« Britain's Molly Baroness Meacher: Severely Disabled Children "Not Viable People" | Main | What was on the menu? »

"I Told You So"

For a long time, I've had my own theory about Iraq's WMD program, what happened to it, and why the Bush administration used it among its numerous reasons for invading Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein. It's not based on any conspiracy theories, any partisan biases, any revisionist history, any "cherry-picking" of intelligence with the benefit of hindsight (knowing today what data was "good" at the time and what was "bad"), nothing but a little thought and a little historical perspective and a few applications of common sense.

First up, Saddam possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction at one point. This is not a disputable argument. "WMD" is defined as "NBC" (something that must irritate the National Broadcasting Corporation and their owners, General Electric) -- Nuclear, Biological, or Chemical. Saddam possessed chemical weapons, and used them both against Iran in their prolonged war and against his own rebellious people. So that's not debatable.

Second, Saddam had programs developing nuclear and biological weapons at the time of the first Gulf War (1991). Again, this is not debatable. As part of the terms of his surrender, he agreed to account for and publicly destroy all WMD materials.

Third, Saddam was incredibly resistant when it came to comply with this aspect of the ceasefire. His little games are legendary, and caused President Clinton on more than one occasion to strike at Iraq with bombs and missiles to prod Saddam into compliance. It didn't work fully, but it did cut down on his strategy of "cheat and retreat."

Fourth, as of 1998, it was the determination of the United States Government that Saddam's government was so egregiously threatening the peace and violating its terms of surrender that the Congress passed (360-38 in the House, unanimous consent in the Senate, signed by President Clinton) the Iraqi Liberation Act, which called for Saddam's overthrow. One of the stated justifications for the policy was Saddam's refusal to fully comply with the terms of surrender.

Again, those terms called for him to document and publicly destroy WMD material. His documentation was notoriously shoddy and incomplete, and the public destruction was similarly flawed. Whole slews of chemical weapons were reported destroyed without a shred of proffered evidence. In essence, Saddam said "oh, those 500 poison gas shells? We burned them about a month ago. Trust us. It was a big old fire!"

There were a lot of reported weapons whose destruction was never properly documented, and even more weapons that were not reported in the first place.

That was 1998. We invaded in 2003. What the hell happened in the five intervening years?

On one front, not much. Saddam did very little to reconcile the missing numbers, and instead continued playing his "cheat and retreat" games, fighting off inspections at every opportunity.

If you ever want to have fun with some of the anti-war conspiracy nuts, ask them what happened to all the weapons Saddam had in 1998 that prompted the Congress to almost unanimously approve the Iraqi Freedom Act, and President Clinton to sign. There was no sudden reversal in raqi policy, no full accounting, no mass public destruction. By their questionable logic, those weapons just evaporated. Or their expiration date passed, and they were quietly disposed of when no one was looking. Whatever way you look at it, it boils down to some inconvenient questions that they would rather not answer.

On another front, almost perfectly splitting the five-year gap, 9/11 happened. And that changed everything for the US.

Let's get rid of the kooks right away. No, there is no proof Saddam was involved in 9/11. Indeed, common sense says he was not. While there is considerable proof that Saddam had had some dealings with Al Qaeda, there was no operational need for Al Qaeda to tell Saddam about it, and in those days their operational security was very, very good. Indeed, there was good reason for them to NOT tell Saddam; it represented a potential leak, and it was information that Saddam, in theory, could have sold out in exchange for a break on the sanctions.

The Bush administration has said much the same. In very precise language, they have said that there is no evidence that Saddam was involved -- and no way of proving he was not. This is in accordance with simple logic; it's virtually impossible to prove a negative.

So, what did 9/11 change that would affect our stance on Iraq? Mainly, the US attitude towards the Mideast and terrorism.

So Saddam wasn't involved in 9/11. Good for him. But he was still involved up to his elbows in terrorism.

He'd had dealings with Al Qaeda before, and supported them.

He was actively promoting suicide bombings in Israel, even providing rewards to the families of soicide bombers.

He had set up several terrorist training facilities around Iraq.

Even outside the specific area of terrorism, he was being a huge pain in the ass. Maintaining the sanctions and the "no-fly zones" and other restraints was very expensive for the US, as measured in money, time, and resources. And those sanctions were on the verge of collapse, as Saddam had converted the "Oil For Food" program into a bribe-spewing engine. He'd poured billions into the pockets of key political figures around the world, especially those of the UN Security Council (with extra attention lavished on those in Russia, Germany, France, Great Britain, and a few people in the US). His propaganda machine was going full tilt, talking about how many Iraqi babies died every day because of the cruel, crushing sanctions.

At the same time, he was still nowhere near compliance on the WMD aspect of his surrender. In fact, some reports were that he had re-started his programs.

Now we get into speculation -- at least for me. It seems that a lot of these "speculations" of mine are being borne out.

Saddam saw himself as threatened by two external forces. The US had crushed his vaunted military with virtually no effort, but was distracted and shown that it did not have the stomach to "finish the job" back in 1991. Iran, on the other hand, was a far less potent foe, but far more determined and relentless. Should Iran gain the upper hand, Saddam was quite confident that he and his cronies would be summarily executed and his nation subjugated -- kind of like he had done to Kuwait in 1990.

Saddam's military had never fully recovered from the shellacking it got in 1991 from the US. International sanctions had kept him from re-arming, replacing and upgrading his weaponry. In a direct fight, it was very likely that Iran would win.

So he needed a trump card, something that would keep Iran at bay. He chose WMDs.

More specifically, he chose to persuade Iran that he had WMDs, and was willing to use them if threatened.

The latter part of the threat was an easy cell. After all, he'd done it before to Iran. It was the former part that would take some selling.

So Saddam chose to walk the tightrope. He tried to balance two opposing forces -- the demands from the US that he prove he didn't have WMDs, and the threat of Iran that he could only check by hinting that he did have WMDs. In effect, he had to sell two conflicting stories to two different audiences at the same time -- and do at least the former in full sight of the world.

What he didn't take into account was 9/11. That had changed things for the US. No longer would we be satisfied with hard-negotiated compromises and half-deals and "cheat and retreat" and bluster. We had the authorization, the capability, and the will to say "you will live up to your end of the agreement, or we will destroy you."

Saddam wagered that he could stave off that third part. He lost that wager. And that particular bad bet put him on the end of a noose.

Since then, we've found numerous WMD caches and materiel around Iraq. No, we've not found huge stockpiles, but we've found quite a few small ones -- and some have even been used against us. More than one poison-gas-bearing artillery shell has been set off as part of an IED, for example.

Recently, two "non-partisan" groups published a list of 935 or so "lies" the Bush administration had used to justify the invasion of Iraq. This got a lot of attention, until a few things came out:

1) The two "non-partisan" groups are not only not unaffiliated, but one of them serves solely to provide legal protection to the other.

2) The vast majority of their proof lies in evidence that post-dates the "lies" -- in other words, they are using hindsight to point out incorrect information, and say that the people who were mistaken at the time should have known that future events would prove them wrong.

3) Their research was mostly underwritten by the same people who funded the Lancet study on Iraqi casualties of the war that overinflated the numbers by at least a factor of 4.

In brief (and yes, it's somewhat hypocritical to say that after typing over 1500 words):

While Saddam was resisting complying with the UN sanctions, he was also putting out (false) information that he did still have WMDs, and was ready to use them on Iran should they attack.

The US, seeing both Saddam's recalcitrance and picking up on these rumors, concluded -- most likely erroneously -- that Saddam was still in possession of WMDs, and decided to not take any chances.

To return to a metaphor I've used before, after the first Gulf War Saddam was a convicted felon on probation. Part of the terms of his probation were that he submit to regular drug testing and occasional searches of his home for drugs and weapons. He refused to comply with those conditions, and we kept getting reports that he was going around showing off flashing drugs and showing off a gun. We finally said "screw it" and busted into his house and tossed him back in jail for refusing to comply -- blowing off scheduled drug tests and refusing to let parole officers into his house. Then, when we searched his house, we found some baking soda in zip-loc baggies and a paintball gun -- fakes he had been using to re-establish his credentials with the street. Technically, he hadn't violated his parole with those. But he had repeatedly refused to comply with the conditions of his release.

The conduct of the war is certainly open to debate. As is the decision to go to war on the evidence on hand at the time.

