« A rather odd coincidence | Main | The New York Times Publishes Classified National Security Secrets Once Again »

Just the facts, ma'am

Fact: During the leadup to the invasion of Iraq, Saddam's alleged possession of weaponst of mass destruction was A factor, but not THE factor behind the argument to invade.

Fact: Under UN Security Council resolutions implemented as part of the cessation of the first Gulf War, Saddam was obligated to report, collect, and destroy all his weapons of mass destruction, as well as all related materials.

Fact: Under UN Security Council resolutions implemented as part of the cessation of the first Gulf War, Saddam foreswore any further development of weapons of mass destruction.

Fact: We have uncovered literally TONS of WMDs in Iraq since the invasion. Mostly materiel that predates the first Gulf War, meaning it has deteriorated, but is still dangerous, but some with indications they were produced after Saddam's surrender.

Fact: Saddam repeatedly violated the terms of his surrender from the first Gulf War by firing on US aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones, refusing to cooperate with inspectors weapons inspectors, and not giving a full and accurate accounting of his weapons of mass destruction.

Fact: When the surrendering party in a war later violates the terms of their surrender, repeatedly and deliberately, it is well within the victor's rights to resume hostilities and enforce the terms of the original surrender. Or demand newer, stricter measures. Or remove the offending government entirely.

Fact: He also attempted to assassinate a former president of the Uinted States as revenge for actions that former president had taken as president -- a completely new act of war.

Fact:Saddam was a source of support for international terrorism. Two undeniable examples are his financial support of Palestinian suicide bombers, to the tune of $25,000 to their families, and providing terrorists with training camps within Iraq.

And, finally:

Fact: These facts will have absolutely no effect on the anti-Bush, anti-war factions, who have invested far, far too much into the "Bush lied," "there were no WMDs in Iraq," and "the war in Iraq is illegal" myths to let something as trivial as reality shatter their carefully-crafted delusions.


Comments (76)

Reality to a liberal is lik... (Below threshold)

Reality to a liberal is like a pound of sugar to a diabetic!

Reality to a liberal is ... (Below threshold)

Reality to a liberal is like a pound of sugar to a diabetic!

Except that the diabetic wants the sugar.

Your last fact should be fi... (Below threshold)
gmax:

Your last fact should be first. It is the whole point. Olestra liberals are totally "fact free".

McGehee wins the award here... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

McGehee wins the award here.

Facts would be better for a lib. than sugar for a diabetic, they just don't realize it.

Now wait just a cotton pick... (Below threshold)
Sheik Yur Bouty:

Now wait just a cotton pickin' minute....

I thought that "reality has a well-known liberal bias."

Stephen Colbert wouldn't lie to me, would he? Say it isn't so!

Where's Lee/mak/jp2/etc when you need 'em?

Where's Lee/mak/jp2/etc ... (Below threshold)
scsiwuzzy:

Where's Lee/mak/jp2/etc when you need 'em?
Maybe they were in Miami?

Im affraid not, Mak the tar... (Below threshold)
914:

Im affraid not, Mak the tard is already posting on the Iraq WMD discovery posting.

Damn yet more evidence to give the left "Nightmares in November" ya gotta love it..

"Fact: During the leadup to... (Below threshold)
Giveme A. Break:

"Fact: During the leadup to the invasion of Iraq, Saddam's alleged possession of weaponst of mass destruction was A factor, but not THE factor behind the argument to invade."

Yes. Neocon delusions of reshaping the Middle East paid for with Iraqi oil was THE factor.

"Fact: We have uncovered literally TONS of WMDs in Iraq since the invasion. Mostly materiel that predates the first Gulf War, meaning it has deteriorated, but is still dangerous, but some with indications they were produced after Saddam's surrender."

Sure. If you count discarded shells found in groups of one or two and unused shells that never held a chemical agent.

"Fact:Saddam was a source of support for international terrorism. Two undeniable examples are his financial support of Palestinian suicide bombers, to the tune of $25,000 to their families, and providing terrorists with training camps within Iraq."

True. But which is the bigger threat to the US and Israel, what Saddam did or a nuclear armed Iran and North Korea? By tying up our troops in Iraq and wearing them down with repeated tours in Iraq, we don't have the forces or even the appearance of strength to deter Iran and North Korea.

"Fact: When the surrendering party in a war later violates the terms of their surrender, repeatedly and deliberately, it is well within the victor's rights to resume hostilities and enforce the terms of the original surrender. Or demand newer, stricter measures. Or remove the offending government entirely.

Fact: He also attempted to assassinate a former president of the Uinted States as revenge for actions that former president had taken as president -- a completely new act of war."

And if Bill Clinton had invaded Iraq for these reasons, how many conservatives would have been screaming "It's wag the dog" or "It's nation building"?

I hope that your all readers have alot to leave their childred once the estate tax repeal is made permanent, because your children, granchildren and great-grandchildren will still be paying for this war.

Oh man, I can't believe you... (Below threshold)
jp2:

Oh man, I can't believe you guys are taking Santorum's line of reasoning here. Hilarious, but it's also getting sad.

That the neo-cons like JT are still reasoning themselves out of this - years after - speaks volumes.

J.T.Don't try to c... (Below threshold)
wave_man:

J.T.

Don't try to confuse the Left with facts.

And you waited 'til FRIDAY ... (Below threshold)

And you waited 'til FRIDAY to post this!

Note: Olestra is FAT substitute (Ok, better pun for Fact substitute), and Aspartame is the sugar substitute (I figure moonbats and wingnuts alike sweeten their arguments with pejorative verbiage). Folks that can't tolerate control of their intake of either fat or sugar resort to these substances, which is a poor substitute for self-control and discipline.

During the leadup to the... (Below threshold)
mantis:

During the leadup to the invasion of Iraq, Saddam's alleged possession of weaponst of mass destruction was A factor, but not THE factor behind the argument to invade.

It may not have been THE factor, but it was the big factor without which there would have been far less support. If the weapons justification were removed, how much support do you think there would have been for this war based on the rest of your list?

Fact: We have uncovered literally TONS of WMDs in Iraq since the invasion. Mostly materiel that predates the first Gulf War, meaning it has deteriorated, but is still dangerous, but some with indications they were produced after Saddam's surrender.

Ok, now you're just talking out of your ass. Please provide a link detailing these "indications they were produced after Saddam's surrender". From what I can tell so far, we have over the course of three years collected a few hundred scattered munitions leftover from the 80s and no longer usable. Dangerous as chemicals often are, but not really dangerous as weapons. Provide a link to "tons" also, and not just from someone with no access to the classified info doing calculations, and please remember that tons of sludge is not exactly WMD. If they can no longer cause mass destruction, they are no longer weapons of mass destruction. Provide some backup to your "facts" here, please.

Btw, here's what Iraq Surve... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Btw, here's what Iraq Survey Group chief David Kay had to say last night about Santorum's big find:

'wrong as to the facts and exaggerated beyond all reason as to the interpretation of the facts.' He continued, 'There is no surprise that very small numbers of chemical cannisters from the Iran-Iraq War have been found. The ISG found them, and in my testimony in 2004 I said that I expected that we would continue to find them for a very long time. These are in very small numbers and are scattered. The nerve agents have long since degraded to the point that they no longer pose any substantial threat. In most cases the mustard agent has substantially degraded, but will burn you if skin comes in contact with it.'"

What do you have?

"What do you have?"<p... (Below threshold)
jp2:

"What do you have?"

I'll tell you what he's got - he's got Santorum's back!

<a href="http://www.fair.or... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

UN Security Council resolutions have been consistently ignored by many nations such as Morocco and Israel for many years..Bush simply invested far too much in his own pro war 'carefully crafted delusions" to let any facts that 9/11 was not Bin Laden/Saddam co -production' to deter him from negotiating for peace with Saddam in the anxious days of early 2003, when the decision had already been made to go to war. "Iraq, of course, was doing other things with regard to sponsorship of terrorism, ... and they rightly were on the state-sponsored terrorism list.(Jay is certainly correct with this, but unfortunately too many other nations are also guilty )" But what we saw happen after 9/11, trying to put together this thesis of some sort of alliance with Al Qaeda, was 'a manufactured issue.'" The laundry list of shifting reasons for invasion suggest that Bush wanted the sentence first ..finishing off Saddam, before the verdict on whether International law could justify a preemptive war.

I guess I recall the run-up... (Below threshold)
groucho:

I guess I recall the run-up to the war a little differently. I don't recall too many people saying Saddam had no WMD's; most would acknowledge he indeed had them in the past and had used them on the Kurds, after all he got a lot of them from US. The disagreement was, and still is, that they representd no iminent threat to us (unless you call strapping one on the back of a camel and hollering giddyap! iminent. Stumbling on an old cache of weapons that we knew he probably had hidden somewhere after bungling around for three plus years doesn't justify the pre-war "mushroom cloud" fear mongering we heard on a regular basis.

OK, we found 500 canisters of chemical weapons. It cost 5 US deaths and about 34 wounded for every one. Worth it?

