Saturday, September 17, 2005

Regime Change in Iraq - and Why

This Post is For You, "Liberal American."

Where did we leave off? Oh yeah, the comments at Jessica's Well, at her Never Forget post, this past Sunday..

I like to multitask, so this is also "Part II" of the Fortitude essay which I was supposed to post yesterday. If you came for that, you can go ahead and skip I. in the Table of Contents and just scroll down to II. or if you're interested in "what happened to the weapons of mass destruction!" go down to III.

-----------------
TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Q&A - Kind of. With " "Liberal" "American " " (blah, blah, blah.)


II. Iraq + Al Qaeda (more info)
-A Body of Coincidence, or of Evidence?
-How Quickly We Forget
-Finds


III. WMD (links, references)



IV. End of Debate
----------------

This was supposed to be a more "formal" presentation, but thanks to "someone's" silly statements and my own reluctance to just ignore them, the plan changed. If anyone doesn't want to bother with it and you just want to get into the info, just skip whatever the heck it is that " "liberal "american" " is saying and what I'm saying back. Just scroll down to the more important links and references. Enjoy.

-Cristobal (sirc)


I. GO >>

"'Liberal' 'American'": You are clueless because:

A) you believe there are ties between 9-11 and Al Qaeda and even Cheney admitted there are NONE. Get it?

>

Sirc_Valence: I don't know if the VP has changed his mind, but I think that you're referring to when the VP answered Tim Russert with "We don't know" after Mr. Russert asked if Saddam was involved in 911. That broadcast was two years ago, you might want to read the stuff on Iraq and al Qaeda here. There's a bit of an elaboration below the "Q & A"./ BTW, I can guess what your next question is gonna be: "get it?"

>

"'Liberal' 'American'": Get it? SADDAM HAD NO LINKS TO AL QAEDA.

>

Sirc_Valence: See, I knew it!

I recall that three years before September 11 the Clinton administration issued an indictment against al Qaeda and bin Laden, charging that "al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular PROJECTS, specifically including WEAPONS DEVELOPMENT, AL QAEDA WOULD WORK COOPERATIVELY WITH THE GOVERNMENT OF IRAQ"

Did President Bush travel back in time to before he was President and force the Department of Justice, the Clinton administration and U.S. Intelligence to attack the poor "freedom fighters" who like to cut people's heads off and blow people up this way?

This is not a very ancient history. If you want to make peace you should know what's going on in the world.

>

"'Liberal' 'American'": Furthermore - why didn't we go after Saudia Arabia? Where the BULK OF THE ACTUAL TERRORISTS CAME FROM? Because Bush and his family have DEEP PERSONAL TIES to Saudi Arabia and oil interests there. Get it?

>

Sirc_Valence: Wow, you're quite a little warmonger there aren't you?

You have no idea how ridiculous your arguments are to anyone with even a slight bit of knowledge about the history of recent conflicts in the Mideast.

Apparently we should have allowed bin Laden to cause a new rift between Saudi Arabia and the United States, and further destabilize the world, because after all, most of the hijackers were Saudi. It was so obvious that that was bin Laden's bait. But our country has been deliberate and persistent in fighting back. They knocked down two towers and we took down two dictatorships. I say that's 2 USA - .00whatever Al Qaeda.

The point in a war is to win, not just to destroy for nothing. Remember, both Saddam Hussein and bin Laden held a grudge against the "infidels" who launched Operation Desert Storm from Saudi territory to repel Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. That's where al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's strategic interests met. The U.S. has worked with Saudi Arabia since at least the end of WWII which served as a powerful reminder of what can happen when nations collide and when countries align themselves against you.

You would have attacked Saudi Arabia because of how many Saudi hijackers there were? You must either be clueless or think that I am if you think I'm going to take your suggestion seriously that had President Bush wanted to carry out a regime change in Saudi Arabia militarily you would have supported it. This argument of yours (and others) is analogous to a child's "naa, you can't catch me" game where you don't really have to stand by something that might appear sound at particular instances.

>

"'Liberal' 'American'": Saddam was a bad dude, so the ___ what? There are MANY bad dudes out there (see north Korea for example) we don't go after them, and why? There's no oil there, stupid!

>

Sirc_Valence: You can't do everything at once. and each case is unique, because the real world is not filled with identical and static situations. If people used that as an excuse not to do anything they would never get anything done.