But to concoct some grand conspiracy to explain how the Bush administration chose to go to war with fabricated evidence and the intent to deceive the American people is just plain nuts.

For god's sake, it even defies common sense. Just look at the arguments they use -- "Bush said we went into Iraq because they had WMDs, and Bush KNEW that was a lie!" You have to be about three different kinds of stupid to buy that one.

First, you have to be ignorant about history. The Bush administration listed fourteen different causes for the action. They did NOT rely solely on the WMD issue.

Second, you have to think that the Bush administration was simultaneously competent enough to construct this elaborate scheme, but inept enough to not plan for it to unravel so quickly.

Third, you have to believe the absolute worst about the Bush administration, but at the same time depend on them not being as dishonest as necessary to carry out their schemes. If the Bush administration was deliberately lying when it said that Saddam had WMDs, why didn't they fake some evidence to back that up? They had to know that their lies would be put to the test in very short order. Simple common sense dictates that they should have been ready to "plant" some WMD material in a few key locations to keep their story going.

It's starting to seep out that my little scenario might be fairly close to true. CBS News -- the same network that gave us RatherGate -- had an interview with the former FBI agent who interrogated Saddam Hussein after he was captured. And it took the Wall Street Journal to notice what 60 Minutes didn't seem to realize what they had uncovered.

Ever since the first day of the War In Iraq (or, as I prefer to call it, the Iraqi Campaign of the War On Terror), I've supported that decision. And while I have not been entirely pleased with how that war was fought at various times, I still stand by my opinion that it was the right and necessary decision.

And as more and more accounts come out detailing the steps leading up to the invasion,and more and more critics are exposed as liars and charlatans and fabricators and re-writers of history, I find myself saying that if the critics have to resort to such outright chicanery as I noted above to make their point, they really DON'T have truth on their side.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/27564.

Comments (66)

JT excellent post. This is ... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

JT excellent post. This is the reason I am fully behind the war. I vividly remember GW saying in the 2002 State of the Union Address,"WE cannot wait for Iraq to become an imminent threat." The left lies and says GW said it was an imminent threat. GW also said that he is giving notice to all terrorists that they are now the target and those that harbor them. He did not say Al Queda only. The MSM really knows how to manipulate the facts to bend an opinion. Thank God for the internet. ww

Jay,Since when has T... (Below threshold)
DoninFla:

Jay,
Since when has Truth been a part of the typical anti-war liberal's argument(/rhetorical). You know, the "twisted truth(non-truth)" Michael Moore uses for his arguments. Sorta like the recent twisted-truth MacCain used on Romney about his time-table comments.

I'm sure an autocratic lead... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

I'm sure an autocratic leader like despot Saddam would have loved the chance to get his hands on some WMD or failing that boasted that he could...easier said than done especially with hundreds of UN weapon inspectors crawling around Iraq. That part of the world is truly Byzantine. Speaking of Saddam here is a very interesting story about his latest biography by Robert Fisk .

Jay, as always, you set it ... (Below threshold)
Kat:

Jay, as always, you set it out clearly, logically and persuasively; thank you! Of course, you realize it isn't going to have the slightest impact on the barking moonbats on speed, who positively enjoy wallowing in the KoolAid and comparing symptoms of BDS...

;-)

They buried an entire wing ... (Below threshold)
ravenshrike:

They buried an entire wing of Foxbats in the sand Jay. The only reason we found them was because one's tail became uncovered by sand and then somebody snitched about the rest of them afterwards. Do you really think that Saddam was inept enough that he couldn't either bury it deep enough that we couldn't find it or that he couldn't strike a deal with Syria? Especially given that anything he had could have fit on two big container trucks?

This is an absolutely amazi... (Below threshold)

This is an absolutely amazing post. Thank you.

It has been and will always... (Below threshold)
turfster:

It has been and will always be for me, the fact that inspectors were thrown out, and not forcibly put back. That is the biggest reason for this campaign, non compliance with UN sanctions. This event showed the weakness of President Clinton and let darkness fall on inspections. For 4 years Clinton allowed the inspectors to be removed which created enough doubt as to WMD's. I am proud that GW did what he said he would do and stuck to his beliefs. Although, the rush to war was less than admirable.

Jay,Wow! That was ... (Below threshold)
BPG:

Jay,

Wow! That was pretty eloquent. Its a shame you'll only wind up preaching to the choir on this. Maybe post it over on Wizbang Blue??

The "60 Minutes" report sim... (Below threshold)
Mike:

The "60 Minutes" report simply confirmed a lot of things we already knew. As far back as 2004, the Duelfer Report stated plainly that Saddam was extremely fearful of Iran and that he was particularly agitated over the fact that Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons (one of the worst-kept secrets in the world at that time).

Duelfer's report went on to explain that Saddam had retained scientific and technical staff as well as lab equipment and chemical reagents that could be used to manufacture biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. The Duelfer report concluded that as soon as UN sanctions were lifted, Saddam would have aggressively restarted his BNC development programs.

Doesn't the thought of a nuclear race between Iran and Iraq make you feel safer?

And then there were those inconvenient convoys between Iraq and Syria during the final 72 hours before we invaded, which the BDS-suffering conspiracy kooks have never quite managed to explain away.

By the same logic used by BDS-sufferers, Roosevelt and JFK were two of the biggest liars who ever held office. By their logic, Roosevelt lied to us about WMD; we spent billions and developed the world's most awful weapon and even used it twice, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, yet the Nazis weren't even close to developing an atomic weapon. (The fact that we didn't know this until after Nazi Germany fell is irrelevant.)

And by their logic Kennedy was one of the 20th century's most notorious "neo-cons". Kennedy's CIA tried to overthrow the government of Cuba by military invasion and gave tacit approval to the assassination of Ngô Đình Diệm in South Vietnam. Kennedy started the quagmire in Vietnam which lasted a decade and cost 58,000 American lives.

Of course if you try to explain this to BDS-suffering yellow dog Democrats, their heads explode -- which is what makes it all the more fun to do.

Readers - <a href="http://w... (Below threshold)
Mike:

Readers - you all should also read this, which gives a point-by-point outline proving that the United Nations -- and not some super-secret Bush CIA black helicopter conspiracy -- actually provided the burden of proof for our pre-invasion assumptions about Saddam's WMD/NBC programs.

One more thing -- someone else a while ago pointed out that the press twisted "weapons of mass destruction" into "mass weapons of destruction," meaning that we "failed" because we didn't find a "massive" amount of these weapons. But consider that only a few cylinders of cyclosarin is enough to kill or incapacitate thousands of people, and that such an amount could be easily transported in the trunk of a car. You don't need "warehouses full" of BNC's in order to have enough to do a tremendous amount of damage. BDS-sufferers, aided by an ignorant press to have totally lost this concept.

I'll compliment the activit... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

I'll compliment the activity in Iraq with corresponding activity outside Iraq.

The Clinton administration was bent on enforcing sanctions on Saddam. Probably because Europe loved the cheap oil. And Bill liked being loved by Europe. An adoring CIA gave Bill everything he needed for justification for limit actions.

Then Bush came along. For reasons connected to 9/11, Saddam could not be tolerated any longer. The Bush administration saw the same evidence the CIA has been generating for Clinton and decided they had justification to address Saddam.

When it became clear we weren't headed for another bombing campaign to enforce the sanctions and the exploitation of Iraqi oil by Europe but to actually kill the golden goose, we lost Europe's support. At the same time the CIA stopped supported the Bush administration from disagreement over politics and policy. Evidence which the CIA gleefully endorsed to support Clinton's actions was be looked at critically by an antagonistic CIA.

The CIA turned off the spigot basically because they liked Clinton and hated Bush. But not before momentum had been established to go to war with Saddam.

That was an excellent post,... (Below threshold)
HughS:

That was an excellent post, Jay.

You hit the historical, factual points in an understandable and easy to follow manner.

I'll save this one.

Thank you for that Jay - pe... (Below threshold)
Geminichuck:

Thank you for that Jay - perfect summary. I think that with minor adjustment that write-up should become the description contained in history books (if conservatives can ever get any influence again in our educational institutions)- or, at least, as the definitive response in Wikipedia.

Three cheers to you!