By the way where did we find them? Was it East, South, North or maybe West of Tikrit like field marshall von Rmsfeld said?

The key "facts" in this lis... (Below threshold)
faboofour:

The key "facts" in this list are, in fact, lies. Period.

First REAL fact: ALL arguments for invading Iraq were based on a single assumption: that Saddam was hiding weapons of mass destruction. Saddam was, in fact, otherwise well-contained in the one-third of Iraq he controlled (not opinion: FACT, voiced by Ritter, Blix, and every other nation on the planet except the USA and now acknowledged by then-SecOfState Powell). The only reason for invading Iraq was the suspicion that he was circumventing the sanctions by building banned weapons (a suspicion that the CIA itself downplayed in their pre-war white paper of October of 2002), either for his own use or to export to other terrorist organizations (a suspicion that, while voiced by the administration, was altogether absent in the same CIA white paper). Oh, and, by the way, the same CIA white paper also dismissed the idea of Saddam-sanctioned Al Qaeda training camps, too. This too was (surprise) a lie.

Second REAL FACT: There have been findings of DEPLEATED REMAINS of chemical weapons, dating back to the Iran-Iraq war, NOT WMDs!! A "weapon of mass destruction" needs to be something that:
1: can be used as a "weapon", that is, can cause harm to another without also causing harm to oneself.
2: can cause "mass destruction", that is, can cause harm to more people than, say, a stick of dynamite or a car bomb.
Anyone with an understanding of chemical degradation knows that the found "munitions" in no way, shape or form, qualify. Period.

Claiming anything else is LYING. Period!!

Giveme A. Break asks what the NeoCons are leaving their children--a very good question, I think. The answer is pretty clear to me: a legacy endless lies for no other reason to keep themselves comfortable while tens of thousands of United States soldiers are maimed and killed because of their lies.

And that's the REAL facts. And one more REAL fact: Most Americans are truly disgusted with the lying. So disgusted that some of us Republicans just won't go the polls this year, and if the Democrats win, So Be It.

Nice list of facts. grouch... (Below threshold)

Nice list of facts. groucho's comment is the kind of thing I expected in response.

But, wouldn't a better title be "Joust The Facts, Ma'am?"

Hey faboofour, for someone ... (Below threshold)
moseby:

Hey faboofour, for someone who hates lying, you sure do a lot of it.

Jay, take off the hat. It's... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Jay, take off the hat. It's baking your brain.

faboofour - you nailed it perfectly.

Fact: During the leadup ... (Below threshold)

Fact: During the leadup to the invasion of Iraq, Saddam's alleged possession of weaponst of mass destruction was A factor, but not THE factor behind the argument to invade.
Then why did bush say that was THE factor?

Fact: Under UN Security Council resolutions implemented as part of the cessation of the first Gulf War, Saddam was obligated to report, collect, and destroy all his weapons of mass destruction, as well as all related materials.
The Bush Administration conceeds that he did this.

Fact: Under UN Security Council resolutions implemented as part of the cessation of the first Gulf War, Saddam foreswore any further development of weapons of mass destruction.
And he quit developing them.

Fact: We have uncovered literally TONS of WMDs in Iraq since the invasion. Mostly materiel that predates the first Gulf War, meaning it has deteriorated, but is still dangerous, but some with indications they were produced after Saddam's surrender.
According to the man who discovered these, they are as dangerous than what you have under your sink. Holy Smokes! And no, none of it was made after 1991. You are talking about shells that did not explode when fired in battle with the Iranians.

Fact: Saddam repeatedly violated the terms of his surrender from the first Gulf War by firing on US aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones, refusing to cooperate with inspectors weapons inspectors, and not giving a full and accurate accounting of his weapons of mass destruction.
He destroyed his WMD, as the Bush Administration conceeds. He repeatedly told the UN that he had destroyed them and that he didn't have any. The UN inspectors substantiated this.

Fact: When the surrendering party in a war later violates the terms of their surrender, repeatedly and deliberately, it is well within the victor's rights to resume hostilities and enforce the terms of the original surrender. Or demand newer, stricter measures. Or remove the offending government entirely.
Too bad this was not the Justification Bush used, or else, we would never have gone in this time.

Fact: He also attempted to assassinate a former president of the Uinted States as revenge for actions that former president had taken as president -- a completely new act of war.
Do you believe in ghosts and bigfoot too?

Fact:Saddam was a source of support for international terrorism. Two undeniable examples are his financial support of Palestinian suicide bombers, to the tune of $25,000 to their families, and providing terrorists with training camps within Iraq.
What training camps? He did no such thing. The money he gave to the families of suicide bombers is real enough, but how could he be said to provide financial support to the bombers? They were already dead!

With the exeption of the fact that he shot at planes, and that he gave money to the families of suicide bombers, the rest of these "facts" are pure baloney.

And, finally:

Fact: These facts will have absolutely no effect on the anti-Bush, anti-war factions, who have invested far, far too much into the "Bush lied," "there were no WMDs in Iraq," and "the war in Iraq is illegal" myths to let something as trivial as reality shatter their carefully-crafted delusions.

Fact: During the leadup ... (Below threshold)

Fact: During the leadup to the invasion of Iraq, Saddam's alleged possession of weaponst of mass destruction was A factor, but not THE factor behind the argument to invade.
Then why did bush say that was THE factor?

Fact: Under UN Security Council resolutions implemented as part of the cessation of the first Gulf War, Saddam was obligated to report, collect, and destroy all his weapons of mass destruction, as well as all related materials.
The Bush Administration conceeds that he did this.

Fact: Under UN Security Council resolutions implemented as part of the cessation of the first Gulf War, Saddam foreswore any further development of weapons of mass destruction.
And he quit developing them.

Fact: We have uncovered literally TONS of WMDs in Iraq since the invasion. Mostly materiel that predates the first Gulf War, meaning it has deteriorated, but is still dangerous, but some with indications they were produced after Saddam's surrender.
According to the man who discovered these, they are as dangerous than what you have under your sink. Holy Smokes! And no, none of it was made after 1991. You are talking about shells that did not explode when fired in battle with the Iranians.

Fact: Saddam repeatedly violated the terms of his surrender from the first Gulf War by firing on US aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones, refusing to cooperate with inspectors weapons inspectors, and not giving a full and accurate accounting of his weapons of mass destruction.
He destroyed his WMD, as the Bush Administration conceeds. He repeatedly told the UN that he had destroyed them and that he didn't have any. The UN inspectors substantiated this.

Fact: When the surrendering party in a war later violates the terms of their surrender, repeatedly and deliberately, it is well within the victor's rights to resume hostilities and enforce the terms of the original surrender. Or demand newer, stricter measures. Or remove the offending government entirely.
Too bad this was not the Justification Bush used, or else, we would never have gone in this time.

Fact: He also attempted to assassinate a former president of the Uinted States as revenge for actions that former president had taken as president -- a completely new act of war.
Do you believe in ghosts and bigfoot too?

Fact:Saddam was a source of support for international terrorism. Two undeniable examples are his financial support of Palestinian suicide bombers, to the tune of $25,000 to their families, and providing terrorists with training camps within Iraq.
What training camps? He did no such thing. The money he gave to the families of suicide bombers is real enough, but how could he be said to provide financial support to the bombers? They were already dead!

With the exeption of the fact that he shot at planes, and that he gave money to the families of suicide bombers, the rest of these "facts" are pure baloney.

And, finally:

Fact: These facts will have absolutely no effect on the anti-Bush, anti-war factions, who have invested far, far too much into the "Bush lied," "there were no WMDs in Iraq," and "the war in Iraq is illegal" myths to let something as trivial as reality shatter their carefully-crafted delusions.

Fact: Regime change as an A... (Below threshold)
tyree:

Fact: Regime change as an American policy in Iraq after Operation Desert Storm was started by the Clinton Administration.

Fact: None of the independent panels that reviewed the Presidents actions leading up to the war said that he lied. They faulted the intelligence services for incomplete analysis of the information.

Fact: A big lie, repeated over and over by your political enemies, will be eventually accepted by many people as the truth. This works both ways. The difference, of course, is the President often cannot reveal everything he is basing his policies on. The secrets will be revealed in 40 years or so. Ask anyone who remembers how weird it was finding out years later that we could read the Japanese diplomatic code in the run up to World War II. I asked my Dad about that. He answered, "I was in the Navy, and it really turns your head around to find out years later what the President and his Staff knew that they couldn't tell us."

Fact: Waiting until the threat is imminent can be far worse than striking while your enemy is weak, see WWII.

Fact: Many, many people in all the represented Parties in American politics approved the decision to go to war, and the ones that knew less than eveything at the time, knew they were being told less than everything at the time. That is how these things work. It is an imperfect system and people should be educated enough to understand this.

I wonder how the brave men and women who were shot at almost daily over the no fly zones while enforcing the Desert Storm peace treaty feel about the idea that there was only one reason given to go to war.

Excellent Tyree... (Below threshold)
914:

Excellent Tyree

Fact: Regime change as a... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Fact: Regime change as an American policy in Iraq after Operation Desert Storm was started by the Clinton Administration.

