tell the difference between your (Democratic) party leaders and their (Communist) party leaders. Do you always argue against yourself?
Posted by: Larry on November 1, 2005 02:54 PMSince you libs have trouble following links here it is:
Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;
Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;
Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";
Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and
Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.
In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and
(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS
(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).
(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.
(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.
Posted by: JCM on November 1, 2005 03:00 PMHere is how the Senate voted. The Dems who voted yes (that's the yea part) are in bold, to simplify the point that many dems, including those yelping now voted yea.
Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Allen (R-VA), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Breaux (D-LA), Yea
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Nay
Campbell (R-CO), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Carnahan (D-MO), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Chafee (R-RI), Nay
Cleland (D-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Nay
Corzine (D-NJ), Nay
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Yea
Dayton (D-MN), Nay
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Edwards (D-NC), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Fitzgerald (R-IL), Yea
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Graham (D-FL), Nay
Gramm (R-TX), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Helms (R-NC), Yea
Hollings (D-SC), Yea
Hutchinson (R-AR), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Jeffords (I-VT), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Miller (D-GA), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nickles (R-OK), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-NH), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Thompson (R-TN), Yea
Thurmond (R-SC), Yea
Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wellstone (D-MN), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Nay
It is funny how the left claim Rs "toe the line". Then when there is disagrement about something the the Rs are falling apart (Meirs). You guys really got make up your mind. I think Howard Dean has it for you. You just can't fathom that Rs will NOT blindly support something.
Posted by: fred on November 1, 2005 03:51 PMSince you invoked the "pork chop" and "camero",
I'll invoke 70's SNL.
"Jane, you ignorant slut..."
Posted by: Shaun on November 1, 2005 04:59 PM"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 200
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"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 ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
Gee, I wonder what happened to all those WMD's the Democrats say Saddam had?
Posted by: alphabet soup on November 1, 2005 05:43 PMA serious person would ask what happened to them?
Did Saddam destroy them? If so why didn't he say so and avoid an invasion? Beside Saddam doesn't seem like the type to give up a hole card, he'd want to be able to retrieve his goodies if he ever got the chance.
Are they buried in the desert? And the whole work crew executed so no one could talk, leaving one and only one person with the knowledge of where they are. Possible
Or are they in Syria, remember both Iraq and Syria were Baathist controlled. A lot of senior Iraqi Baath party loyalist are in Syria biding their time. We have indicators of lots of stuff being moved to Syria just before kick off.
Terrorist? I doubt it; Saddam wouldn't want to give up control of the ultimate toy.
Dinesh and other kool-aid drinkers, I am going to say it again the Iraq Survey Group report on WMD never said no weapons, it said the disposition was unknown. There is a huge difference between...
NONE
and
Don't know
That's a dead-ringer synopsis of the take-home final paragraph of Nick Kristof's NYT review of Chang's book.
Posted by: sandalista on November 5, 2005 01:52 PM