6 Stars. And tack on the c... (Below threshold)
epador:

6 Stars. And tack on the comments about the CIA. Spot on all.

Jay...one of your best...EV... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

Jay...one of your best...EVER!!

thx!

the "60 Minutes" piece WAS excellent, and they DID (oddly enough) do a great job on it. Of course, they advertised it in a way that made people think it was all about "Saddam did NOT have WMDs". I think this backfired on them, however, since I think a lot of moonbats tuned in and got surprised!!

cheers!

The big problem with WMDs i... (Below threshold)
cirby:

The big problem with WMDs is that they're SMALL. The entire (large) Cold War US chemical arsenal would fit in a medium-sized Wal-Mart. Saddam's known arsenal, at its peak, would have fit in a couple of mid-sized warehouses (and still been "large" and capable of a lot of damage).

Right on target Jay, thanks... (Below threshold)
Maggie:

Right on target Jay, thanks.

Once again, I cannot ping b... (Below threshold)

Once again, I cannot ping back to you. I did link to your post here.

The frustrating thing for us supporters of the war is that we keep having to explain the justifications for the war over and over and over and over again. I did an extensive post on the same issue back in 2005. Jay makes many of the same points in this post. It seems that no one is listening.

I would like to add that Sa... (Below threshold)
Spence:

I would like to add that Saddam also needed to intimidate the people of Iraq. He could not look weak to them, and he had to assure those thinking about opposing him that they could be destroyed in mass at any time including their home town.

I wonder what - Keith "Goof... (Below threshold)
Anon:

I wonder what - Keith "Goofy" Olberman - would say about all this!!

His usual 'Ignorant/Backward/Whimpery/Whiney BS' probably!!!

Jay, I can't seem to find i... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Jay, I can't seem to find in your essay the results of thousands of weapons inspections, or the final report on Saddam's nuke program?

Gee I wonder why?

Because that was well after... (Below threshold)
Anon:

Because that was well after the fact, 'dingbat'.

The whole point is 'what was the evidence that was available at the time' (better luck next time)!!!

The reason one has to const... (Below threshold)
jp2:

The reason one has to constantly keep trying to explain a 5 year old war rationale is because they were wrong or just felt guilty (Or both).

Care to explain your "democracy will flourish like a damn breaking open" or "insurgents can't keep this up" predictions as well? Let's revisit all of your bold predictions.

jp2: "Care to explain yo... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

jp2: "Care to explain your "democracy will flourish like a damn breaking open" or "insurgents can't keep this up"

Please note that the thing holds back WATER is called a "DAM"

the answer is actually fairly simple:
Now that the insurgents can't keep it up, Democracy IS is starting flourish

the Jihadis ARE Losing. Yesterday they used two girls with Down's syndrome as walking bombs. The MSM failed to highlight this fact, however. The Jihadis have already run out of sympathy from the locals...and the locals are no longer cowered by them. Soon the Jihadis will run out of Down's syndrome children as well.

but maybe YOU, jp2, would like to go "reason" with these people? eh?

Figures... jp2 and Baghdadb... (Below threshold)
marc:

Figures... jp2 and Baghdadbarney being the two lead purveyors of the "Bush lied people died" meme around these parts shift off the topic faster than Lohan and Britney can flash beaver.

Good job fellas..., good for asshats.

"The reason one has to cons... (Below threshold)
Anon:

"The reason one has to constantly keep trying to explain a 5 year old war rationale is because they were wrong or just felt guilty (Or both)".------- Comment by mr. genius

Well mr. genius---The only reason we have to keep explaining it is that the liberal media keeps trying to bury the evidence. Look how quickly the media got this latest evidence out of the headlines. You know, that Hussein was trying to convince us he had WMD. It barely lasted two days and was only sporadically reported.

Contrast, Dick Cheney's hunting accident. He accidentally shot a friend, who did not die and after 3 days we found out he wasn't hurt that badly. He admitted that he didn't think Cheney meant to shoot him. The man admitted he had left the group and was 'out of position', where Cheney would not have expected him to be. However, it stayed in the news, "on the hour", "every hour" for at least 10 days (just think if he had accidentally shot a democrat - they would have gone berserk!!!!). Also, this hunting accident in 'NO' way affected National OR International Policy...............The liberal media loves this sort of Drama & Theatre as long as it is not against their teacher's pets........LIBERAL PRESS........Hyping whatever they can find detrimental to the war effort and covering up the rest (unless it is just 'so' blatant it would totally give away their liberal bias --- even to those who fight so hard not to see it!!!!!!!)

Also, Hasn't it just been a few years (like before the invasion) that you demi-dems would say: We need democracy for the middle east. The women can't vole, they are not allowed to drive, they have to cover their faces, they are beaten by their spouses etc, etc. Yet, now you claim that Democracy & Democratic Nation Building are dirty words/phrases............WHAT GIVES!!!!!

Jay,Very excellent... (Below threshold)
Myronhalo:

Jay,

Very excellent post. The evidence supports all you say. Even so, there hangs the question, What happened to the WMD that he had? There's still the strong possibility that he hid them so well, or shipped them to an alley before the war started.

Also mr. genius:Re... (Below threshold)
Anon:

Also mr. genius:

Remember prior to the 'First' gulf war that all of the 'so called' experts (many from the UN) said Saddam was probably at least 5, and maybe 6 years away from a nuclear weapon, but when they got in for a look-see they found he was only 1 - 1 1/2 years away.........When was the last time our 'grand media' reminded people of this point. They go back and remind people when it suits them!!!

Time allows people with political agendas to forget what they don't like

Obviously, this point also applies to Iran. Are those recent reports about Iran really to be trusted - only by children!!


I think 'mr. genius' is really "Keith Goofy".

U.S. military intelligence ... (Below threshold)

U.S. military intelligence as well as the Bush Administration did know full well that most of the "chemical weapon WMDs" that Saddam had where merely pesticides in shells or WWI technology mustard gas, both far less lethal than any conventional explosive shell such as TNT. Such chemical weapons had extremely limited ability to kill many persons because you'd have to be very close to the ground zero area of the impact of one of these in order to be killed or even injured. So even the term WMD is rather false one to describe such limited technology and usefulness pesticide weapons. And with only limited missile technology to deliver these pesticides such as the non-nuclear version of the Soviet Scale Board(Scud missile) or cannon shells, Saddam really had little ability to kill very many persons even at the height of his military strength in 1990 for example. A small attack on an unarmed Kurdish village was too easy with such limited use weapons as mustard gas shells, but hardly a real threat to any decently equiped army.

One claimed delivery system weapon that the Bush Administration even attempted to provoke U.S. fears of was an uncomfirmed version of something similar to a small remote control crop dusting plane, of which no evidence has so far turned up to illustrate that it even existed and only illustrates the absurdity of this claimed "WMD" threat by the 1991 Gulf War weakened and UN sanctions weakened Saddam Husssein. By 2003, any honest military observer had to agree that his military was little regional threat any longer, and highly unlikely to be able to withstand any invasion from the far larger Iran, so naturally Saddam would bluster a little about his WMD potential only to keep Iran from invading. But U.S. intelligence had to really know better.

But the politics of pandering fear similar to the Joe McCarthy "Red baiting" of the 1950's by the Bush Admistration was able to ramp up U.S. public fears of a vast security threat by Saddam to the U.S., even though many smaller worldwide dictators in Africa and elsewhere probably have about the same level of military technology as Saddam once had, including pesticide and cannon shells or small missiles.

At 225 billion barrels of estimated undiscovered oil in Iraq, which would be a 98 year supply for the U.S., the lure was just too great for former oil industry executives in the Bush Administation such as former Chevron Board member, Condoleezza Rice not to push for war to invade Iraq in 2003 for some U.S. control of the oil assets there. It was an old time colonialist foreign policy way too similar to 18th and 19th century Britain.

And remember it was the Reagan Administration that illegally used Agriculture Department CCC Funds intended for international disaster relief to help allow Saddam Hussein to buy billions of dollars of second rate military hardware from Brazil and France after the Soviets declared an embargo on all arms shipments to either Iraq or Iran during the 1980's Iran-Iraq War. The Soviets at least attempted to dry up the arms supply in the region and force Iran and Iraq to work out a peace agreement in order to keep oil flowing from the region to Russia as well as the U.S.. while the Reagan Administration only kept the war going and helped to create the huge conventional arms military of Saddam that invaded Kuwait in 1990.