Regime change was the stated goal in Iraq, yes. Let's look at the wording of that act:

"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

I don't see invasion in there, do you? No, that policy was this administration's.

Fact: None of the independent panels that reviewed the Presidents actions leading up to the war said that he lied. They faulted the intelligence services for incomplete analysis of the information.

The investigation that was to examine how intelligence was used by the administration (Phase 2 of the Senate Report on Iraqi WMD Intelligence) has never been completed. Any others never even tried to answer the question of if and how intelligence was manipulated or whether "Bush lied".

Gayle Miller<p... (Below threshold)
mak44:

Gayle Miller

You posted: "Reality to a liberal is like a pound of sugar to a diabetic"

You already have been defrocked the other day when you posted on your blog site your excrement about Al Gore.

You are no diviner of "reality." You are simply a Pavlovian female puppy yipping from the sidelines.

Looks like the whole pac... (Below threshold)
RobLACa.:

Looks like the whole pack traitors is trying to pull a gangbang here and spew their perpetual fraud. This is what happens when the liberal pussies pussify our Country and the rule of law is not enforced. If traitors would executed as is the LAW , we would have all these POS idiots like Lee , MAK , faboofour , jp2 and other such fecal matter.

You are the idiot liars trying change what is reality and the facts by saying "these are the REAL FACTS". You are wrong and proven wrong every time. I can play your game. The REAL FACTS are that you are all sore lying losers. Americans don't want your Commycrat incompetant leaders to ever be in a position of power to cause any more damage. If you don't like it here the GET THE FUCK OUT! And take your lying traitorous leaders with you.

Wow, I haven't read the com... (Below threshold)

Wow, I haven't read the comments on one of your posts for a long time.

Quite the moonbat infestation you have here.

Looks like the whole pac... (Below threshold)
Cheeses Of Nazareth:

Looks like the whole pack traitors is trying to pull a gangbang here and spew their perpetual fraud. This is what happens when the liberal pussies pussify our Country and the rule of law is not enforced. If traitors would executed as is the LAW , we would have all these POS idiots like Lee , MAK , faboofour , jp2 and other such fecal matter.

You are the idiot liars trying change what is reality and the facts by saying "these are the REAL FACTS". You are wrong and proven wrong every time. I can play your game. The REAL FACTS are that you are all sore lying losers. Americans don't want your Commycrat incompetant leaders to ever be in a position of power to cause any more damage. If you don't like it here the GET THE FUCK OUT! And take your lying traitorous leaders with you.

Why do you hate America so much? If you want to love under the Taliban, be my guest. I prefer truth to bullshit, but some people like to lie to themselves so much that their lies seem like the truth to them.

Quite the moonbat infest... (Below threshold)
Cheeses Of Nazareth:

Quite the moonbat infestation you have here.

Yeah, these damn liberals keep showing up with their facts. It just isn't easy to be a lying sack of crap anymore, huh?

Ugh... I finally understand... (Below threshold)
Robb H:

Ugh... I finally understand where the terrorists are coming from. They're so sick of arguing the same arguement over and over again to libs they resort to suicide bombing.

My father always told me you can't explain the obvious to the unimformed, and oi, was he right.

Oh well. I quit. I'll just vote em to extinction.

Ugh... I finally underst... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Ugh... I finally understand where the terrorists are coming from. They're so sick of arguing the same arguement over and over again to libs they resort to suicide bombing.

Just be sure to get away from everyone else when you blow yourself up. Try a big empty space, like the inside of your head.

Fact: Regime change as a... (Below threshold)
faboofour:

Fact: Regime change as an American policy in Iraq after Operation Desert Storm was started by the Clinton Administration.

A lie: The stated policy was to "support" regime change, not to initiate it.

Fact: None of the independent panels that reviewed the Presidents actions leading up to the war said that he lied. They faulted the intelligence services for incomplete analysis of the information.

A lie: No independent panel to this point has actually concluded any review of the President's actions so to make such a statement.

Fact: A big lie, repeated over and over by your political enemies, will be eventually accepted by many people as the truth. This works both ways. The difference, of course, is the President often cannot reveal everything he is basing his policies on.

Not exactly a lie, but certainly misleading. There's quite a difference between not addressing information and saying something is fact when it's demonstratably false. It is well-documented that the Vice President and Secretary of Defense didn't simply withhold information about WMDs in Iraq, but they, in fact, unambiguously stated that there were WMDs in Iraq, even after the CIA white paper in October, 2002, that clearly stated that there was no concrete proof to that effect. That's not just "not revealing everything." That's LYING! Period.

Fact: Waiting until the threat is imminent can be far worse than striking while your enemy is weak, see WWII.

No, that's an astoundingly uninformed and short-sighted opinion. I don't know which "WWII" you're looking at, but the in the one I'm familiar with, both Japan and Germany, who followed your policies and struck while their enemies were weak, didn't do very well in the long run.

Fact: Many, many people in all the represented Parties in American politics approved the decision to go to war, and the ones that knew less than eveything at the time, knew they were being told less than everything at the time.

Again, not actually a lie, but extremely disingenuous. Many politicians approved of the invasion, that's very true. But many, many people in government, even though they approved of the use of force IF NECESSARY, opposed the invasion because IT WASN'T NECESSARY, a fact known by the populations of every other country on the planet (yes, Britain, too; the majority of the citizenry there were opposed to the Iraq invasion).

I wonder how the brave men and women who were shot at almost daily over the no fly zones while enforcing the Desert Storm peace treaty feel about the idea that there was only one reason given to go to war. I wonder how the brave men and women who were shot at almost daily over the no fly zones while enforcing the Desert Storm peace treaty feel about the idea that there was only one reason given to go to war.

About the same as those there now: Fed up with the lies, too. 'Least that's what I'm hearing in private.

Look: When you truly believe in your cause, it doesn't matter how strong or weak your enemy is: you'll fight until you either win or die. But when you realize that your belief is based on lies, you'll neither win nor die, you'll just give up and walk away. The majority of the American People are neither stupid nor cowards. When they realized our leaders were lying about Vietnam, they cut their losses. The same thing is happening again.

Suggestion to the Republican Party: Ditch Rove, stop lying, cut your losses and get back to basics. Iraq is political poison and nothing's going to decontaminate it. Not fake press conferences about WMDs, or stories about would-be inept "terrorists" allegedly trying to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge or the Sears Tower (the question isn't "if" such reports won't end up as punch lines on Leno, the question is how big a laughing stock Gonzales will make of himself).

Guys: IT'S THE ECONOMY, STUPID!

Uh, RobLACa, I hate to brea... (Below threshold)
faboofour:

Uh, RobLACa, I hate to break it to you, but the majority of Americans now know that the Iraq invasion was initiated on false information. Only a crackpot minority still believe that there were WMDs in Iraq or that there was a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda or, indeed, that Saddam was, or would be at any time in the foreseeable future, any threat at all to his neighbors, much less to United States interests in the Middle East.

If you want to maintain such crackpot beliefs, that's okay, but do know that your minority grows smaller and smaller every day (as does Fox News's ratings). This is acknowledged even by the RNC, as shown by their ramping up so early to maintain Congressional seats that, in lieu of the gerrymandering done in the past decade, should be in no danger whatsoever. But they are. Ask yourself why, why don't you?

And that's a FACT! :)

I guess I recall the run... (Below threshold)
Cheeses Of Nazareth:

I guess I recall the run-up to the war a little differently. I don't recall too many people saying Saddam had no WMD's; most would acknowledge he indeed had them in the past and had used them on the Kurds, after all he got a lot of them from US.

There were pleny of people who suggested that Saddam no longer posessed any usable quantities of WMD, after the inspections in the 1990's. They were just smeared by the Bush WHite House as a bunch of idiots, loonies, or child molesters (remember the smear job on Scott Ritter?) In fact, there were plenty of holes in the Bush story, had people really thought about it rationally at the time. Unfortunately, people were more concerned about sealing their homes with duct tape, and weren't thinking rationally. As for the Kurds, he did that in 1988. Why didn't we invade then? Anyway, he destroyed everything he could find after the gulf war, so it really didn't matter, did it?

'remember the smear job... (Below threshold)
914:

'remember the smear job on Scott Ritter?"

I thought Miss Lewinsky was the one that got the smear job ( blue dress )?

As for the Kurds He did that in 1988.Why didntWe invade then?

They'd still be dead?

Anyways He destroyed everything He could find after the gulf war,so it really did'nt matter did it.

He destroyed everythig He could find including 100,000s of Iraqis that just wanted to be free, and whatever else He thought would make Him look compliant with U.N. Sanctions..

He destroyed everything in sight including the Twin Towers, a good chunk of the Pentagon and 4 civillian airliners as well as nearly 3,000 american lives like Yours and mine?

He was complicit in terrorism and rewarded its ugliness! $25,000 to palestinian suicide bombers families, The families of the before mentioned also danced in the streets when the towers came down...Remember? coincidences? I think not..Taboo maybe..but Cheeses Take the Wheel..