In the real world, humanitarianish outrage is dead in the stormy waters. The truth is, energy is an important issue - it would be irresponsible to pretend that it isn't. New Orleans shows what can happen in some places if they don't have any for just a few days. But there are more important things than things, and that's doing what is right.

>

"'Liberal' 'American'": B) Read my post again cause you don't get it. I didn't say Bush was responsible for orchestrating 9-11."

>

Sirc_Valence: Let me help you. This is what I said:

"It takes a serious moral lapse and sickness to suggest that the President of the United States was 'behind' 9/11 OR that he, rather than Saddam Hussein, would kill innocent Americans for his own selfish benefit."

Morally, the difference between the two things is merely incidental, and libs have accused him of both. One of those accusations is yours. And for the record, they're both wrong.

>

"'Liberal' 'American'": C) before you get on your high horse about "massive corruption at the UN" give me a break. You need look no further than a multi-BILLION dollar contract to Halliburton for your corruption.

>

Sirc_Valence: Envy is unhealthy. Money in and of itself is not unhealthy. And you can't escape human nature even if you try to ignore it. Over here I pointed out that It's easy to see the prosperity and material progress that accompanies capitalism and overlook an even more fundamental force at work: the work of a community of free and rational individuals. The irony is that socialism, not capitalism, is based on materialism. It is what defines "social justice" in monetary and material terms and measurements. The impulse to socialistically make people fit this (wanna-be) "social justice" template combined with moral relativism produces people who have no problem with playing fast and loose with the truth. And that's why you're so confused. At least in terms of what's going on in the world. But I can help you. Don't worry.

>

"'Liberal' 'American'": What you said is the equivalent of saying "the fact that the US FOUND NOTHING THAT WAS THE PRINCIPLE REASON THEY SAID THEY WERE GOING TO WAR should let you know that going to war was really really necessary."

>

Sirc_Valence: Not only is that not what I said, or close to its equivalent, it is crazy. I'm gonna prove it to you. Just warming up here. If you felt like quoting someone you should have quoted the President. Then you would know what's up.

What you don't understand is that it was time to take Saddam Hussein down. We let him mess around enough. That's what I'm going to help you see here.

Saddam and his vicious spawn, were an intolerable threat and an obstacle to progress in the War on Terror. To move foreward we needed to deal with it. After 9/11 the rules had changed regarding what America will do to defend herself. A very crucial aspect of President Bush's national security strategy has been that "We will defend the peace against the threats from terrorists and tyrants... we will extend the peace by encouraging free and open societies on every continent."

---
Chris Hitchens recently highlighted a few pretty noticeable changes in the world since we moved to topple the dictatorship of Iraq - paraphrasing:

- The subsequent capitulation of Qaddafi's Libya in point of weapons of mass destruction--a capitulation that was offered not to Kofi Annan or the E.U. but to Blair and Bush AND The consequent unmasking of the A.Q. Khan network for the illicit transfer of nuclear technology to Libya, Iran, and North Korea.

-The agreement by the United Nations that its own reform is necessary and overdue, and the unmasking of a quasi-criminal network within its elite. (And as much as libs have tried, they can't say the same about Halliburton. It's interesting, though, to see libs say that they support the troops, but not their mission or those on the ground helping them achieve it.)

-The related encouragement of democratic and civil society movements in Egypt, Syria, and most notably Lebanon, which has regained a version of its autonomy.

-The ability to certify Saddam as actually disarmed and neutralized

---

Now, the real REGIME CHANGE IN IRAQ, AND WHY.: -

---


II. Iraq-al Qaeda
>A Body of Coincidence, or Evidence?


Saddam's willingness to help bin Laden plot against Americans began in 1990, shortly before the first Gulf War, and continued through last March, the eve of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, says the Oct. 27 memo sent by Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith.

- FoxNews.com, Intelligence Report Links Saddam, Usama


I don't know how many people heard the reports about the Prague connection between Iraqi Intelligence and al Qaeda, a few days after 911, but I think it's a good place to start. Fred Barnes wrote about this in August, 2003 after talking with some officials.

Mohammed Atta was spotted with Iraqi Intelligence officer Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani by the Czech Security Information Service (BIS) which passed on the information to the U.S. after finding out what Atta had done, 5 months after leaving their country. Fred Barnes points out that the Czech prime minister, interior minister, and ambassador to the U.S. support the account of the BIS. Its not something to easily dismiss. At least not after considering alot of the ties to terror that Iraq maintained and employed.