If anything has been consistent here, it was that Republican controlled White Houses have made Iraq a conventional arms threat during the 1980's, helped to create conditions that led to the invasion of Kuwait and the 1991 Gulf War, and created to wave of WMD fear in the U.S. that led to the 2003 war and all of the difficulties present ever since. Virtually every problem associated with Iraq since the 1980's was due to active Republican foreign policy towards Iraq rather than any real lethal power Iraq would have have been able to generate entirely on it's own behalf. And Republican Party frontrunner John McCain only seems all too willing to compound these problems by possiby invading Iran if elected president. This long string of grossly failed foreign policy and endless MidEast military actions should only make 2008 voters wary. In 2008, the choice just might be as simple as voting for against the next MidEast war.

Excellent post, Jay. It's ... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Excellent post, Jay. It's much of what I've been thinking these several years, then we get the CBS interview, and it all falls together.

What you've shown here is rational, reasoned, logical, with proof.

In other words, the exact opposite of the cut and run crowd Democraps.

Paul "The Denier" Hooson - ... (Below threshold)
marc:

Paul "The Denier" Hooson - "One claimed delivery system weapon that the Bush Administration even attempted to provoke U.S. fears of was an uncomfirmed version of something similar to a small remote control crop dusting plane, of which no evidence has so far turned up to illustrate that it even existed and only illustrates the absurdity of this claimed "WMD" threat by the 1991 Gulf War weakened and UN sanctions weakened Saddam Husssein.

While strictly speaking your correct, no confirmation of planes existed. However to say there is no evidence on UAV's is flat out wrong:

From the Duelfer report: "ISG has exploited dozens of contracts that confirm the requests, orders, and deliveries of UN-restricted
components and equipment involving facilities associated with Iraq's missile and UAV programs. Iraq's use of the Iraqi Intelligence Service, front companies, and false end user certificates indicate Iraq knew these activities violated international sanctions.
Iraq also negotiated with other countries for
complete missile systems, but there is no evidence any shipments were ever made (see the Procurement chapter for more information).

"The Iraqi missile and UAV programs benefited from Iraq's defi ance of UN sanctions because they were able to obtain material and technical expertise they otherwise could not have developed. Several sources and documentary evidence confi rm that Iraq participated in such activities. The measures taken to conceal these activities from the UN are evidence that Iraq was well aware these activities were illegal.

And BTW, the crop duster ref you use is a red hearing. What he actually used were MIG-21's that failed then turned to using Czech L-29 trainer aircraft.

So again you're out to lunch and clueless. How shocking is THAT!?


God, Hooson, you are the wo... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

God, Hooson, you are the worst. You post all this crap, and not a jot or tittle supported by a link, or any sort of evidence.

Bush Derangement Syndrome is treatable, Hoos, you just have to acknowledge you have the disease. I suspect this is not the only one you have, however.

Virtually every problem ... (Below threshold)
Mike G in Corvallis:

Virtually every problem associated with Iraq since the 1980's was due to active Republican foreign policy towards Iraq rather than any real lethal power Iraq would have have been able to generate entirely on it's own behalf.

Give that man a Vicodin, stat! It must really hurt to be that stupid!

Hey Hooson.You sho... (Below threshold)
the struggler:

Hey Hooson.

You should shorten your (bloviation?)to:

Haliburton! No blood for oil! Bush lied! Tom Delay!

This revisionist history me... (Below threshold)
BSorenson:

This revisionist history means nothing. Try as you like, your justifications for Bush's greatness and wise decision making are folly - and your "interpretation" of world events are, as always, one sided and cherry-picked.

Live with you wrong decision here. There's an ugliness and divisiveness that's lingered in the air in this country for the past 7 years. It'll be nice to see somebody other than the sad, habitually wrong conservatives finally get behind the wheel and show you how pathetic and misguided you Bush-loyalists are.

Respond as you like. At the end of the day, you'll still be wrong. The whole world seems to know that but you people.

BSorenson - "Live with ... (Below threshold)
marc:

BSorenson - "Live with you wrong decision here. There's an ugliness and divisiveness that's lingered in the air in this country for the past 7 years."

Send thanks to Al Gore for that. He stared defeat in the face and declared victory, or attempted to, and all he got for the trouble was a T-shirt that reads: "I invented the internet AND BDS."

And he's sold millions to fools like you.

I'd like to remind everyone... (Below threshold)
Dodo David:

I'd like to remind everyone about the testimony of General Georges Sada of the Iraqi Air Force. He was serving Saddam Hussein at the time that the U.S. military entered Iraq in 2003. General Sada has stated repeatedly that Iraq had WMDs as late as the Summer of 2002. Sada believes that Hussein had those WMDs hidden in Syria before the U.S. military arrived.

U.S. military intelligen... (Below threshold)

U.S. military intelligence as well as the Bush Administration did know full well that most of the "chemical weapon WMDs" that Saddam had where merely pesticides in shells or WWI technology mustard gas, both far less lethal than any conventional explosive shell such as TNT. Such chemical weapons had extremely limited ability to kill many persons because you'd have to be very close to the ground zero area of the impact of one of these in order to be killed or even injured. So even the term WMD is rather false one to describe such limited technology and usefulness pesticide weapons.

This is either naievete to a breathaking, perhaps willful degree, a lack of understanding of science, or both.

Pesticides are precursors to chemical weapons. Most chemical weapons are normally binary compounds that must be mixed while the shell is in flight. It would not be difficult to turn large quantities of pesticides into something deadly.

Saddam was confirmed to have had large quantities of them hidden in bunker complexes on Iraqi military bases. That was clearly his intent.

Like I said, your post represents either naievete to a breathaking, perhaps willful degree, a lack of understanding of science, or both.

Excellent post, Jay.... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Excellent post, Jay.

Only one thing missing: wha... (Below threshold)
JohnAnnArbor:

Only one thing missing: what was on all those trucks making a run for the Syrian border just before the war began? Maybe it was just dried figs in payment for a few last weapons, but....

Pesticides are precursor... (Below threshold)
JohnAnnArbor:

Pesticides are precursors to chemical weapons.

In fact, I'm pretty sure nerve gas was discovered as a byproduct of pesticide research.

"Live with you wrong dec... (Below threshold)

"Live with you wrong decision here."

History will bear out who's making the wrong decisions here. And so far, it's not looking good for you.

And Paul Hooson:

Paul, Paul, Paul.

It's amazing the lengths you go to here to excuse Saddam.

Even this statement here:
"U.S. military intelligence as well as the Bush Administration did know full well that most of the "chemical weapon WMDs" that Saddam had where merely pesticides in shells or WWI technology mustard gas, both far less lethal than any conventional explosive shell such as TNT. Such chemical weapons had extremely limited ability to kill many persons because you'd have to be very close to the ground zero area of the impact of one of these in order to be killed or even injured. So even the term WMD is rather false one to describe such limited technology and usefulness pesticide weapons."

Notice the language. There's a concentrated effort to attach little importance to every single aspect of only one situation. This tactic is used to describe (and downplay) a million other scenarios found in Iraq.

"merely pesticides in shells"
"far less lethal"
"extremely limited ability to kill"
"limited technology"

What's left out? INTENT, as proven by past actions, and a long established pattern of DECEIT.

Every thing found in Iraq is conveniently explained away with such language:
* Any equipment found is "dual purpose" and of course only intended for their more benign use.
* Terror training camps are really anti-terror camps. (Never mind that even if that were true, you can't learn anti-terror tactics without learning terror tactics.)
* Hundreds of 55 gallon drums of pesticides stored near weapons caches? They have a right to control their insect problems! From getting into their weapons!
* Any defectors passing on inconvenient information contradicting any of the above? They're all liars! Every single one of them! Of course, if anything they say comports with the same language used to downplay any discoveries, then who are we to question it?

These are only a very few of many, many examples of spin like Paul uses above.

That's just part of the first paragraph. The whole second half deals with "we went there for the oil" and "it's all our fault Saddam did the things he did".

This one slayed me: "The Soviets at least attempted to dry up the arms supply in the region and force Iran and Iraq to work out a peace agreement in order to keep oil flowing from the region to Russia as well as the U.S."

Yeah, while they hammered away at Afghanistan their intent was strictly honorable in regards to Iran and Iraq. They were concerned about the mutual sharing of oil in these countries with their arch enemy - the US.

My God.