I thought Miss Lewinsky ... (Below threshold)
Cheeses Of Nazareth:

I thought Miss Lewinsky was the one that got the smear job ( blue dress )?

Um, yeah, because that's really relevant here...

As for the Kurds He did that in 1988.Why didntWe invade then?

They'd still be dead?

So basically, you didn't give a fat rat's ass about Saddam's victims until you couldn't find those Weapons of Mass Destruction. Well, what a humanitarian you are.

He destroyed everything in sight including the Twin Towers, a good chunk of the Pentagon and 4 civillian airliners as well as nearly 3,000 american lives like Yours and mine?

Wow, I've heard about idiots as big as you, but until now, I've never actually met one! This is a red letter day!

914You r... (Below threshold)
mak44:

914

You really are INSANE, you stupid neo-con delusionary.

You excreted: "He (Saddam)destroyed everything in sight including the Twin Towers, a good chunk of the Pentagon and 4 civillian airliners as well as nearly 3,000 american lives like Yours and mine?

You couldn't support those ludicrous statements if your life depended on it. You really are an idiot.

Shame that, when your Mother was pregnat w/ you, she didn't take an enema so that you would have ended up as an abortion instead of a ranting fool.

Well, my mother told me nev... (Below threshold)
Cheeses of Nazareth:

Well, my mother told me never to argue with an idiot, because people might not know the difference, so I'll leave you alone, lest the people get us mixed up. So long!

FACT: Rick Santurum is down... (Below threshold)

FACT: Rick Santurum is down by 18% points to a guy-Bob Casey, Jr.-who makes Al Gore look like Martin Luther King when it comes to his oratory skills.

Sorry Jay, this one kinda smells. If Anybody but a guy who is fighting for his political life, had been beating this drum, I would have given this story some credibility.

Do you really think this administration would have taken all this heat for all these years about WMD's if there was any legitamacy to this story?

I think you know the answer to that Jay.

I am going to start calling you Doug Flutie in a minute. It's 4th and ten, you are down by three, with little or no time left on the clock. Time for that Hail Mary pass into the end zone.

That was a Hail Mary post my man :)

NazarethIm surpris... (Below threshold)
914:

Nazareth

Im surprised at You? Argue? argue over what jizzbrains? Maks lack of intelligence? granted Hes an idiot of the first kind..but is there any other?
Shame that when Your mother was pregnant w/you She didnt take an enema so that You would have ended up as an abortion instead of a ranting fool.

You mean like You?

The Biology does not support Your supposition transient..being as you were most likely born vaginally though in Your case it may have been a hard days dump?

914You cann... (Below threshold)
mak44:

914

You cannot justify or support your moronic claims above that I referenced. You are a ranting fool totally unpossessed of any facts.

You are Wizbangs spouting sphincter.

Whats the matter Mak 44, ha... (Below threshold)
914:

Whats the matter Mak 44, having a depends moment? or perhaps your trying to reconfigure your next statement to reflect the finer nuances of your superiorNOTintellect..

I wouldnt need to support My ludicrous statements if you could show one shred of evidence that says Saddam Hussein was not behind 911? Im waiting..?
Its the same argument you made over WMDs?

Wheres the beef?

914For one ... (Below threshold)
mak44:

914

For one thing. you fool, the 9/11 Commission Report does not support your moronic statement. That should be sufficient.

And now, bring on your documentation.

The 911 commission? what a ... (Below threshold)
914:

The 911 commission? what a universal cataclysmic joke..You mean to tell Me a government save face cover your asses hearing is enough to convince you? Wow you place a lot of trust in total strangers? You have failed to document (for what its worth) your proof..

Therefore I must be off to the local tap to shoot some billiards and down some ale..If perchance you concoct any anecdotal evidence I will be sure to suffer thru it later. thanks for the time youve invested..

WMD was absolutely essentia... (Below threshold)

WMD was absolutely essential to get the UK and Australia on board. It was the biggest argument made to the American people. They simply were not going to war for any other reason, and they are basically the only other countries that went to war with us with any enthusiasm.

You say we have found tons of WMD, but you simply assert they had some danger level. I have never read that they had any danger level at all. There is no evidence at all that any of them were produced after 1991. None.

The US/UK No-Fly Zone was not some sort of UN thing, it was, by any standard of international law, a decade long illegal bombing campaign.

You assert that governments have the right to renew hostilities with parties who break their treaties. I would be interested in the theory you use to come to this conclusion. Teach me something.

Assassinating a former President is not an act of war. Such acts have caused wars, but that's not the same as America being attacked by invading armies, or an imminent invasion, or a domestic group trying to subvert the Constitution (for instance, by radically re-interpreting the 4th Amendment to basically create a "reasonableness" standard for the necessity of a warrant which has never existed in US history).

By the way, Jay Tea, if you are talking about Salman Pak, you've been had. Certainly you didn't mean that?

Bush and his administration were deceitful, they wanted the war as soon as they took office (see: Paul O'Neill's comments in The Price of Loyalty) and they wanted the war in Iraq as soon as 9/11 happened (see Richard Clarke) and they wanted this war and they did what they could to make sure it happened.

There were no WMD in Iraq, and you really should read the testimony of Lt Gen Hussein Kamel to get the straight dope on that subject. Bush would regularly cite _some_ of the evidence provided by Kamel, and then simply pretend the rest doesn't exist.

Whether or not the war in Iraq is "illegal" it was very bad policy. I would say there are a lot of people who predicted toppling Saddam's military would be easy, but that the Iraqis would not like being occupied. Supermajorities of Iraqis think we are occupiers. Many Iraqis think we are letting the violence happen on purpose (I don't believe that, I'm saying that people are conspiracy theorizing against us). The British Ministry of Defence poll shows that half the Iraqis think it is AOK TO KILL AMERICANS! That means that we now have 12,000,000 Iraqis who would probably give a little cheer if America was hit again like 9/11.

We have made 10,000,000 new enemies just in Iraq, and 100s of 1,000,000s more around the world.

That is bad policy, regardless of what you think about the desirability of "regime change."

Look at the role of Kagame, as a founding member of the coalition of the willing, and his role in sending armies to slaughter and steal in the Congo, how his troops slaughtered 10s of thousands of Rwandans, too, being a major part of a the many millions dead. Ten times as many people have died in Congo since 1998 than Saddam ever killed. Kagame has visited Bush twice in DC. Laura entertains the butcher's wife.

WMD was absolutely essen... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

WMD was absolutely essential to get the UK and Australia on board. It was the biggest argument made to the American people.

No, it was the biggest argument that the press said Bush made. Bush regularly and routinely made numerous arguments for it.

You say we have found tons of WMD, but you simply assert they had some danger level. I have never read that they had any danger level at all. There is no evidence at all that any of them were produced after 1991. None.

Seeing as how Iraq couldn't have ANY...it doesn't matter.

The US/UK No-Fly Zone was not some sort of UN thing, it was, by any standard of international law, a decade long illegal bombing campaign.

Time for a newsflash: The UN is not the provider of legitimacy.

Why was the No-Fly Zone legal? BECAUSE SADDAM AGREED TO IT IN THE CEASEFIRE.

The UN's approval is not needed and, quite bluntly, dirties anything.

You assert that governments have the right to renew hostilities with parties who break their treaties. I would be interested in the theory you use to come to this conclusion. Teach me something.

A treaty is a legal document. In exchange to not be killed, a leader makes agreements with the country that is attacking them.

...unless you are actually admitting that the concept of contracts is lost on you. In that case, I'm not going to teach you.

Assassinating a former President is not an act of war.

Actually, it very much is.

Such acts have caused wars, but that's not the same as America being attacked by invading armies, or an imminent invasion, or a domestic group trying to subvert the Constitution (for instance, by radically re-interpreting the 4th Amendment to basically create a "reasonableness" standard for the necessity of a warrant which has never existed in US history).

Except that the group you obliquely referenced has, you know, case law on its side. But it's nice to see you give moral equivalence for the US gov't in regards to terrorists. Kudos to you.

By the way, Jay Tea, if you are talking about Salman Pak, you've been had. Certainly you didn't mean that?

Bush and his administration were deceitful, they wanted the war as soon as they took office (see: Paul O'Neill's comments in The Price of Loyalty) and they wanted the war in Iraq as soon as 9/11 happened (see Richard Clarke) and they wanted this war and they did what they could to make sure it happened.

Hmm, they told Clarke to see if Saddam was behind 9/11. Gee, if they DIDN'T, they'd have been JUST A BIT negligent.

As for wanting to remove Saddam, that was a Clinton policy, not Bush.

There were no WMD in Iraq

Except you said there was a few sentences back. Be consistent.

and you really should read the testimony of Lt Gen Hussein Kamel to get the straight dope on that subject.

Yes, HE has the "straight dope". OK.

Bush would regularly cite _some_ of the evidence provided by Kamel, and then simply pretend the rest doesn't exist.

You mean a guy who still praised Saddam and had idiotic theories wasn't fully trusted? Stunning piece of news there.