I just have one problem here, and that's with the media trying to push people in one direction or another. Its difficult enough to find out what's going on without people making a mess out of everything.

Quoting the New York Times (via Edward J. Epstein): “A senior Bush administration official Friday night indicated the Czech decision to go public with the information about the meeting took Washington by surprise." The NY Times's James Risen stupidly then claimed that Czech President Vaclav Havel called President Bush to retract. Havel's spokesman REFUTED Risen's incredible FABRICATION. As I mentioned before, the Czech Republic's Minister of Interior stands by the report of the Security Information Service .

This kind of nonsense happens over and over and over with the media.

No wonder people can't connect the dots right in front of their faces. It all turns into static noise in the mind and is forgotten or never even registered, leaving only the tone of senseless noise.

George Orwell was very right in pointing out that "During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."


Check this out.

In January 2000, Ahmed Hikmat Shakir was hanging around the mastermind of the attack on the USS Cole, Tawfiz al Atash, and with Khalid al Midhar and Nawaz al Hamzi, two of the 9-11 hijackers.

This relates to Saddam Hussein because Ahmed Hikmat Shakir (AHS) was working at Malaysian Airlines but was taking orders from the Iraqi embassy and he stopped working there after the 4-day Al Qaeda retreat in Malaysia.. 2 days after the party was over he was done at that job. Fast forward to six days after al Hamzi and al Midhar slam Flight 77 into the Pentagon, AHS gets arrested in Qatar. As Stephen Hayes reported, his connection to 9-11 wasn't the only reason that he was of interest. He received a phone call from the headquarters in New Jersey of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. More here.

This also might grab your attention:

"Al-Watan al-Arabi (Paris) reports that two Iraqis were arrested in Germany, charged with spying for Baghdad. The arrests came in the wake of reports that Iraq was reorganizing the external branches of its intelligence service and that it had drawn up a plan to strike at US interests around the world through a network of alliances with extremist fundamentalist parties.

"The most serious report contained information that Iraq and Osama bin Ladin were working together. German authorities were surprised by the arrest of the two Iraqi agents and the discovery of Iraqi intelligence activities in several German cities. German authorities, acting on CIA recommendations, had been focused on monitoring the activities of Islamic groups linked to bin Ladin. They discovered the two Iraqi agents by chance and uncovered what they considered to be SERIOUS INDICATIONS BETWEEN IRAQ AND BIN LADIN. The matter was considered so important that a special team of CIA and FBI agents was sent to Germany to interrogate the two Iraqi spies."


--published seven months before September 11, 2001 in the French Arabic newspaper, al-Watan al-Arabi. Edward Morrissey has more on this at The Weekly Standard

Even apart from the al-Watan al-Arabi reporting, the strange coincidence of discovering Iraqi intelligence operations in such close conjunction to known al Qaeda operations should have raised some eyebrows.


EXACTLY^
-especially in light of that 1998 indictment against al-Qaeda that is mentioned up at the "Q&A" here. Here's the link. It's #4, but I'll post the relevant text here:

...In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.



>How Quickly We Forget

RUSH posted up some past reporting on his site a while back, I'll put some of it up here:

-"-The new indictment ... accuses Mr. bin Laden of leading a vast terrorist conspiracy from 1989 to the present, in which he is said to have been working in concert with governments, including those of Sudan, Iraq and Iran, and terrorist groups to build weapons and attack American military installations ... Both indictments offer new information about Mr. bin Laden's operations, including one deal he is said to have struck with Iraq to cooperate in the development of weapons in return for Mr. bin Laden's agreeing not to work against that country." - New York Times, Nov. 5 1998


-"Saddam Hussein's regime has opened talks with Osama bin Laden, bringing closer the threat of a terrorist attack using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, according to U.S. intelligence sources and Iraqi opposition officials. The key meeting took place in the Afghan mountains near Kandahar in late December [1998]. The Iraqi delegation was led by Farouk Hijazi, Baghdad's ambassador in Turkey and one of Saddam's most powerful secret policemen, who is thought to have offered bin Laden asylum in Iraq ... News of the negotiations emerged [as] the U.S. attorney general, Janet Reno, warned the Senate that a terrorist attack involving weapons of mass destruction was a growing concern. 'There's a threat, and it's real,' Ms Reno said..." - The Guardian, Feb. 6, 1999