Oyster, Saddam was such a t... (Below threshold)

Oyster, Saddam was such a terrible dictator that the U.S. should have joined the Soviets in the 1980's to emrago arms to his corrupt and ruthless government rather than assist it to build a huge military with the illegal use of Agriculture Department CCC Funds meant solely for disaster relief for natural disasters in foreign nations. There was no natural disaster in Iraq at the time to justify using such funds, like the Iran-Contra arms dealing, it was just more irresponsible violations of the law that were so common in the Reagan Administration at the time.

Saddam's military was so second rate that chemical weapons were like using WWI warfare, when more modern weapons were not available to his government. Rather than these mostly pesticide based weapons being WMDs, they are unethical and immoral to use, and very primitive and mostly ineffective forms of warfare to use rather than any sign of military advancement or great widespread danger. It certainly sounded great for the Bush Administration to call these WMDs for domestic political reasons, although serious scientists such as those at the Federation Of American Scientists would certainly disagree and cite the only limited danger from a pesticide based cannon shell or small missile. Compared to TNT or some explosive, these shells are not very lethal unless a person is within just a few feet of a ground zero impact. By comparison nerve agents are far more lethal, yet air dilutes their inpact considerably as well outside of any ground zero impact.

Many third rate military forces around the world probably have some chemical weapons programs including Algeria, Ethiopia, Libya, Sudan, Syria, South Africa and Vietnam, but that is hardly any sign of great military technology or advancement, and rather a sign of crudeness compared to other states with more technology. Many of these countries have few automobiles, or even the ability to produce automobiles, let alone advanced military technology.

There is no proof yet that ... (Below threshold)

There is no proof yet that Saddam was directly involved in 9/11 but our book provides strong evidence that he was involved in the WTC '93 bombing, the attack on US forces in Somalia, and involved in the al Qaeda Millennium. We also show his many connections to people involved in 9/11. All together, it is likely Saddam was involved at some level in 9/11 considering his proxy war on the US via al Qaeda.

Ray Robison is the author of Both In One Trench: Saddam's Secret Terror Documents

www.bothinonetrench.com

Scott Ritter blew the WMDs ... (Below threshold)
Ken Hoop:

Scott Ritter blew the WMDs off the map before the war even started. Saddam's own defectors
said he had destroyed all of them years before.
Bush & Co. knew thiss, which is why one can trace several remarks to that effect by both Rice and Powell in 2001....before 9/11 at which point they changed their tune.

The fix was in and the unwinnable quagmire resulted.

You know, when I'm playing ... (Below threshold)

You know, when I'm playing poker and I call a man's bluff, I don't apologize for taking his money.

We went in for all the right reasons. I think the "Rumsfeld doctrine" will be studied for years to come as the wrong way to invade and occupy a hostile country. Yeah, I know, we weren't really invading and occupying, we were "liberating." That was the problem.

Timmer,I don't thi... (Below threshold)
the struggler:

Timmer,

I don't think it was the wrong way to invade.We took out Saddam's regime handily.

"Saddam's military was s... (Below threshold)

"Saddam's military was so second rate that chemical weapons were like using WWI warfare,..."

Paul, you're using 20/20 hindsight here and using it to again downplay events. It was not so second rate that it couldn't carry on a war with its neighbor Iran for 8 years ending in a stalemate. It was not so second rate that it couldn't subjugate Kuwait in a few short hours.

While you're on your "blame America", and particularly Reagan, theme, you fail to take into consideration the numerous other countries who aided and abetted both Iran and Iraq for decades. And with far more support than the US gave.

And that primitive chemical technology killed an awful lot of people. Do you really think they forgot how to use any of that given the opportunity?

Was the Iraqi army second rate against the US military? It didn't even measure on a scale. But Iraq's military had been built up in the minds of so many because of the manner in which it conducted itself in the past. So much so that many were surprised at just how quickly it collapsed against the US even as late as 2003.

And it never fails to amuse me how, depending on one's political persuasion - how far back they'll go in recent history to lay blame for current circumstances. Democrats who can't remember what they had for breakfast, let alone what happened 8 years ago, love to lay blame at G. W. Bush's feet. Republicans love to take it back to the Clinton era. Then other Democrats, with longer memories, like you, will hearken back to the Reagan era and pretend Iraq's problems were all a result of his policies. did we make some not-so-wise decisions in the past? In retrospect, yes. But we weren't alone and we weren't the biggest purveyors of that aid nor in abetting them.

One has to go waaaay back and look a series of events over a much longer period than most are willing to do. People have a tendency to do the same thing with the Israeli/Palestinian issue. They spin the clock back to some arbitrary point in time and declare that the beginning of "the problem" because it coincides so neatly with their philosophy of who's fault it all is.

Most of all, there are a scant few who lay blame where it belongs. With evil and corrupt regimes of sociopathic murderers that could take even the most innocent of goodwill gestures and create more mayhem and destruction from it.

What it all boils down to Paul is that if America was so bad, so hell bent on evil intent in aiding and abetting her enemies and so crass and uncaring toward even its own citizens, then why are you still here? Do you have some crazy dream that if we could only get another Democrat in the White House all will be well again?

- as if it ever was.

Oyster, modern Iraq foreign... (Below threshold)

Oyster, modern Iraq foreign policy has been entirely a Republican foreign policy since Reagan. Clinton only continued the same UN sanctions policy as Bush1 did after the first Gulf War. I can't honestly say that Iraq policy under Reagan,Bush1 and Bush2 has been that all good so far. How can you? I think it's been a real disaster so far. We went from a multibillion dollar build-up of Saddam's army to an occupation of the country since Reagan. That's a success story?

Paul, you're using 20/20... (Below threshold)
BSorenson:

Paul, you're using 20/20 hindsight here and using it to again downplay events.

It's only 20/20 hindsight for those who were too naive to see what this administration was REALLY doing - lying boldly to everyones face, understanding probably that such an audacious act would suspend belief for many. Then again, almost half the country was against this war from the start, visibly protesting against it in marches throughout cities in this country - and many marches across the world - days before the beginning of the campaign (not that you saw much of it on the news, but you did hear Bush say none of it would sway him - that's because he's so much wiser than the rest of us).

Anyone with moderate evaluation skills could see that Powell's UN presentation was a case of the Emperor having no clothes. That was when I was aware it was all a pile of bunk, and I'm no brain surgeon - and this is hardly hindsight. But there's a big difference between someone like me and someone like you - I am not so cowardly and frightened that I can be easily led - and when there's no fear on your part, you can see how their rhetoric just doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

I understand how difficult it is to admit that kind of thing, but you have to face it. Your fear today leaves you as one of the few people in this world who is still defending these sorry excuses for human beings. Once you don't give a damn about what's going to happen, you can see these people for what they are - and realize you've been bamboozled.

"I can't honestly say th... (Below threshold)

"I can't honestly say that Iraq policy under Reagan,Bush1 and Bush2 has been that all good so far."

Wait a minute. Didn't you just get through saying that Clinton "only continued the same UN sanctions policy"? Only? So he was totally powerless to change anything? Where does the buck stop and then get picked up again? Only when there's a Republican in the White House?

Still the same old partisan crap. Clinton was just carrying on and making do. Reagan started it all and it had nothing to do with Saddam himself. Nor Syria. Nor Iran. Nor Libya. Nor the Saudis. Not their supporters like Russia, China, Germany, France, etc. They were all non-players in Reagan's chess game. Poor Clinton. He simply got caught in the middle of a succession of aggressive and war-mongering Republicans.

Please.

You guys will simply not face the facts. There were a multitude of factors that brought about current developments that you refuse to discuss or admit. There's no point in discussing it further. It's not like I didn't give you an opportunity to bring any facet of it up for discussion. I left you wide open. You have decided to focus on one person and one myopic vision. Have a nice day. Thanks for playing.

The evidence that Hussein h... (Below threshold)
Anon:

The evidence that Hussein had (or was developing) WMD was never going to be absolutely convincing one way or the other (prior to invasion). However, I think that those who saw the evidence as indicating he had (or was developing) them, are fare more in the 'realm of reality', than those who thought the evidence indicated he did not have them.

Therefore it seems to me that the only way we were ever going to know, for sure, was to have American boots on the ground that could: "go where they chose" (to inspect), "when they chose". As opposed to the situation of the mid-90s, where UN inspection trucks would roll up to the front gate of a facility to inspect, and Hussein's people would hold them at the front gate for 10 days, while his trucks rolled out the back gate. Everyone & anyone with half a mind (except apparently many liberals) knew what was happening. Obviously, when the inspectors finally got in there was seldom anything left to inspect (and anyone with an IQ over 40 could have predicted such - except for liberals in mass denial).