Whether or not the war in Iraq is "illegal" it was very bad policy. I would say there are a lot of people who predicted toppling Saddam's military would be easy, but that the Iraqis would not like being occupied. Supermajorities of Iraqis think we are occupiers. Many Iraqis think we are letting the violence happen on purpose (I don't believe that, I'm saying that people are conspiracy theorizing against us). The British Ministry of Defence poll shows that half the Iraqis think it is AOK TO KILL AMERICANS! That means that we now have 12,000,000 Iraqis who would probably give a little cheer if America was hit again like 9/11.

Which shows the one mistake we made:

Rebuilding.

Next time, just level everything and keep it up.

We have made 10,000,000 new enemies just in Iraq, and 100s of 1,000,000s more around the world.

Yes, because Iraq was SO on our side before this.

And the rest of the world (by that, let's be honest, you mean Europe) is militarily inept and incompetent.

That is bad policy, regardless of what you think about the desirability of "regime change."

Following a Clinton policy usually is a bad move, but here it was not.

Look at the role of Kagame, as a founding member of the coalition of the willing, and his role in sending armies to slaughter and steal in the Congo, how his troops slaughtered 10s of thousands of Rwandans, too, being a major part of a the many millions dead. Ten times as many people have died in Congo since 1998 than Saddam ever killed. Kagame has visited Bush twice in DC. Laura entertains the butcher's wife.

And the UN was neck-deep in ALL of those problems --- and you still hold them up as paragons of morality? You said that we needed UN support for it to be legal --- yet the UN was behind humanitarian crises unmatched in history.
-=Mike

Whee! I love it-you moonbat... (Below threshold)
Xennady:

Whee! I love it-you moonbats are now reduced to claiming the WMD found in Iraq don't count! And if you want an Iraqi general to quote how about Georges Sada? He says the spiffy new WMD-you know,the WMD you actually care about- were flown out to Syria.Why doesn't his story matter? Like I said yesterday,you folks have gone from the nice and quick "There were no WMD in Iraq Bush lied LIED LIED LIED!!!!! to "The WMD found in Iraq don't count because the were old and of course Saddan had old WMD and we knew about them already...and...and...did I mention that Bush LIED LIED LIED!!!" Sorry ain't gonna fly.The fact is the regime of Saddam Hussein is destroyed and will never again pose a military threat to the United States.The reason this story matters today is the impact the it may or may not have on the upcoming election.Anyone likely to be posting here already has their mind made up about Iraq and whether the invasion was right or wrong-but millions of swing voters have heard for the last three years that the most discussed reason to invade was bogus.That has had an effect on support for the war.Again-that claim is GONE GONE GONE! Moonbats,you can post long detailed posts rehashing the failed arguments of 2002 forever-it doesn't matter.Swing voters aren't interested enough to read them.The advantage you had was the quick and easy BUSH LIED NO WMD required no tedious exposition to be made clear.Well, that's over.Now YOU have to convince people that the WMD found don't really count.Not only is this preposterous on its face but the people you might be able to convince won't have the patience to listen.Like I said moonbats,this revelation has just begun to do you harm.I'm going to enjoy the next few months.

"Fact: Regime change as an ... (Below threshold)
tyree:

"Fact: Regime change as an American policy in Iraq after Operation Desert Storm was started by the Clinton Administration.

A lie: The stated policy was to "support" regime change, not to initiate it."

faboofour......
And where in my one sentance do I state that Clinton initiated regime change? That is what you call a lie?

I will accept your correction on one condition, you admit to the world that part of the reason Clinton supported regime change was Weapons of Mass destruction.

"No, that's an astoundingly uninformed and short-sighted opinion."

Since you do not know me how can you say my opinion is uninformed or short sighted? You are wrong on both counts. I am not going to call you a liar because you are ignorant of the truth. Which, of course, is exactly what happened to all the experts who were misled by Saddam into thinking he had Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Oh well, as I said, 40 years from now when everything is declassified we will find out more about what really happened.

Hey Xennady, welcome to a p... (Below threshold)
914:

Hey Xennady, welcome to a private "NIGHTMARE".. a room full of idiots and no exit in sight?

Well, 914 I stopped being s... (Below threshold)
Xennady:

Well, 914 I stopped being surprised by the fallacies of moonbats a long time ago.

Hey Xennady, welcome to ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Hey Xennady, welcome to a private "NIGHTMARE".. a room full of idiots and no exit in sight?

Oh, yes, how will you ever get out of this nightmarish room? You could, I don't know, walk away from your computer.

So Jay, no response? You just list your unsupported "facts" with no links and that's it? Ok, then...

So, Mantis, what facts do y... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

So, Mantis, what facts do you dispute?
-=Mike

It's really funny how you w... (Below threshold)
Cheeses Of Nazareth:

It's really funny how you whackos (in 914's case, illiterate whacko) hold on to this crap that is 100% BS, or completely discredited, because you desperately want to look less stupid.

1. Saddam Hussein was NOT stockpiling or creating WMD after 1991.

2. These so-called WMD that Santorum "discovered" had been abandoned during the Iran-Iraq war. These are not weapons that he was hiding from inspectors, they were abandoned to rust in the desert. No rational human being would argue that a bunch of rusty crap in the desert is worth 2,500+ American lives. Even your boy, BUSH knows that this WMD Discovery is crap. Don't you think he would have been prancing all over TV in his flight suit by now, if this was anything less than total BS?

3. Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, that was another guy named Osama. But you don't care about him, do you? I think people like you want Osama to be able to strike again, because you sure care more about Saddam than Osama. Why do you hate America? Why are you siding with the terrorists?

4. Saddam did not provide terrorists with training camps. Our government has concluded that Saddam was actively training anti-terrorism forces at Salman Pak. That story's been dead since 2003. Try researching before you make dumb-ass discredited statements. Next thing we know, you'll be telling us the earth is flat.

5. There are some people who would say that points 1-4 are incorrect. Those people are idiots. These facts are well established. No respected authority agrees with you on this issue, so why don't you move on?

So, Mantis, what facts d... (Below threshold)
mantis:

So, Mantis, what facts do you dispute?

Scroll up.

>> WMD was absolutely essen... (Below threshold)

>> WMD was absolutely essential to get the UK and
>> Australia on board. It was the biggest argument
>> made to the American people.

> No, it was the biggest argument that the press
> said Bush made. Bush regularly and routinely
> made numerous arguments for it.

You are wrong. The UK and Australia would not join
the war effort unless the WMD argument
could be made. Lie one.

>> You say we have found tons of WMD, but you
>> simply assert they had some danger level. I
>> have never read that they had any danger level
>> at all. There is no evidence at all that any of
>> them were produced after 1991. None.

> Seeing as how Iraq couldn't have ANY...it
> doesn't matter.

They didn't have any, so it wasn't a causus
belli
. They had no WMD. They had rusty old
shells filled with sludge you wouldn't want to
touch, that's all.

>> The US/UK No-Fly Zone was not some sort of UN
>> thing, it was, by any standard of international
>> law, a decade long illegal bombing campaign.

> Time for a newsflash: The UN is not the provider
> of legitimacy.

The Bush administration repeatedly went to the UN to gain
legitimacy.

> Why was the No-Fly Zone legal? BECAUSE SADDAM
> AGREED TO IT IN THE CEASEFIRE.

The "air exclusion zones" were created by America, not the UN.

>> You assert that governments have the right to
>> renew hostilities with parties who break their
>> treaties. I would be interested in the theory
>> you use to come to this conclusion. Teach me
>> something.

> A treaty is a legal document. In exchange to not
> be killed, a leader makes agreements with the
> country that is attacking them.

First, you mean, in exchange for a cessation of
hostilities. It rarely has anything to do with the
life or death of the actual leader signing the
treaty.

This isn't anything resembling a proof, though.
I need either a historical precedent, or a school
of thought in international law, or something.
Starting hostilities based on contract violation
would suggest that Saddam was justified in
invading Kuwait in 1991. After all, Kuwait was
stealing its oil.

> Assassinating a former President is not an act
> of war.

> Actually, it very much is.

Again, something more than assertion would be nice
here. Why should I believe you? I have no idea.

>> Such acts have caused wars, but that's not the
>> same as America being attacked by invading
>> armies, or an imminent invasion, or a domestic
>> group trying to subvert the Constitution (for
>> instance, by radically re-interpreting the 4th
>> Amendment to basically create a
>> "reasonableness" standard for the necessity of
>> a warrant which has never existed in US
>> history).

> Except that the group you obliquely referenced
> has, you know, case law on its side. But it's
> nice to see you give moral equivalence for the
> US gov't in regards to terrorists. Kudos to you.

There is no case law on in US or pre-1776 British
Common Law history which supports Hayden's
interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. He says
that if a search is "reasonable" then you a
warrant is not required.

>>Bush and his administration were deceitful, they
>>wanted the war as soon as they took office (see:
>>Paul O'Neill's comments in The Price of Loyalty)
>>and they wanted the war in Iraq as soon as 9/11
>>happened (see Richard Clarke) and they wanted
>>this war and they did what they could to make
>>sure it happened.