-"The Iraqis, who for several years paid smaller groups to do their dirty work, were quick to discover the advantages of al Qaeda ... Israeli sources claim that for the past two years Iraqi intelligence officers were shuttling between Baghdad and Afghanistan, meeting with Ayman al Zawahiri. According to the sources, one of the Iraqi intelligence officers, Salah Suleiman, was captured last October [2000] by the Pakistanis near the border with Afghanistan." - Jane's Intelligence Foreign Report, Sept. 19, 2001


-"The Iraqis were cued to make their approach to Mr. bin Laden in 1994 after a Sudanese official visited Uday Hussein ... as well as the director of Iraqi intelligence, and indicated that Mr. bin Laden was willing to meet in Sudan." - NYT, June 25, 2004


I recall that after Saddam Hussein tried to assassinate a former American President (Bush I), President Clinton targeted a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan that his administration viewed as an Iraq-Al Qaeda joint effort to develop precursors for WMD. This man was definitely a threat if he could lose a war to someone and then try to kill them while supposedly being under a conditional cease-fire! A man that would butcher "his" own people en-masse would definitely not hesitate to enable and support a fellow enemy of the United States to attack America if he thought that he could get away with it! Saddam may have really believed that he could fight wars without personally paying a price; he must have thought that he was going to out-last this President and a few after him, even. But Bush 43 apparently thought that the world had seen enough of Saddam and his beastly sons.

Iraq-alQaeda
>Finds

Ok this find is not only an Iraq-alQaeda find, it's also an Iran-alQaeda find.

Edward Morrissey very helpfully pointed out that on pgs 7-9 of Kenneth Timmerman's book, "Countdown To Crisis: The Coming Nuclear Showdown With Iran", an Iranian intelligence agent walked into the American embassy of Azerbaijan on July 2001 and told the CIA that the United States would be attacked on September 11.

In that same month, in Iraq, Saddam Hussein's propaganda press published an article supportive of bin Laden, referring to the September 11 terrorism targets in July 2001! QUOTE:

America says, admitting JUST LIKE A BIRD in the midst of a tornado, that Bin Ladin is behind the bombing of its destroyer in Aden. The fearful series of events continues for America and the terror within America gets to the point that the Governor of Texas increases the amount of the award, just as the stubbornness of the other man and his challenge increases.

This challenge makes it such that one of his grandchildren comes from Jeddah traveling on the official Saudi Arabia airlines and celebrates with him the marriage of one of the daughters of his companions. [???]

Bin Ladin has become A PUZZLE and a proof also, of the inability of the American federalism and the C.I.A. to uncover the man and uncover his nest.

The most advanced organizations of the world cannot find the man and continues to go in cycles in illusion and presuppositions. They still hope that he could come out from his nest one day, they hope that he would come out from his hiding hole and one day they will point at him their missiles and he will join Guevara, Hassan Abu Salama, Kamal Nasser, Kanafani and others. The man responds with a thin smile and replies to the correspondent from Al Jazeera that he will continue to be the obsession and worry of America and the Jews, and that even that night he will practice and work on an exercise called ``How Do You Bomb the White House.'' And because they know that he can get there, they have started to go through their nightmares on their beds and the leaders have had to wear their bulletproof vests.

Meanwhile America has started to pressure the Taliban movement so that it would hand them Bin Ladin, while he continues to smile and still thinks seriously, with the seriousness of the Bedouin of the desert about the way he will try to bomb THE PENTAGON after he destroys THE WHITE HOUSE..

It seems that they will be going away because the revolutionary Bin Ladin is insisting very convincingly that he will strike America on THE ARM THAT IS ALREADY HURTING. [???]

That the man will not be swayed by the plant leaves of Whitman nor by the "Adventures of Indiana Jones" and will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs.

This, two months before 9/11. This in al-Nasiriyah, one of Saddam Hussein's propaganda papers. The year after 09/11/01, in 2002, Senator Fritz Hollings decided to enter it into the congressional record. Captain Ed helpfully (again) posted the following links on his own site so that other people can see for themselves.

I'm posting them on this blog (don't leave yet), just scroll down (by about one-third) to where it says "[[Page S8525]]" at this link to the Coast Guard's website where you can find it.

You can also view that creepy column in PDF, here (1) and here (2) without as much scrolling, over at the U.S. Government Printing Office Website. The first one starts in the middle of the center column. PDFs tend to be sloppy like that at first sight.