Also, It has been stated that Hussein had no real good chemical, biological (or nuclear) weapons delivery system (prior to the first or second war)....... Well what about his 'Super-Gun' (a large specialized artillery piece). It could carry chemical, biological (or a small nuclear warhead) and guess where it was aimed - at Tel Aviv......... Yes, it was destroyed by the UN inspectors (which proved it existed), but it is still the type of thing that could be rebuilt much more easily than a complete weapons system (like a complete chemical system). Yes, Hussein might have had to buy some more equipment on the black market to restart the project - but that was possible because no one has ever said UN sanctions and embargos are totally effective. Especially if the price is high enough - and let's keep in mind, with Hussein's BILLIONS he could make it worth many black marketeers while.

Also, in terms of Bush knowing "for sure" that Hussein 'did not' have WMD programs (of whatever type - nuclear, or improved or 'un-discovered' chem or bio-programs).... Well, where is the absolute proof of that?!!! We were never going to know without American boots on the ground, and obviously we were going to have to err on the side of safety. Especially with Hussein's barbaric history and what he had shown to be his intentions.

In terms of the US arming Iraq - we were trying to keep a balance of power between Iraq & Iran...... In terms of the US being the only weapons source: NO - Mirage aircraft from France, tanks from the USSR, and probably weapons from several other countries, not to mention a 'Nuclear Reactor' from France!!

In terms of Russia trying to stop the Iran/Iraq genocide: I wonder?? Or, where they just trying to keep the oil flowing to their little "Afgan" situation. When you look at what was going on in their little "Afgan' situation; I doubt the Soviets had any real humanitarian concerns in mind!!!


In terms of: "Hussein never having attacked the US". Wrong - he hit the USS Stark (about 1987) with a "French" made Exocet Missile. Hussein claimed it was an accident, but that is still in question.


The more the liberals want to discuss this, the more evidence we can roll out..... You know, the evidence that the liberal press tried to sweep under the rug!!!

What you have, Anon, is not... (Below threshold)
BSorenson:

What you have, Anon, is not evidence, it is your opinion.

The evidence that Hussein had (or was developing) WMD was never going to be absolutely convincing one way or the other (prior to invasion)....Therefore it seems to me that the only way we were ever going to know, for sure, was to have American boots on the ground.

What kind of stupid logic is that. By that theory, we may as well invade every country that ever disagrees with us because "we're never sure one way or another if they're plotting against us." Do you realize that this is the reason we're in the morally corrupt mess we're in today?

It's no use trying to apply reason and sober facts with you small percenters. You're so scared of your own shadow you're willing to believe every doomsday scenario hook, line and sinker - and you can't fathom that your father figure could have lied to you. So naive. (and no, I don't believe every threat is tame, but I tend to weigh the falsehoods of this administration greatly when deciding to believe anything they claim).

Well now BS;I gues... (Below threshold)
Anon:

Well now BS;

I guess you don't read very well do you (or else that post really got to you!!).

"invade every country that ever disagrees with us" - BS trying to twist the logic.

No I never said we should invade every country that disagreed with us. The real answer comes when you look at what Hussein was advocating and what he had done in the past. I referenced this very idea when I said -- "Especially with Hussein's barbaric history and what he had shown to be his intentions." I guess you missed that part. He had been tyrannizing the area for at least 20 years and, he was constantly lighting up our jets and breaking UN resolutions on a daily basis. You don't read (or remember) very well do you, or maybe you are just like the liberal press - you just ignore the parts you don't like!!!............. Better luck next time.

I bet BS has been listening to 'Keith "Goofy" Olbermann' too much!!!!!!!

Now BS, go back and read the original article and all the posts again, and this time forget about just trying to read into the evidence what you want to - try some objectivity. I realize it will be difficult for you, but it is the only way you are going to clear up that fuzzy head. Then, at that point you will see it was more than just my opinion!

Who knows maybe BS is "Keith Goofy" himself.

"Especially with Hu... (Below threshold)
BSorenson:

"Especially with Hussein's barbaric history and what he had shown to be his intentions." I guess you missed that part.

Please. Maybe you don't read. I quote "By that theory, we may as well invade every country that ever disagrees with us because "we're never sure one way or another if they're plotting against us.""

Your logic is what is wrong - and is ridiculous. You still hold to the theory that, despite lacking physical evidence, pre-emptive strikes are justified simply due to previous history. Why, then, have we not attacked North Korea? I'm sure you'll find a way to poorly parse that one. Syria and Iran are behind Hezbollah, who has threatened continueously our allies in Israel - why don't we take them out? Hey, Iran held a few of our citizens hostage.

After all, Iraq has threatened and attacked the US...oh, that's right. They haven't now, have they.

No. The only thing that your justification of this war and pre-emptive strikes show is just how cowardly you are. When you attack another country on false - or manufactured - information, the only one who really loses in the end are those who start the embroil. They lose in terms of strength and credibility. And this war has made this country more vulnerable, not less. And smarter people than you knew this. Much of the country knew this. It was only the little cowards who felt uncomfortable and needed to be soothed by the Bush ware machine that see this approach as viable.

But continue to believe you are justified in these thoughts. It's the small thread you chickenhawks have to hang on to. And also continue to believe Iraq was in bed with Al Qaeda. That's the lie that keeps on giving for your morons.

No dimwit;That was... (Below threshold)
Anon:

No dimwit;

That was 'you' suggesting that we should invade every country by trying to take what I had said and twist it. A very blatant and easy to see through twist .The type a 3 year old would try (and 'once again' you have been called on it - 3 year old's tactics don't work very well with adults!!!). I explained very well that Hussein was a diffirent type case because of his very long & blatant history.

Now, since I am going to 'spell' it out even more completely for you, then you are going to look even more like a child, or someone who, just like the media, ignores what they don't like.

Hussein started out with an almost public assignation campaign in Iraq.....
He invaded Iran and started an 8 year war. The Iranians say he killed at least 100,000 with chemical or biological agents (even if it was only 50,000 that is more than anyone since Hitler and is more than anyone since WWI in terms of releasing them in the outdoor environment, - ie - not in a gas chamber)........ Hussein used chemical agents on the Kurds and killed 5000 (this is in addition to the 50,00 - 100,00 Iranians). He is the only one to use them in such a fashion on his own people in quite some time (Hussein may not have thought of the Kurds as his own people but they were Iraqi nationals -- Oh and are you beginning to get the picture??!!!).... He hit the USS Stark (mentioned above on my previous post)......He invaded Kuwait and terrorized, raped and pillaged (I am sure you will remember this - Oh wait a minute since you are only 3, maybe not!!).....He lobbed Skuds into Israel (and it was all we could do to control them and keep them from attacking him)........He had an on-going Nuclear weapons program that we caught only about 1 - 1 ½ years from completion (this point is huge, and totally blows you away - see my post above #28).........He signed a peace treaty after the first gulf war and broke practically resolution it contained including hindering more & more the UN weapons inspectors till they left the job undone (one of the reasons Bush would not tolerate more of his shenanigans prior to the second gulf war and UN officials said he was not really cooperating this time either - also it was coming up on the Iraqi Summer and no one wanted our troops to have to fight in 100-120 degree weather in chem. Protection suits if Hussein Launched a WMD attack of some type).........He lit up and fired missiles on our jets daily (ask Bill Clinton,.... and I don't remember any of you Libby-libs Calling Clinton a' terrorist' when he retaliated with bombs and missiles)......He went out of his way to make us think he had WMD programs to deter Iran by putting on a show for our overhead satellites -

What Hussein said about having weapons (before Iraq was invaded) wasn't important. It was more what he was doing: like putting on a show for our satellites as to what type truck went to what building; what came out of a particular plant covered with tarps over it; what type of facilities were being built or pretending to be built etc, etc; The communicates he allowed us to intercept, and what he was trying to buy or pretending to buy on the black market. The fact that it is so difficult to get spies into such a closed country to see what is under those tarps, or photograph documents etc, etc. Hussein knew what type of assumptions the U.S. would have to arrive at to err on the side of safety................. Not to mention that he could get a lot on the black market if the price was high enough, and he had Billions opon Billions with which to do just that!!!

Some might say if Hussein had lied so many times in the past why trust what he said about making us think he had the weapons. Obviously, after he was captured he had different incentives. The gig was up at that point!!!


So, Hussein had had WMD in the past and was making it look so again.


North Korea is not even close to the above in terms of that type history (certainly not recently, except for trying to develop Nukes) and we have been able to negotiate with them some anyway (restraint on Bush's part - something you said he didn't have. Also N. Korea is contained on two side by water, on the south by S. Korea, Japan & the US. China border N Korea on the north and they don't want their little buddy acting up too much (this point was already suspected, but China made it very clear about 1 ½ years ago). N. Korea has therefore not invaded anyone recently but if this situation went on for 10-15 more years it might be a bit closer to what Iraq was.

If it goes on for another 5-10 years with Iran that might also approach what Iraq had done (unless Iran does develop Nukes - see above post # 28 again).

Hussein "did" have WMD and a very tyrannical history. Do you get it yet!!!


One more thing BS - You do realize Hussein was a 'modern day' Hitler don't you --


Should we have preempted Hitler!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Do you get it yet - "Keith Goofy."

Hussein "did" have ... (Below threshold)
BSorenson:

Hussein "did" have WMD and a very tyrannical history. Do you get it yet!!!


One more thing BS - You do realize Hussein was a 'modern day' Hitler don't you --

We went in there on false information and lies. You can recount whatever history you want about Hussein (modern day Hitler. Please. That's bloating it a bit), but the fact remains -- he never attacked the US, despite a few tantrums he was complying with the inspectors after the first UN resolution (and consequently all the inspectors claimed he had nothing), and the only reason we RUSHED in there was because Bush knew his second UN resolution might fail- so he stopped it in its tracks and continued on with his war of choice (while claiming, falsely, that Hussein was months away from a nuclear weapon. That, in case you didn't know, was an outright lie).

Meanwhile, the people who did attack us on 9/11 are still out there, and, thanks to your beloved President, have more recruits than they can probably manage.

And our military is stretched to the limit. And Afghanistan is in tatters. And New Orleans is still a disaster area. And we are experiencing a second recession due to this trashbags inability to even moderately monitor some of what the financial institutions have created (interest only loans, etc.).

...and you're still responding like a scared little child. Grow up and take responsibility for your own life - and treat your President as he should be treated. Not as your father, but as your employee.

Personally, as my employee, I would have fired him years ago for his lousy performance. You'd probably let him run your company into the ground.

Thankfully, people with your fear-laden mindset are in the small minority that will see itself fritter away completely after the next election. Everyone else in this country seems to have grown a set. Get a pair yourself maybe.

Well, since you ran your mo... (Below threshold)
Anon:

Well, since you ran your mouth again I am going to humiliate you again.


I was short on time with my last post so I only gave a quick list of Hussein's atrocities. I will now make the list 'more' complete.

In addition to the above posting:

- The at least 50,000 and possibly 100,000 Iranians that Hussein killed with chemical agents (in the Iran/Iraq war) were only those killed with WMD. He killed at least another 2-300,000 with conventional weapons. Well over a million troops on both sides as well as civilians were killed.

- His sons, and their henchmen raped and terrorized over the country daily.

- He had the supergun pointed at Israel (which should give you more evidence about his intentions). I had mentioned this a couple posts back but had not added it the list on the previous post (but it deserves to be mentioned again anyway, since so many have forgotten about it, especially the press - just like Hussein only being 1 - 1 ½ years away from a developed nuke program)

- He tried to exterminate the Shiites, in the south of Iraq, by trying to drain & burn out the entire marsh at the mouth of the Tigris-Euphrates River at the north of the Persian Gulf (hundreds of square miles). The Shiites used this marsh for subsistence, and the draining & burning created an environmental catastrophe. This was after he signed the peace treaty of the first gulf war and had to have broken several UN resolutions. This same area was part of the Southern "No Fly Zone", where he lit up our jets daily.

- He fired hundreds of oil wells at the end of the first gulf war (showing what kind of tyranny he was capable of once again). This turned day into night over a fairly large area, and they took months to put out (I watched it on the news nightly, did you mr. 3 year old - when was the last time our illustrious media has reminded people of this!!). The winds took the smoke & soot to the east into Iran and the Iranians said it produced "black rain". Another environmental catastrophe!!

- In addition to the 5,000 Kurds he killed with WMD: He also harassed the Kurds
with conventional weapons and more than once pushed them to the northern
border with Turkey(causing friction with that country obviously). This invariably
killed thousands (probably a low figure) more, and all this within the northern
Protected Area / No Fly Zone, where once again he lit up our jets daily

- There are probably more examples but how much time do I have!!!!!!!!!


During the mid-90 Bill Clinton would send the bombs and missiles flying to force Hussein not to interfere, and not to hold up the weapon inspectors. After a day or two of bombing he would agree to stop interfering. However, after a couple of weeks he would be at it again. This went on for years.......... The above is why Bush was not going to give him more time prior to the Second Gulf War. Bush was not going to give him more time to prepare for war (and at the time UN inspectors admitted he wasn't really cooperating - Bush could see the charade for what it was). Bush was not going to wait till the Iraqi summer and risk our troops fighting in WMD suits in 110 degree heat. That would have severely hampered the effort and caused many more casualties. He also was not going to leave the troops sitting in the desert twitlting their thumbs waiting for the fall and cooler weather, giving Hussein more time to prepare. This also could have been a severe morale problem - Do you get it YET, BS


In terms of knowing how close Hussein was to a nuclear weapon prior to the second war - that was the whole point. Especially with him trying to make us think he had a program (how quickly you have forgotten). Not to mention how wrong all the inspectors were before the First Gulf War (how quickly you have forgotten).

Also , there was a terrorist camp in NE Iraq. Their may have only been 10-15 there, but some may have been Al Qaida. Maybe, Hussein's liaison in case he wanted to talk about carrying out an attack for him (or something similar - you get the picture)

Hussein was a modern day Hitler. He was simply preempted this time. So that dimwits like you, who haven't a clue about the lessons of history (even one of the biggest, most recent examples) don't fully comprehend it (or don't want to). That tends to be the way that people with political agendas operate........... Preemption is not something that is done lightly, but Hussein had a long history, as outlined above. Bush saw and understood the lessons of history - YOU would not have had a clue,

.............. OR is it just that Bush, being a conservative, didn't give you (and your kind) the little social programs you wanted. You know, the little handout regimes for special people!!! Maybe that is what you are really mad about so you try to undermine him with whatever you think will be most effective - Obviously the war. Maybe you are really glad Bush is promoting democracy in the Middle East. After all that was once what you libbie-libs advocated for that region (see the last paragraph of my post # 26 above).............. It seemed as though back then you Demi-Dems liked the idea of democracy for the region..... Maybe you are just infuriated a Conservative will intimately get credit fro democratizing the region, and not a libby-lib. Maybe that is why you presently criticize democracy & democratic nation building (you give yourself away so completely and so throughally). History may very well see Bush did more to democratize the area than anyone. It may take another 20-40 years but several nations in the area have already moved closer to the vote (and once the population tastes the vote, they remember it - even if it takes a couple more decades for a fully functioning democracy).

Maybe you would love for a democrat to share some of the historical credit, and not just a conservative. I bet when the time comes your type will engage in all sorts of "Historical Revisionism" to try to make it appear so............. Why I bet if Bill Clinton had invaded Iraq with the same intents of dealing with WMD, stopping genocide and promoting Democracy you would have thought it was the greatest thing since peanut butter & jelly.......................and you would have never called him a terrorist!!!

Also BS, YOU didn't answer the question about whether or not we (or really Europe) should have preempted Hitler. YOU ran from that one!!!!


..............................

As far as Bush and the present economy goes: Anyone who knows about economics knows economies go in cycles of roughly 4 to 8 years. Presidents often have little control over these cycles (except with tax cuts or spending programs - and wartime often ties their hands). It is not the presidents responsibility to manage the economy. That is really far more the role of the Fed Chairman adjusting the interest rate - they are appointed for life and are independent of the president, and his opinion (but you already knew that right, and you were just playing politics - oh yeah, I forgot you are only 3). Also. It is really people running businesses, and starting new ones that manage the economy. Not to mention, that it is people voting, Yes or No, on a given product at a given price that also runs the economy (you know Supply & Demand - it really works much better than you Dems will admit - you do like Democracy don't you, Oh yeah I forgot you like Regulation!!!!!!)

As far as banks and their patrons and their lending pratices it is not really the presidents responsibility to intervene or hold their hands while they make decisions. The banks and the lendees are the ones who caused this present crisis. The pres can only help so much. Some have said the Fed Chairman 'Greenspand" had some pre-existing laws "He" should have applied. I will leave that one, however, for the economic whiz kids to discuss further.

AS far as Katrina goes: I have been watching this type thing since the early 80's and I have yet to see people ever satisfied by a hurricane response. They all want full & complete help within a few hours of the winds stopping. That has been true of every president and every storm since I started watching. That storm was just much larger & stronger than anything else. Out in the field, in the real world (as opposed to the classroom) things happen. Things get delayed & confused. With the 2004 Tsunami we almost sent too much equipment to the wrong place. At first it looked like Sri Lanka was the worst hit but it was really Indonesia & Thailand. It took us a few days to evaluate and then we found where the real need was. Things don't happen easily or instantly out in the real world. Especially when the event is big enough and you have not ever had practice for such a large event (but we all knew you dems would make hay about it anyway - you can't help yourself). If we had sent the supplies immediately to Sri Lanka we would have just had to retrieve them & send them to Indonesia (a big waste of time & fuel, & spoilage). Then there are thing like not enough helicopters in the area and needing them to assess but stopping to do rescues. Roads being flooded & bridges being down. Not enough fuel or it got contaminated by the weather etc, etc, etc...


Oh, and you got your answer on North Korea didn't you. You were 'so' sure of yourself about N. Korea being a winning point for you and you walked into it blindly. Of course if you had paid any attention to different news sources over the past 20 years you could have seem the evidence for yourself, but you only like the liberal media and since they skew it toward the demi-dems so much you normally allow yourself to be indoctrinated without question. Reliance on such a one sided news source really caught up with you that time didn't it!!!!!!!


Go ahead, Run your mouth some more. The evidence the media has substantially ignored has not be fully articulated yet. Talk some more!!!

Come on "Keith Goofy", talk some more.

So, in essence, what you're... (Below threshold)
BSorenson:

So, in essence, what you're saying is that Hussein committed alot of bad acts, was a dangerous guy and, despite the fact of not having WMDs anymore (just to reiterate that), we still should have taken him out based on everything else?

Gee, well if that's the case, why did the Bush administration see the need to lie about the facts? Why not make the case on what they knew and not on what they assumed - or wanted to be true?

There are alot of dangerous people out there. He's not the only one. If you base your foreign policy on lying to push your way into an war, you automatically lose.

As far as everything else, you're just doing what every neocon moron does - make multiple excuses for why Bush is failing at his job.

And by the way, it is the government's job to monitor questionable business practices when they threaten economic solvency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_Loan_crisis

Also, as far as Katrina, the head of FEMA wasn't even aware people were in the Superdome (said it on an interview with Anderson Cooper live).

That defines the incompletency of this administration. It's not confusion beyond the ability to function. It's incompetency. This is what you pay your taxes for. Why are you making excuses for these people? How many excuses are you willing to make for them until you'll question their competency.

Once again, your post shows your fear, and with fear you're willing to overlook when the rule of law, both domestic and international, was broken by this administration. Neocons are on their way out, thank goodness. The utter incompetency and delusional thinking of you people is breathtaking. Hell, your own party doesn't even want to represent you anymore. doesn't that give you the slightest clue?

I guess you thought this on... (Below threshold)
Maggie:

I guess you thought this one would slip
by.

Once again, your post shows your fear, and with fear you're willing to overlook when the rule of law, both domestic and international, was broken by this administration.
What international law/s were broken by the Bush administration? You know the drill, location of sources that verify your allegations.
Maggie,Read "Beyon... (Below threshold)
BSorenson:

Maggie,

Read "Beyond the Law" by Jordan Paust.

We can parse this beyond belief, as you know. That's my reference base for this.

You are if nothing disingen... (Below threshold)
Maggie:

You are if nothing disingenuous.
I posted a specific request, in return
your response is throwing words such as
'parsing' around and an attempt of a
paper chase.
I didn't request references to some book.
But thanks anyway, your agenda is
apparent.

Why I bet if Bill C... (Below threshold)
BSorenson:

Why I bet if Bill Clinton had invaded Iraq with the same intents of dealing with WMD, stopping genocide and promoting Democracy you would have thought it was the greatest thing since peanut butter & jelly

Too much absurdity to comment on here, but to answer this question - no - if Clinton lied about intelligence to push his way into a war with Iraq, I would want him impeached on that count. My allegience is not with any particular person or party - and thats the pathetic trap a lemming like you falls into.

The crime is still a crime no matter who commits it. And if either of them, instead, made the case that it's about genocide instead of fake intelligence and fear-mongering regardingWMD's - or that it's about nation-building, I would say the AMerican people can make that judgement on war and I would stand by it - since it would be based on truth of reasoning. You can't bate and switch like these guys have and expect respect and accolades. People's lives are at stake here.

And that gets back to your ridiculous statements on preemptive war against Hitler: It is no country's place to be judge and executioner alone to who is deserving of international law and who is not -- and consequently we did not enter war against Hitler until our allies were in direct danger.

And both Vietnam and the Soviet Union (at least for a while) have found their ways to improved societies without the advent of us declaring war against, and occupying them, for decades.

Your beloved President doesn't benefit from history because he ignores any history that doesn't jibe with his delusional world view.

Beyond that, other blather you have here (Bush was not going to give him more time to prepare for war (and at the time UN inspectors admitted he wasn't really cooperating - Bush could see the charade for what it was). Bush was not going to wait till the Iraqi summer and risk our troops fighting in WMD suits in 110 degree heat. That would have severely hampered the effort and caused many more casualties.)puts you in George Bush's head. You make alot of assuptions in your posts about what other's were thinking and what your interpretations of things are. Stick to the sober facts. They will set you free.

You are if nothing ... (Below threshold)
BSorenson:

You are if nothing disingenuous.
I posted a specific request, in return
your response is throwing words such as
'parsing' around and an attempt of a
paper chase. I didn't request references to some book.But thanks anyway, your agenda is apparent.

What kind of nastiness is this. I talk about parsing in a general way, as that is what everyone tends to do on a subject. There's nothing derogatory or insulting about referencing "parsing."

Regarding the source, the entire book is about this administration's disregard for international law, not just a chosen line. If I told you my source was the Encyclopedia Brittanica, you might have justification for your latter statement. Instead, it just looks like you were waiting for me to respond so you can make a nasty remark.

nastin... (Below threshold)
Maggie:


nastiness
One entry found.

nasty

Main Entry:
nas·ty Listen to the pronunciation of nasty
Pronunciation:
\ˈnas-tē\
Function:
adjective
Inflected Form(s):
nas·ti·er; nas·ti·est
Etymology:
Middle English
Date:
14th century

1 a: disgustingly filthy b: physically repugnant2: indecent obscene3: mean tawdry4 a: extremely hazardous or harmful b: causing severe pain or suffering c: sharply unpleasant : disagreeable 5 a: difficult to understand or deal with b: psychologically unsettling : trying 6: lacking in courtesy or sportsmanship
synonyms see dirty
-- nas·ti·ly Listen to the pronunciation of nastily \-tə-lē\ adverb
-- nas·ti·ness Listen to the pronunciation of nastiness \-tē-nəs\ noun
-- nasty noun
Learn more about "nasty" and related topics at Britannica.com

I requested something specific, in
avoidance you've turned this into a personal
attack and insult.


disingenuous
One entry found.

disingenuous

Main Entry:
dis·in·gen·u·ous Listen to the pronunciation of disingenuous
Pronunciation:
\ˌdis-in-ˈjen-yə-wəs, -yü-əs-\
Function:
adjective
Date:
1655

: lacking in candor; also : giving a false appearance of simple frankness : calculating
-- dis·in·gen·u·ous·ly adverb
-- dis·in·gen·u·ous·ness noun

Go ahead now, and have the last post.


Wow! Maybe I'm reading this... (Below threshold)
BSorenson:

Wow! Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but I supsect you have some anger issues to work out, don't you?

Nothing's been avoided. You asked for my specific reference. I gave it to you. Don't like it? It's a free country.

Regarding personal attacks, you're the one calling me disingenous. As far as your quoting of the dictionary - "c: sharply unpleasant, disagreeable" is my take on the word.

As McCain would say, calm down.




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