> Hmm, they told Clarke to see if Saddam was behind
> 9/11. Gee, if they DIDN'T, they'd have been JUST
> A BIT negligent.

This is not what I have gathered from interviews
I've seen with Richard Clarke. Not at all.

> As for wanting to remove Saddam, that was a
> Clinton policy, not Bush.

If I don't like Bush then I like Clinton? Is this
some sort of new breed of "argument" which I need
to be made aware of?

Clinton's foreign policy sucked.

>> There were no WMD in Iraq

> Except you said there was a few sentences back.
> Be consistent.

I never said there were. I said there were rusty
old shells with nasty sludge in them. Those aren't
WMD.

>> and you really should read the testimony of Lt
>> Gen Hussein Kamel to get the straight dope on
>> that subject.

> Yes, HE has the "straight dope". OK.

Every single word he said seems to have been 100%
validated. Compared to Bush or you, he deserves
some respect.

>> Bush would regularly cite _some_ of the
>> evidence provided by Kamel, and then simply
>> pretend the rest doesn't exist.

> You mean a guy who still praised Saddam and had
> idiotic theories wasn't fully trusted? Stunning
> piece of news there.

Which idiotic theories are you talking about? How
does that change his knowledge of Iraqi WMD
programs, regularly cited by Bush, which he gained
as head of the entire Iraqi WMD program?]

Newton had tons of crazy theories. He believed in
alchemy. Does that mean you no longer believe in
his equations of classical physics? F != MA

>>Whether or not the war in Iraq is "illegal" it
>>was very bad policy. I would say there are a lot
>>of people who predicted toppling Saddam's
>>military would be easy, but that the Iraqis
>>would not like being occupied. Supermajorities
>>of Iraqis think we are occupiers. Many Iraqis
>>think we are letting the violence happen on
>>purpose (I don't believe that, I'm saying that
>>people are conspiracy theorizing against us).
>>The British Ministry of Defence poll shows that
>>half the Iraqis think it is AOK TO KILL
>>AMERICANS! That means that we now have
>>12,000,000 Iraqis who would probably give a
>>little cheer if America was hit again like 9/11.

> Which shows the one mistake we made:
>
> Rebuilding.
>
> Next time, just level everything and keep it up.

HOLY F*CKING SHEET!
Check out this loyal follower of Bush! His plan
is to level Iraq!

And to think, I wasted all this time responding
to you.

>>We have made 10,000,000 new enemies just in
>>Iraq, and 100s of 1,000,000s more around the
>>world.

> Yes, because Iraq was SO on our side before
> this.
>
> And the rest of the world (by that, let's be
> honest, you mean Europe) is militarily inept
> and incompetent.

>>That is bad policy, regardless of what you think
>>about the desirability of "regime change."

> Following a Clinton policy usually is a bad
> move, but here it was not.

>> Look at the role of Kagame, as a founding member
>> of the coalition of the willing, and his role
>> in sending armies to slaughter and steal in the
>> Congo, how his troops slaughtered 10s of
>> thousands of Rwandans, too, being a major part
>> of a the many millions dead. Ten times as many
>> people have died in Congo since 1998 than
>> Saddam ever killed. Kagame has visited Bush
>> twice in DC. Laura entertains the butcher's
>> wife.

> And the UN was neck-deep in ALL of those
> problems --- and you still hold them up as
> paragons of morality? You said that we needed UN
> support for it to be legal --- yet the UN was
> behind humanitarian crises unmatched in history.

Cheeses - Doesn't ... (Below threshold)
Jonah:

Cheeses -

Doesn't this statement assume facts not in evidence ?

2. These so-called WMD that Santorum "discovered" had been abandoned during the Iran-Iraq war. These are not weapons that he was hiding from inspectors, they were abandoned to rust in the desert.

Any links for this assertion ?

4. Saddam did not provide terrorists with training camps. Our government has concluded that Saddam was actively training anti-terrorism forces at Salman Pak. That story's been dead since 2003.

By our government, I assume you mean the CIA. How'd they do on the pre-war "slam dunk" assessment of WMD's in Iraq. Must be some pretty sharp intelligence analysts there, hey ?

I googled the Salman Pak thing, but it looks like a pretty even split between both sides. There were some entries that said recently translated documents are reporting it to be both a "militia" training camp and for training foreign fighters (or terrorists, if you prefer). I am trying to find a copy of the translated documents.

Doesn't anyone in this thread use links to back their assertions ?

It's like watching mimes play tennis. An imaginary ball being hit by imaginary racquets.

1. <a href="http://www.dfw.... (Below threshold)
Cheeses Of Nazareth:

1. http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/14894132.htm
http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/134890
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/22/AR2006062201475.html
4. http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030512fa_fact

In separate interviews with me, however, a former C.I.A. station chief and a former military intelligence analyst said that the camp near Salman Pak had been built not for terrorism training but for counter-terrorism training. In the mid-eighties, Islamic terrorists were routinely hijacking aircraft. In 1986, an Iraqi airliner was seized by pro-Iranian extremists and crashed, after a hand grenade was triggered, killing at least sixty-five people. (At the time, Iran and Iraq were at war, and America favored Iraq.) Iraq then sought assistance from the West, and got what it wanted from Britain's MI6. The C.I.A. offered similar training in counter-terrorism throughout the Middle East. "We were helping our allies everywhere we had a liaison," the former station chief told me.

There you go.

One of the many bizarre tra... (Below threshold)
Xennady:

One of the many bizarre traits of moonbats is the
boundless faith they have in future good intentions of Saddam Hussein after we-they believe-forced him to give up his cherished WMD programs.It is undeniable that he had these programs.It is undeniable that he risked the wrath of the United States to retain these programs-for years on end.It is undeniable the he was deposed by force by his unwllingness to take measures to assure the US that he had no WMD.So why-pray tell-do moonbats trustingly belief he wound not restart the stunted WMD programs after the inspectors had departed for good? It's enough to make me question their judgement I tell ya.

Cheeses - I didn't... (Below threshold)
Jonah:

Cheeses -

I didn't question number 1. I wondered about number 2.

I found the link you posted for number 4. It's from 2003, as you said before. I'm not sure it's still a valid story though.

Thanks for trying.

Xennady - You said... (Below threshold)
Jonah:

Xennady -

You said it better than I and with brevity. (sigh)


First, the goalposts are constantly moving about whether 1, 5, 500 or 5,000 chemical munitions are necessary to satisfy the "that's not enough" crowd.

Then the "rusty old sludge" arguments crop up. How old do weapons have to be to qualify as rusty old sludge? If the chemical munitions were produced in the 80's, then when Iraq signed the ceasefire in 1991, were they still functioning ? Or not ? If they were operational, then Iraq was in violation of the UN resolutions. When do weapons morph from good to rusty old sludge ? 2 years ? 7 years ? 10 years? What's the magic number ? When the goalposts stop moving, maybe we can take a look.

Next we get the "paperwork was lost" argument. This one could work. More importantly, we have to listen to the moonbats because they should know. They are experts at losing paperwork when faced with felony investigations: Rose Law Firm billing records, 600 FBI files on prominent Republicans among others. Whoops, got to move those goalposts again to keep up with poor record keeping.

Not finding WMD's in Iraq does not mean there aren't any there, it means that either there are none or that they haven't been found yet. We know that there were some in Iraq in the 80's and now they've disappeared. Iraq's a big place with lots of desert. Where'd they go ?

Since we don't know what happened to Saddam's known stockpiles of WMD's, is there any other way to determine if he was likely to cheat on the UN resolutions and intentionally keep some ? If he was squeaky clean everywhere else, let's give him the benefit of the doubt. If he's got credibility problems elsewhere, let's not trust him when he says "But I got rid of all those things years ago." So we have to guess and if we guess wrong, the consequences could be severe

Any credibility problems with him keeping to the UN resolutions?

A few.

Since David Kay is quoted by the anti-war activists and therefore presumably creditable, this is David Kay's testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee in October 2004. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/28/kay.transcript/)


All of the activities mentioned by Dr. Kay are prohibited by UN Resolutions and the ceasefire agreement of March, 1991.


PARAGRAPHS NOT NECESSARILY ADJACENT IN ORIGINAL TEXT.

"Sen. [Edward] Kennedy knows very directly. Senator Kennedy and I talked on several occasions prior to the war that my view was that the best evidence that I had seen was that Iraq indeed had weapons of mass destruction."

" Resolution 1441 required that Iraq report all of its activities -- one last chance to come clean about what it had."

"We have discovered hundreds of cases, based on both documents, physical evidence and the testimony of Iraqis, of activities that were prohibited under the initial U.N. Resolution 687 and that should have been reported under 1441, with Iraqi testimony that not only did they not tell the U.N. about this, they were instructed not to do it and they hid material."

From Dr. Kay's testimony on October 2, 2003 before the same body: (http://www.usiraqprocon.org/pop/KayReport.htm)

"We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN. Let me just give you a few examples of these concealment efforts, some of which I will elaborate on later:

-A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research.

-A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.

-Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.

-New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.

-Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS)."