The only problem is that Hollings made the mistake of following up the al-Nasiriyah editorial by taking sides with Sandy Bergerler over Condoleezza Rice in a very pathetic attempt to attempt to compare the two now formal National Security Advisors. But I don't think its necessary to go over that in this post since much has come to light regarding that, since then. Well, maybe it's really not "much"; just a former NSC member stealing classified information and destroying it...

moving right along

More Shock & Awe, this on Mr. Stephen Hayes' part (don't blame me!):

We know from these [Iraqi Intelligence Service] documents [discovered at their bombed out headquarters] that beginning in 1992 the former Iraqi regime regarded bin Laden as an Iraqi Intelligence asset. We know from IIS documents that the former Iraqi regime provided safe haven and financial support to an Iraqi who has admitted to mixing the chemicals for the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. We know from IIS documents that Saddam Hussein agreed to Osama bin Laden's request to broadcast anti-Saudi propaganda on Iraqi state-run television. We know from IIS documents that a "trusted confidante" of bin Laden stayed for more than two weeks at a posh Baghdad hotel as the guest of the Iraqi Intelligence Service.


III. WMD

First, "I" should say a little bit about why we don't want Saddam (the terrormasters) or Al-Qaeda (suicidal fascists) to be having WMD:

Let's go with former Secretary of State Colin Powell's Feb. 2003 testimony at the United Nothings, before the war that "LESS THAN A PINCH of ricin" causes "shock followed by circulatory failure. Death comes within 72 hours and there is no antidote, there is no cure. It is fatal."

Get the idea? Good.
Next,

I'm going to go out on a limb and call THIS a Mobile Biological Agent Production Plant. They say its "probably" one, but I say it is one. End of debate.

Why? Because "Legitimate Uses [Are] Unlikely.":

Coalition experts on fermentation and systems engineering examined the trailer found in late April and have been unable to identify any legitimate industrial use—such as water purification, mobile medical laboratory, vaccine or pharmaceutical production—that would justify the effort and expense of a mobile production capability.


Next,

In an interview with General Michael DeLong, Ed Moltzen for -The Command Post- covered some good ground. Here I just want to show how just because something is difficult or near impossible to find, that doesn't mean it isn't or wasn't there.

Two days before March 19, 2003, we saw quite a number of vehicles going into Syria. We could not go after them because we said we'd give Saddam 48 hours. A lot of (Iraqi) leaders went into Syria, and a lot of WMD went into Syria. We've gotten indications some went into Lebanon, and probably some went into Iran.

The size of Iraq is roughly, in square miles, the same size as California. Seven-eighths of the country is arid desert land. We've done calculations that you could probably bury 16 Eiffel Towers or Empire State Buildings and never find them in the desert.

Just four months ago, they were digging for something out in the middle of the desert and they hit something. It was a MIG-25 Foxbat that the Iraqis buried in the sand. We never would have found this thing. Biological Weapons, you could put almost your whole program in a suitcase. You could probably put your whole chemical weapons industry inside a van. Yes, they did have it and right today they can't find it.


Why were Saddam's MiGs and SU-25s buried? If you're not going to use them anyway, why not leave them on the tarmac? He must have had the idea that the U.S. would just give up and go home if there was enough pressure. Who knows. But the secrecy level for a bunch of jets had to be lower in the priority scale than for WMD.

Randall Hoven at The American Thinker:
It was no secret that the U.S. and the rest of the world really wanted to find those WMD. For over a decade the UN passed 16 resolutions to get at them and sent inspectors to look for them. The United States built up an armed force of about 150,000 surrounding Iraq to support those inspectors. Our Secretary of State testified in public on what we knew about Iraq’s WMD and concealment methods. Even at the end, President Bush gave Saddam 48 hours notice before invading.
Is it any surprise that no WMD were found in the usual places like munitions depots? Eliot Ness also had a problem finding anything illegal in Al Capone’s hotel room. Could it be that neither Al Capone nor Saddam Hussein was as dumb as a post?


Someone being a smart-mouth: "I'm sure that Saddam was aware that arky grad students are interchangeable and expendable, and wouldn't waste his time leaving little presents for them. . ."

Kay, again:

We need to recall that in the 1991-2003 period the intelligence community and the UN/IAEA inspectors had to draw conclusions as to the status of Iraq's WMD program in the face of incomplete, and often false, data supplied by Iraq or data collected either by UN/IAEA inspectors operating within the severe constraints that Iraqi security and deception actions imposed or by national intelligence collection systems with their own inherent limitations.


Jim Woolsey has also weighed in with regards to the puzzle of Saddam's unaccounted-for WMD:

"Look at anthrax, for example, which is the principal biological agent that Iraq, after Hussein Kamal [a son-in-law of Saddam Hussein and head of the military industry in Iraq] defected in 1995, admitted to having produced. The Iraqis admitted they had a biological weapons program. The range of the stockpile of agents was from 8,500 liters, which they admitted, up to Colin Powell's [February 5, 2003] speech [at the United Nations Security Council], drawing on CIA assessments, that it might have been up to 25,000 liters. Now, that sounds like a lot, but that's only the difference between approximately 8.5 tons and 25 tons, or approximately a third of a tractor trailer load or a tractor trailer load and a bit. And if you reduce it to powder, which Powell suggests the Iraqis were perfectly capable of doing to weaponize anthrax, that's the difference between approximately four suitcases full of anthrax powder or twelve suitcases.


You might not know this if all you had been listening to up until this point was the cacophony of the "Bush lied" crowd. I don't think that everyone that thinks that the President lied or has doubts about his decision to go into Iraq is bad. I just think they're wrong and sometimes people get carried away by the way the wind blows or where the crowd goes.

Saddam Hussein and America's strategic and political opponents were, and still are, betting that the WMD might not be found. I'll remind people that when the wanna-be president, John Kerry, heard about that report of VX nerve agent in the hands of some "freedom fighters", he contradicted the "Bush lied" chorus (which included himself) by telling MSNBC's Chris Matthews, over a year after the U.S. went into Iraq, quote: "Who knows if a month from now, you find some weapons. You may." For someone like that, it depends on where the wind blows.

There's no way around it, Saddam Insane was, in fact, in material breach of a conditional ceasefire with the United States- he was never converted into a Mahatma Ghandi who ran a kite-flying playground, over there: "We have discovered DOZENS of WMD-related program activities and significant equipment that Iraq CONCEALED from the U.N."

A President doesn't have that much time to do what he believes he needs to do. Presidents only get 4 years, and 8 if they are re-hired. A dictator can pretty much carry on until the end of his life or power. "American Liberal" complained that the destruction in 9/11 was carried out in the first 9 months of the President's administration. But the perpetrators of such horrendous acts don't go by America's rules or timetables, they in fact try to exploit them. How much time did Clinton have to deal with bin Laden? 8 years. One would think that 9/11 was a painful lesson in what can result FROM UNDERESTIMATING the threats and enemies of civilization.

7 years ago there was another underestimation. The CIA was fooled by India which surprised the world by arming itself with nuclear weapons. A successful nuclear bomb project slipped under the radar. Luckily, there's no Saddam in India.

I wonder if anyone remembers the 2004 report about the 380 tons (38 truck loads worth) of explosives that were, as Kerry put, it, "stolen from the ammo dumps that this president didn't think were important enough to guard!" (To see the outcome go here and here) I'll quote PowerLine's Deacon here as a reminder of what many people pointed out with regard to this hysterical episode of the 2004 election. He said that if this story holds up, the DP and media left "will have (a) jumped to a conclusion that wasn't supported by the facts, (b) assumed the incompetence of our troops, (c) confirmed President Bush's position that Iraq had weapons worth worrying about, and (d) unleashed evidence that, as Rocket Man notes, suggests that chemical and biological weapons could easily have been moved out of Iraq just before we invaded."

In other words, the "Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction" meme that the President lied could vanish at any moment. Its not probable, but its possible. The leaders of the left have irresponsibly exploited that uncertainty in order to continue their propaganda campaign which includes their using the term "freedom fighters" for Al Qaeda in Iraq. For a long time people have tried to explain what leads and what lead to this sort of madness.

It is fair to have doubts, America should be able to do better, but with a large hyperpartisan chunk of the country working against it, its not very easy. Even if you're the President, your words can be distorted and taken out of context.


IV. END OF DEBATE

The President never called Iraq under Saddam Hussein an "imminent threat", the closest he came to that was to call it "a grave and gathering danger." Imminent means "whether or not you act it's about to happen" its too late for warnings - "gathering danger" means that you see something bad up ahead and you are warning people about it. Big difference.

This was the president's main argument for the war, which the election proves most Americans agreed with: "Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans...It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known....Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent."

