Post by lazarusPost by Founding FatherPost by lazarusReally? Where are the WMDs?
We don't know, yet. Some intelligence reports indicate they were moved to
Syria and/or Lebanon before the war. Others say he destroyed them. But
there's not one intelligence agency I know of that maintained he had none.
So all evidence pointed to him having them. We may have been wrong, but
that doesn't make it a lie.
That would be the evidence that Colin Powell declared he didn't have
them, right?
No. We only found that out after the war. Best evidence at the time
indicated he had them.
Still not a lie - but keep trying. I love the way you Saddamites are harder
on Bush than you ever were on Saddam.
Post by lazarusActually, there is one intelligence agency that maintains he didn't
have them. The UN Inspection Team that actually went and looked.
That's an inspection team, not an intelligence agency. And they had a long
track record of not finding weapons that were there.
DISARMING IRAQ
Mr. Blix Goes to Baghdad
A U.N. bureaucrat won't be willing to hand the world a war.
BY GARY MILHOLLIN
Wall Street Journal
Tuesday, November 26, 2002 12:01 a.m. EST
Hans Blix, by now a household name from New York to New
Delhi, begins his fateful mission this week: rooting out
Saddam Hussein's hidden programs for making nuclear,
chemical and biological weapons. Everyone should wish the
chief U.N. weapons inspector and his colleagues success, but
the odds are against it. Instead of disarmament, we are
likely to get a prolonged process of paper pushing.
The main concern is Mr. Blix himself. The 74-year-old Swede
was not the top choice for the job. The United States backed
Rolf Ekeus, the highly effective leader of the U.N. Special
Commission that inspected Iraq in the 1990s. But Iraq's
champions in the U.N. Security Council, Russia and France,
vetoed Mr. Ekeus as too aggressive. They put up Mr. Blix
instead. After ineffectual opposition from the Clinton
administration, Mr. Blix took over the present U.N.
inspection organization (called UNMOVIC) in January 2000.
There is a reason why Iraq's friends preferred Mr. Blix. He
already had an unsurpassed record of failure in dealing with
Saddam Hussein. From 1981 to 1997, Mr. Blix headed the
International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. body
responsible for inspecting nuclear sites around the
world--including Iraq's--to make sure they are not cranking
out atomic bombs. As late as 1990, the same year Iraq
invaded Kuwait, Mr. Blix's inspectors rated Iraq's
cooperation as "exemplary." But all the while Saddam was
running a vast A-bomb program under their very noses. Iraq
produced both plutonium and enriched uranium for nuclear
weapons in clear violation of the IAEA's rules. Some of the
work went on at the same places that were being inspected,
and was hidden with the help of an Iraqi official who was
himself a former IAEA inspector. (His knowledge of inspection
techniques helped dupe his former colleagues). Had the Gulf
War not intervened, Iraq might have made its first bomb
without anyone being the wiser. Mr. Blix's spokesman at
UNMOVIC has tried to explain away this embarrassment by
claiming that Mr. Blix had only limited powers under the
IAEA's rules. But the facts are otherwise. Mr. Blix had a
lot of discretion, and he always used it to reduce the
effectiveness of inspections.
For example, Iraq possessed more than 45 kilograms of highly
enriched uranium before the Gulf War, far more than the 25
kilograms that the IAEA officially said was enough to make
an atomic bomb. Iraq had imported the uranium from Russia
and France as reactor fuel, but it would work in a bomb just
as well. Now, when a country like Iraq has more than a bomb's
worth of weapon-usable uranium, the IAEA is supposed to
inspect it every three weeks, because that is all the time
it is supposed to take to fashion it into a warhead. Under
Mr. Blix, however, the IAEA was inspecting it only every six
months. Why? Because the uranium was stored in a number of
separate "material balance areas" (where the inspectors went
to measure it) and there was less than a bomb's worth in
each! The areas were only a mile or so apart, so the whole
thing was absurd. The stuff could be assembled in days, if
not hours. But rather than annoy the Iraqis with frequent
inspections, Mr. Blix chose the head-in-the-sand
approach--which the Iraqis were quick to exploit.
Immediately after the last six-month inspection before the
Gulf War, they diverted the uranium to a crash nuclear
weapon effort, which only the war prevented from succeeding.
Blix was not called "Inspector Clousseau" for nothing.
Post by lazarusNotice how all of a sudden we're looking for evidence of a "program"
instead of actual weapons? Now why in the world is that happening?