"In addition to the discovery of extensive concealment efforts, we have been faced with a systematic sanitization of documentary and computer evidence in a wide range of offices, laboratories, and companies suspected of WMD work. The pattern of these efforts to erase evidence - hard drives destroyed, specific files burned, equipment cleaned of all traces of use - are ones of deliberate, rather than random, acts."

"With regard to biological warfare activities, which has been one of our two initial areas of focus, ISG teams are uncovering significant information - including research and development of BW-applicable organisms, the involvement of Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) in possible BW activities, and deliberate concealment activities. All of this suggests Iraq after 1996 further compartmentalized its program and focused on maintaining smaller, covert capabilities that could be activated quickly to surge the production of BW agents."

"With regard to Iraq's nuclear program, the testimony we have obtained from Iraqi scientists and senior government officials should clear up any doubts about whether Saddam still wanted to obtain nuclear weapons. They have told ISG that Saddam Husayn remained firmly committed to acquiring nuclear weapons. These officials assert that Saddam would have resumed nuclear weapons development at some future point. Some indicated a resumption after Iraq was free of sanctions. At least one senior Iraqi official believed that by 2000 Saddam had run out of patience with waiting for sanctions to end and wanted to restart the nuclear program. The Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC) beginning around 1999 expanded its laboratories and research activities and increased its overall funding levels. This expansion may have been in initial preparation for renewed nuclear weapons research, although documentary evidence of this has not been found, and this is the subject of continuing investigation by ISG."

"Despite evidence of Saddam's continued ambition to acquire nuclear weapons, to date we have not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material. However, Iraq did take steps to preserve some technological capability from the pre-1991 nuclear weapons program."

Sorry, the links labeled #1... (Below threshold)
Cheeses Of Nazareth:

Sorry, the links labeled #1 actually relate to #2.

As for Salman Pak, its been such a non-story that no reputable news sources have touched it since 2003. You probably would be better off looking for "salman pak" on wikipedia.org. Just so you know, the whole Salman Pak thing was presented to the US Gov't by Ahmed Chilabai, who is currently being investigated for various fraudulent statements and other crimes.

First, the goalposts are... (Below threshold)
Cheeses Of Nazareth:

First, the goalposts are constantly moving about whether 1, 5, 500 or 5,000 chemical munitions are necessary to satisfy the "that's not enough" crowd.

Then the "rusty old sludge" arguments crop up. How old do weapons have to be to qualify as rusty old sludge? If the chemical munitions were produced in the 80's, then when Iraq signed the ceasefire in 1991, were they still functioning ? Or not ?

The whole premise of the war was that Saddam was stockpiling and continuing to develop WMD. Clearly, he was not. Even the Bush Government conceeds this. Again, If this was significant, WHY IS BUSH NOT BEATING HIS CHEST???

In order to NOT be rusty old sludge, the weapons have to be usable for mass destructive purposes. If you read the reports closely, you can see that they clearly were not operable. Many shells were empty, except for residue. If Saddam had been saving them for the future, don't you think they would be in better condition? The shells were intended to be used against IRAN in a war that ended in 1988. All but 2, count them, 2 of them were found in an area that was the front line of that war. Why would they be left there? Well, I can think of several possibilities...
1) They were fired at the Iranians and did not go off...
2) They were not fired at the Iranians, and the Iranians killed the Iraqis who were going to shoot them.
3) When the war ended, they were abandoned there.

I don't know, you wingnuts believe some crazy crap, so I don't expect to change any of your minds on this. Good Day!

It is undeniable that he... (Below threshold)
Cheeses Of Nazareth:

It is undeniable that he had these programs.It is undeniable that he risked the wrath of the United States to retain these programs-for years on end.It is undeniable the he was deposed by force by his unwllingness to take measures to assure the US that he had no WMD.

OK, I call bullshit. You are making this up. Where are your sources?

By our government, I ass... (Below threshold)
Cheeses Of Nazareth:

By our government, I assume you mean the CIA. How'd they do on the pre-war "slam dunk" assessment of WMD's in Iraq. Must be some pretty sharp intelligence analysts there, hey ?

I wouldn't place all the blame on them. I don't think they were as confident as Bush.

Cheeses - I think ... (Below threshold)
Jonah:

Cheeses -

I think President Bush was confident because the CIA was.

"it was a "slam-dunk" that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. Or so Tenet said, with the kind of unambiguous self-assurance that Bush so admires. These will go down as Tenet's famous last words, even though he uttered them more than a year ago.

"George, how confident are you?" the president asked Tenet, in an exchange depicted in Bob Woodward's book "Plan of Attack."

"Don't worry, it's a slam-dunk," Tenet said.

link from the wapo but it won't let me post it

>> WMD was absolutely es... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

>> WMD was absolutely essential to get the UK and
>> Australia on board. It was the biggest argument
>> made to the American people.

> No, it was the biggest argument that the press
> said Bush made. Bush regularly and routinely
> made numerous arguments for it.

You are wrong. The UK and Australia would not join
the war effort unless the WMD argument
could be made. Lie one.

Except Bush REPEATEDLY and frequently made numerous arguments as to why it's done. If the European press is too busy to cover the news, that is hardly his fault.

>> You say we have found tons of WMD, but you
>> simply assert they had some danger level. I
>> have never read that they had any danger level
>> at all. There is no evidence at all that any of
>> them were produced after 1991. None.

> Seeing as how Iraq couldn't have ANY...it
> doesn't matter.

They didn't have any, so it wasn't a causus
belli. They had no WMD.

Except that they did, as you yourself stated.

They had rusty old
shells filled with sludge you wouldn't want to
touch, that's all.

Mustard gas maintains its efficacy for DECADES.

>> The US/UK No-Fly Zone was not some sort of UN
>> thing, it was, by any standard of international
>> law, a decade long illegal bombing campaign.

> Time for a newsflash: The UN is not the provider
> of legitimacy.

The Bush administration repeatedly went to the UN to gain legitimacy.

No, he tried to get them to do anything. He could've gone the Clinton route and simply ignored them, but he tried to get them to live up to their own resolutions.

THe UN refused, so Bush decided to make it happen with a Coalition of the Willing.

> Why was the No-Fly Zone legal? BECAUSE SADDAM
> AGREED TO IT IN THE CEASEFIRE.

The "air exclusion zones" were created by America, not the UN.

Which, again, is immaterial. Saddam didn't really have power with which to negotiate a cease-fire. He did what we said he'd HAVE to do to save his own ass. He was required to allow it and violated it, repeatedly.

>> You assert that governments have the right to
>> renew hostilities with parties who break their
>> treaties. I would be interested in the theory
>> you use to come to this conclusion. Teach me
>> something.

> A treaty is a legal document. In exchange to not
> be killed, a leader makes agreements with the
> country that is attacking them.

First, you mean, in exchange for a cessation of
hostilities. It rarely has anything to do with the
life or death of the actual leader signing the
treaty.

In the case of Saddam, it DIRECTLY is done to save his ass.

This isn't anything resembling a proof, though.
I need either a historical precedent, or a school
of thought in international law, or something.

So, you DON'T grasp the concept of contracts. Got it.

Starting hostilities based on contract violation would suggest that Saddam was justified in invading Kuwait in 1991. After all, Kuwait was
stealing its oil.

Saddam invaded Kuwait saying it was Iraqi territory, which it clearly was not.

But, hey, don't let reality slow you down.

> Assassinating a former President is not an act
> of war.

> Actually, it very much is.

Again, something more than assertion would be nice
here. Why should I believe you? I have no idea.

That you have no idea is clearly apparent by your posting.

To give you a hint: any intentional attack on ANY members of a country is an act of war.

>> Such acts have caused wars, but that's not the
>> same as America being attacked by invading
>> armies, or an imminent invasion, or a domestic
>> group trying to subvert the Constitution (for
>> instance, by radically re-interpreting the 4th
>> Amendment to basically create a
>> "reasonableness" standard for the necessity of
>> a warrant which has never existed in US
>> history).

> Except that the group you obliquely referenced
> has, you know, case law on its side. But it's
> nice to see you give moral equivalence for the
> US gov't in regards to terrorists. Kudos to you.

There is no case law on in US or pre-1776 British
Common Law history which supports Hayden's
interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. He says
that if a search is "reasonable" then you a warrant is not required.

Read re Sealed Case. There is clearly defined case law.

>>Bush and his administration were deceitful, they
>>wanted the war as soon as they took office (see:
>>Paul O'Neill's comments in The Price of Loyalty)
>>and they wanted the war in Iraq as soon as 9/11
>>happened (see Richard Clarke) and they wanted
>>this war and they did what they could to make
>>sure it happened.

> Hmm, they told Clarke to see if Saddam was behind
> 9/11. Gee, if they DIDN'T, they'd have been JUST
> A BIT negligent.

This is not what I have gathered from interviews
I've seen with Richard Clarke. Not at all.

And, gee, Clarke has corroboration for his story. Nobody else seems to be saying Bush did the same to them.

> As for wanting to remove Saddam, that was a
> Clinton policy, not Bush.