The joint congressional resolution (SEE H.J. RES. 114) authorizing Operation Iraqi Freedom has 23 "whereas" clauses articulating the rationale for the use of force. If you go and read it you will see that only one of those 23 focuses on Saddam's actual stockpiles. Yet the left has repeated the lie that the "only" reason was to find WMD. Of course finding out what Saddam did with his WMD is very important, but if the President was as bad and tricky as people say, to be able to mobilize the Congress, the military, and the Intelligence Community with his lies, he could have easily "planted" something and saved himself 2 years of being called a liar, by actually becoming one.

David Horiwitz, re-stating the case for Operation Iraqi Freedom:

"Twelve of the clauses refer to Saddam's violation of 16 UN resolutions – resolutions which constituted the terms of the truce in the 1991 Gulf War, and which most commentators on the war seem to have forgotten. Thus, it was Saddam Hussein's violation of these 16 resolutions and a 17th – Resolution 1441, a final ultimatum – that caused us to go to war. The presentation to the UN by Colin Powell about laboratories for producing weapons of mass destruction, which was the only significant White House presentation of such a case – took place after the decision to go to war was made.

"We went to war against Saddam Hussein in the spring of 2003, because to withdraw the 200,000 troops without a war and without Saddam’s capitulation to the UN demands would be a catastrophic defeat for the forces of freedom and peace. It would mean with absolute certainty that Saddam would reactivate the weapons programs he had launched and spent more than 40 billion dollars to implement before the United States obstructed them. Saddam was in the process of negotiating an off-the-shelf purchase of nuclear weapons from North Korea, in fact, when the United States entered Iraq to remove him."

CORRECTION:

Despite restrictions, Saddam Hussein paid North Korea $10 million for Nodong missile technology, that's the purchase that David referred to, incorrectly, just above. You're welcome to review the rest of his two paragraphs, here.

HOUSE.JOINT.RESOLUTION. 114

4 Comments:

Blogger StarCMC said...

Psssst!! Hi!

4:59 PM  
Blogger Sirc_Valence said...

=)

5:45 PM  
Blogger James Fletcher Baxter said...

The HUMAN PARADIGM

Consider:
The missing element in every human 'solution' is
an accurate definition of the creature.

The way we define 'human' determines our view
of self, others, relationships, institutions, life, and
future. Important? Only the Creator who made us
in His own image is qualified to define us accurately.
Choose wisely...there are results.

Many problems in human experience are the result of
false and inaccurate definitions of humankind premised
in man-made religions and humanistic philosophies.

Human knowledge is a fraction of the whole universe.
The balance is a vast void of human ignorance. Human
reason cannot fully function in such a void; thus, the
intellect can rise no higher than the criteria by which it
perceives and measures values.

Humanism makes man his own standard of measure.
However, as with all measuring systems, a standard
must be greater than the value measured. Based on
preponderant ignorance and an egocentric carnal
nature, humanism demotes reason to the simpleton
task of excuse-making in behalf of the rule of appe-
tites, desires, feelings, emotions, and glands.

Because man, hobbled in an ego-centric predicament,
cannot invent criteria greater than himself, the humanist
lacks a predictive capability. Without instinct or trans-
cendent criteria, humanism cannot evaluate options with
foresight and vision for progression and survival. Lack-
ing foresight, man is blind to potential consequence and
is unwittingly committed to mediocrity, collectivism,
averages, and regression - and worse. Humanism is an
unworthy worship.

The void of human ignorance can easily be filled with
a functional faith while not-so-patiently awaiting the
foot-dragging growth of human knowledge and behav-
ior. Faith, initiated by the Creator and revealed and
validated in His Word, the Bible, brings a transcend-
ent standard to man the choice-maker. Other philo-
sophies and religions are man-made, humanism, and
thereby lack what only the Bible has:

1.Transcendent Criteria and
2.Fulfilled Prophetic Validation.

The vision of faith in God and His Word is survival
equipment for today and the future.

Human is earth's Choicemaker. Psalm 25:12 He is by
nature and nature's God a creature of Choice - and of
Criteria. Psalm 119:30,173 His unique and definitive
characteristic is, and of Right ought to be, the natural
foundation of his environments, institutions, and re-
spectful relations to his fellow-man. Thus, he is orien-
ted to a Freedom whose roots are in the Order of the
universe. selah

"Got Criteria?" See Psalm 119:1-176
semper fidelis









\

6:52 AM  
Blogger Sirc_Valence said...

Semper Fi, Marine.

7:11 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home