Because chemical and biological weapons can be easily hidden in small
amounts. The manufacturing equipment is harder to hide. Also, if you
retain the manufacturing capacity, you can even destroy your supply and then
rebuild it later. I don't want someone like Saddam to have even the
manufacturing capacity. Apparently YOU don't care. Keep arguing - all you
do is convince people we can't trust our national security to the left.
Post by lazarusPost by Founding FatherWell, Powell is the same jerk who kept Bush 41 from taking Saddam out in the
first Gulf War like he should have. I have no clue why Bush 43 put Powell
in his cabinet.
Condi Rice said the same thing. Is she a jerk, too?
In 1991 Condi Rice was Provost of Stanford University.
Post by lazarusPost by Founding FatherPost by lazarusPost by Founding Father3) The left made excuses for Saddam the same way they made excuses for
Stalin, so
What excuses did we make for Saddam? List them, please. Were they
any worse than the excuses Cheney made for Saddam when he tried to get
the embargo lifted so he could sell them more stuff?
Post by Founding Father4) The left doesn't want Bush to win the war against terrorism any more
than
Post by lazarusPost by Founding Fatherthey wanted Reagan to win the Cold War.
No, we just know that he's not fighting a war on terrorism. There
weren't terrorists in Iraq before the war.
You are a complete idiot, or a liar (perhaps both).
Really? And we were getting along so well.
Post by Founding FatherEver hear of Abu Nidal, who was living in Bagdhad when he was captured by
U.S. forces?
How long since he committed a terrorist act?
I hate to tell you, but if you're harboring a known murderer, the fact that
the last murder (we know about) happened 10 years ago is not going to get
you acquitted.
Post by lazarusPost by Founding FatherWhat about Salman Pak where terrorists were trained how to take over planes
in a Boeing 707 fuselage?
Actually, that's where Saddam's counter-terrorism forces were being
trained to take over planes that had been hijacked.
Sure. There's a long record of Iraqi planes being highjacked.
Post by lazarusPost by Founding FatherHow about Mohammed Atta meeting with the head of the Iraqi intelligence
service?
The Washington Post? Thanks, I'll get my news from someone who
doesn't work for the Rev. Moon.
The Washington Post? The paper of Woodward and Bernstein?
Post by lazarusBTW, we were in complete control of Iraq's Kurdish Territory, so were
we allowing this to happen?
Air control is hardly complete control, as the Kurds tragically found out
when Saddam slaughtered them.
Post by lazarusPost by Founding FatherReport: Iraq, Al Qaeda Run Extremist Group In Kurdish Territory
Guerrillas Linked to Bin Laden Camps
By John Mintz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, March 18, 2002; Page A12
A new report in the New Yorker magazine suggests that Iraqi intelligence has
been in close touch with top officials in Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda group
for
years, and that the two organizations jointly run a terrorist
organization
Post by lazarusPost by Founding Fatherthat
operates in the Kurdish area of northern Iraq.
How about Saddam paying the families of Palestinian terrorist who
deliberately target and murder innocent Israeli women and children $25,000 (
that's 16 times the per capita income).
That's also substantially less than Saudi Arabia, Syria, and virtually
every other Arab nation was giving.
Post by Founding FatherPhilippine terrorists claim link to Iraq
Marc Lerner
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published March 4, 2003
CEBU, Philippines " Islamist terrorists in the southern
Philippines
who have killed two American hostages in recent years say they are
receiving money from Iraqis close to President Saddam Hussein.
Hamsiraji Sali, a local commander of the terrorist group Abu
Sayyaf
on the remote southern island of Basilan, says he is getting nearly
$20,000 a year from supporters in Iraq.
People like you illustrate why we can NEVER AGAIN trust the left with our
national security.
Well, Bush has done such a great job.
Where is Osama?
Probably dead. If Clinton had done his job he'd be in prison (or known to
be dead) and 9/11 would never have happened.
Post by lazarusWhere's Saddam?
No longer in power. If it were up to you he'd still be sitting in his kushy
palace murdering thousands of people every month.
Post by lazarusWhere are the WMD?
I already addressed that. Now let me add this (from an opponent of the
war):
April 27, 2003
The Meaning of a Skull
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
New York Times
Friday's Times carried a front-page picture of a skull, with a group
of
Iraqis gathered around it. The skull was of a political prisoner from
Saddam Hussein's regime, and the grieving Iraqis were relatives who
had
exhumed it from a graveyard filled with other victims of Saddam's
torture.
Just under the picture was an article about President Bush vowing that
weapons of mass destruction will be found in Iraq, as he promised.
As far as I'm concerned, we do not need to find any weapons of mass
destruction to justify this war. That skull, and the thousands more
that
will be unearthed, are enough for me. Mr. Bush doesn't owe the world
any
explanation for missing chemical weapons (even if it turns out that
the
White House hyped this issue). It is clear that in ending Saddam's
tyranny, a huge human engine for mass destruction has been broken. The
thing about Saddam's reign is that when you look at that skull, you
don't
even know what period it came from - his suppression of the Kurds or
the
Shiites, his insane wars with Iran and Kuwait, or just his daily
brutality.
Whether you were for or against this war, whether you preferred that
the
war be done with the U.N.'s approval or without it, you have to feel
good
that right has triumphed over wrong. America did the right thing here.
It
toppled one of the most evil regimes on the face of the earth, and I
don't
think we know even a fraction of how deep that evil went. Fair-minded
people have to acknowledge that. Who cares if we now find some buried
barrels of poison? Do they carry more moral weight than those buried
skulls? No way.
And this from another:
http://globalspecops.com/view.html
Iraq: A Federal Judge's Point of View
By Judge Don Walters
Despite my initial opposition to the war, I am now convinced,
whether we find any weapons of mass destruction or prove
Saddam sheltered and financed terrorists, absolutely, we
should have overthrown the Baathists, indeed, we should have
done it sooner.
What changed my mind?
When we left mid June, 57 mass graves had been found, one
with the bodies of 1200 children. There have been credible
reports of murder, brutality and torture of hundreds of
thousands of ordinary Iraqi citizens. There is poverty on a
monumental scale and fear on a larger one. That fear is
still palpable.
I have seen the machines and places of torture. I will tell
you one story told to me by the Chief of Pediatrics at the
Medical College in Basra. It was one of the most shocking to
me, but I heard worse. One of Saddam's security agents was
sent to question a Shiite in his home. The interrogation
took place in the living room in the presence of the man's
wife, who held their three month old child. A question was
asked and the thug did not like the answer; he asked it
again, same answer. He grabbed the baby from its mother and
plucked its eye out. And then repeated his question. Worse
things happened with the knowledge, indeed with the
participation, of Saddam, his family and the Baathist regime.
Thousands suffered while we were messing about with France
and Russia and Germany and the UN. Every one of them knew
what was going on there, but France and the UN were making
millions administering the food for oil program. We cannot,
I know, remake the world, nor do I believe we should. We
cannot stamp out evil, I know. But this time we were morally
right and our economic and strategic interests were
involved. I submit that just because we can't do everything
doesn't mean that we should do nothing.
Post by lazarusWhy is Mullah Omar holding Taliban Summits to plan the fight against
us? Did he not get the memo that we beat them?
There was Japanese resistance after the end of WWII as well, despite the
declaration of their "divine" emperor.
If it were up to you, the Taliban would still be running Afghanistan, and
the women would be prevented from getting an education or even going out in
public without their husbands. And if they should kiss the wrong man, they
could be the subject of an "honor killing." That's what YOUR policies would
give the world.
Post by lazarusPost by Founding FatherPost by lazarusWe supposedly were there
to "liberate" the Iraqis, but fired Jay Garner when he said he wanted
to hold an election.
That was Powell's work again. He put the incompetent Bremer in place, who
proceeded to dismantle the entire Iraqi regular army instead of using them
to provide security, search the Mosques we're not allowed to enter, etc.
Ah, the Iraqi Army should have been in charge. That makes sense.
In charge, no. Help, yes.
Post by lazarusAnd you would have put the Wehrmacht in charge of post-war Germany,
right? And may as well use the Gestapo and SS as a police force,
since they were already in charge....
I said regular army, not the Republican Guard. Don't you know the
difference?
I read we DID use some members of the regular German army.
Post by lazarusSo why haven't the Iraqis been allowed to have an election yet? Too
busy selling Iraq to Bush's friends?
I see. We should let them vote, but we can't trust them to patrol their own
streets?
How long did it take for America to complete its constitution after the
revolution?
It's a damn good thing leftists weren't in charge of WWII and its aftermath.
I can just see the questions from the press: President Roosevelt, how long
will it take? How much will it cost? What's the exit strategy? How long
will it take to rebuild Europe? How much will it cost? ...
Post by lazarusPost by Founding FatherPost by lazarusAt this point, it's fairly clear that our troops are dying to keep the
Iraqis from voting. Some liberation.
Answer?
The answer is that was a stupid comment. We're there to help make them
secure and rebuild the infrastructure, not to keep them from voting. Only
in your little fantasy mind can a country go from absolute despotism to full
democracy and a couple of months.