If I don't like Bush then I like Clinton? Is this
some sort of new breed of "argument" which I need
to be made aware of?

Clinton's foreign policy sucked.

Not in the area of removing Saddam.

>> There were no WMD in Iraq

> Except you said there was a few sentences back.
> Be consistent.

I never said there were. I said there were rusty
old shells with nasty sludge in them. Those aren't
WMD.

"Nasty sludge" is, by MOST definitions, chemical weaponry.

Which, by every definition in history, is a WMD.

>> and you really should read the testimony of Lt
>> Gen Hussein Kamel to get the straight dope on
>> that subject.

> Yes, HE has the "straight dope". OK.

Every single word he said seems to have been 100%
validated. Compared to Bush or you, he deserves
some respect.

Hardly.

>> Bush would regularly cite _some_ of the
>> evidence provided by Kamel, and then simply
>> pretend the rest doesn't exist.

> You mean a guy who still praised Saddam and had
> idiotic theories wasn't fully trusted? Stunning
> piece of news there.

Which idiotic theories are you talking about? How
does that change his knowledge of Iraqi WMD
programs, regularly cited by Bush, which he gained
as head of the entire Iraqi WMD program?]

As somebody else already pointed out, there are Iraqi generals who vigorously disagree with Kamel.

Newton had tons of crazy theories. He believed in alchemy. Does that mean you no longer believe in his equations of classical physics? F != MA

Seeing as how Newton's claims are provable while Kamel's are not, it's like comparing apples and skyscrapers.

>>Whether or not the war in Iraq is "illegal" it
>>was very bad policy. I would say there are a lot
>>of people who predicted toppling Saddam's
>>military would be easy, but that the Iraqis
>>would not like being occupied. Supermajorities
>>of Iraqis think we are occupiers. Many Iraqis
>>think we are letting the violence happen on
>>purpose (I don't believe that, I'm saying that
>>people are conspiracy theorizing against us).
>>The British Ministry of Defence poll shows that
>>half the Iraqis think it is AOK TO KILL
>>AMERICANS! That means that we now have
>>12,000,000 Iraqis who would probably give a
>>little cheer if America was hit again like 9/11.

> Which shows the one mistake we made:
>
> Rebuilding.
>
> Next time, just level everything and keep it up.

HOLY F*CKING SHEET!
Check out this loyal follower of Bush! His plan
is to level Iraq!

Absolutely. My empathy with anybody in that sandbox is non-existant. We're bending over backwards out of kindness. Level everything. Every time a suicide bomber or IED goes off, people die en masse until it stops.

Bleed them dry.

And to think, I wasted all this time responding
to you.

Shame you couldn't use intellect during that wasting of time.
-=Mike

JonahYou po... (Below threshold)
mak44:

Jonah

You posted: "it was a "slam-dunk" that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. Or so Tenet said,"

That is what Bob Woodward wrote as told to him by Bush, not Tenet.

John McLaughlin, the Asst CIA Director, just recently said that he did not believe that Tenet uttered those words in exactly the sense as portrayed by Woodward in his book as based on what Bush repeated to Woodward..

Since your quote amounts to hearsay, were it a court matter, I don't think you can reliably pin those words in the context most people give them on George Tenet.

Look to the one who repeated them to Bob Woodward.

That is what Bob Woodwar... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

That is what Bob Woodward wrote as told to him by Bush, not Tenet.

John McLaughlin, the Asst CIA Director, just recently said that he did not believe that Tenet uttered those words in exactly the sense as portrayed by Woodward in his book as based on what Bush repeated to Woodward..

Since your quote amounts to hearsay, were it a court matter, I don't think you can reliably pin those words in the context most people give them on George Tenet.

Look to the one who repeated them to Bob Woodward.

Yet you buy the word of utter hearsay of John McLaughlin. Weird.

I mean, McLaughlin admitted he wasn't there.
-=Mike

MikeSCNo, I... (Below threshold)
mak44:

MikeSC

No, I simply meant that there's more than one color to this story. The way that quote is bandied around to suggest that the CIA was at fault for bad intelligence is sonearly universal, one would think that Tenet had one time actually publicly uttered those words.

McLaughlin provides another perspective which I realize is adverse to the way you want to believe it all happened.

Cheeses:OK-Let get this sta... (Below threshold)
Xennady:

Cheeses:OK-Let get this staight.You are suggesting 1)Saddam had no WMD programs.2)Saddam risked nothing by these non-existant programs because the United States did not care if he possessed WMD after the first Gulf War cease fire.3)Saddam Hussein is still dictator of Iraq.Were you alive in the 1990s when Bill Clinton was president? Because I recall numerous statements and actions from and by him that back me up on points 1) and 2).For example, operation Desert Fox of 1998.On point 3) I assume you acknowledge that Saddam Hussein has been deposed and base your disagreement on the motivations of that removal.You're partially correct-George Bush listed several reasons for removing-but those others are relatively obscure today.I find it interesting that you quote the CIA-the very same CIA that told G. Bush that WMD was a slam dunk-to defend Saddam from accusations of impropriety.You folks will believe a thousand accusations of evil intent about President Bush-such as Iraq was invaded for other than the stated reasons-before you'll believe even one about Saint Saddam.For all practicle purposes that is a religious belief not subject to rational refutation.As somebody famous once said you can't argue a man out of what he wasn't argued into-and as far as I can tell you moonbats started with hatred of George Bush and went from there.There is nothing any mortal man or woman will ever say or do that will shake your absolute conviction of the nefarious evil of George W. Bush-nothing.If the post by jonah (thanks for the compliment!) and those by Jay Tea-for example-don't give you pause then you're far beyond hope.


No, I simply meant that ... (Below threshold)

No, I simply meant that there's more than one color to this story. The way that quote is bandied around to suggest that the CIA was at fault for bad intelligence is sonearly universal, one would think that Tenet had one time actually publicly uttered those words.

McLaughlin provides another perspective which I realize is adverse to the way you want to believe it all happened.

All I have is the CIA's track record of utter ineptitude leading up to 9/11 to back up my assertions.

Bush took the word of Tenet (who, mind you, has never said "Hey, I didn't say that").
-=Mike

MikeSC"B... (Below threshold)
mak44:

MikeSC

"Bush took the word of Tenet (who, mind you, has never said "Hey, I didn't say that")."

That's right Mike; anything that gets in the way of your talking points is just dismissed. From what McLauglin said, it was more an issue of the context when Tenet supposedly answered w/ the slam-dunk remark.

The whole story is based on what Bush told Woodward. Given Bush's track record of lies, it's likely that that's not exactly the way the exchange took place, at least from what McLaughlin said.

That's right Mike; anyth... (Below threshold)

That's right Mike; anything that gets in the way of your talking points is just dismissed. From what McLauglin said, it was more an issue of the context when Tenet supposedly answered w/ the slam-dunk remark.

Without providing the context, what good does it do?

The whole story is based on what Bush told Woodward. Given Bush's track record of lies, it's likely that that's not exactly the way the exchange took place, at least from what McLaughlin said.

Tenet hasn't denied it.

Woodward believed him.

So, you have what to fall back on?
-=Mike

Hey Mak44:I would love to h... (Below threshold)
Xennady:

Hey Mak44:I would love to hear your explanation of why Tenet hasn't come forward to refute the hated Chimpy Bushitler.Just think how much money his book would make him when he told the story of Bush's evil lies.And he was appointed by Clinton wasn't he? Is Clinton part of the vast neocon conspiracy? You moonbats have to believe six impossible things before breakfast before you can even cobble together an argument.This goes to what I said earlier-your arguments are more religious faith than they are rational argument.

Cheeses:OK-Let get this ... (Below threshold)
Cheeses Of Nazareth:

Cheeses:OK-Let get this staight.You are suggesting 1)Saddam had no WMD programs.2)Saddam risked nothing by these non-existant programs because the United States did not care if he possessed WMD after the first Gulf War cease fire.3)Saddam Hussein is still dictator of Iraq.Were you alive in the 1990s when Bill Clinton was president? Because I recall numerous statements and actions from and by him that back me up on points 1) and 2).For example, operation Desert Fox of 1998.On point 3) I assume you acknowledge that Saddam Hussein has been deposed and base your disagreement on the motivations of that removal.

1) Saddam did NOT have active WMD programs post 1991. That is a fact that has been substantiated by US led Weapons Inspectors sent to Iraq by the Bush Government after the invasion. Bill Clinton doesn't have anything to do with it. He was as wrong as the Chimpmeister.

2) Your statement makes no sense whatsoever. Please clarify what you think I'm suggesting. As written, I suggested no such thing.

3) Seriously, are you pulling stuff out of your a$$ or what? Who said anything about Saddam still being the dictator of Iraq? The rationale for war was the non-existant WMD... Don't you remember how your boy bush was talking about the violations of the UN resolutions on WMD, and when the UN Security council told him to wait for the inspectors to do their job, he declared the UN irrelevant?

I don't know what is worse, the fact that we have an idiot for a president, or the fact that we actually have people who are still deluded into thinking there were WMDs posessed by Saddam's government!




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy