24 Jun

MSNBC Confirms Pre-War Al Queda Camp in Iraq Tests Positive For Bio/Chem weapons

                                       

Positive test for terror toxins in Iraq
Evidence of ricin, botulinum at Islamic militants’ camp
By EXCLUSIVE By Preston Mendenhall
MSNBC

Now, let’s face it…Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews aren’t gonna change their minds and suddenly face the reality that Saddam’s regime was willing to work with AQ groups, did work with AQ groups and leaders, and the threat of the so-called “Nexus of Evil” connection even existed.

Captured members of Al Queda groups from this same camp claim that they were assisted, trained, supplied, and funded by Saddam’s IIS as well as taking orders from Saddam’s IIS.

Captured documents confirm their claims.

Captured regime members confirm their claims.

Now even highly anti-war/pro-Democrat MSNBC confirms the claim itself.

Al Queda leaders confirm the claims (Zawahiri and Zarqawi specifically).

Why believe “Bush Lied”?  Because it’s easier to believe that the solution to today’s problems can be solved by changing a circle to a dot on a ballot than it is to face the real and scary threat as well as own up to the failures of the past.

This entry was posted in Bush Derangement Syndrome, Fanatical Islam, Iraq/Al-Qaeda Connection, Liberal Idiots, Middle East, Politics, Saddam Documents, The Iraqi War, The Shadow Party, War On Terror, WMD. Bookmark the permalink. Tuesday, June 24th, 2008 at 6:28 am
| 190 views

45 Responses to MSNBC Confirms Pre-War Al Queda Camp in Iraq Tests Positive For Bio/Chem weapons

  1. jainphx says: 1

    Democraps are liars, therefore everyone else is a liar. Simple logic for simple minds. Proof! We don’t need no stinking proof, truth is what we say it is.

    ReplyReply
  2. Scott Malensek says: 2

    ReplyReply
  3. Wearyman says: 3

    I am at work and can’t see the video Scott posted (darn stupid firewall rules!). What is it?

    ReplyReply
  4. Scott Malensek says: 4

    vid of dems promoting regime change in Iraq and describing the threat posed by Saddam

    ReplyReply
  5. Pingback: Stix Blog

  6. Aye Chihuahua says: 5

    Snarling MoonBats begin arriving to ‘splain it all away in 3,2,1…..

    ReplyReply
  7. john ryan says: 6

    well if al Qaeda said it was true than we HAVE to believe it

    ReplyReply
  8. Aye Chihuahua says: 7

    There you have it folks,

    john ryan, our resident ninnyhammer dashes for the finish line.

    Another prediction come true.

    That didn’t take long.

    ReplyReply
  9. Pingback: No Runny Eggs » Blog Archive » The Morning Scramble - 6/24/2008

  10. You called it Aye!

    And why shouldn’t libs believe Al Queda? They swallow all their propaganda whole without question. Libs only doubt the veracity of the people trying to save their worthless lives.

    ReplyReply
  11. Uddercha0s says: 9

    There you have it folks

    I ran across this graphic today that goes right along with that Aye Chi, unfortunately it won’t allow me to embed

    The Looney Left

    ReplyReply
  12. Pingback: Brutally Honest

  13. Scrapiron says: 10

    Everyone with a third grade and up education knows Saddam had WMD and used it and that he could not have destroyed it without a trace. They also know AQ had free run of Iraq under Saddam. Not counting the hundreds of tons of WMD now residing in Oak Ridge Tn there is thousands of tons missing. The lame stream media spread BDS and the left wing and normal democrats soaked it up like a natural sponge. If AQ set off a massive WMD explosion in the U.S. today the dems would deny it was a result of AQ in Iraq prior to the war. Like the three year old who broke a window the democrats will never admit they did it or they were wrong. They have invested too much in their mental illness to ever let it go.
    I know of at least one professor that is leaving the teaching field to open a private office that will specialize in treating BDS. He see’s the millions to be made in the near future. My niece, one of his bright students will be entering the practice with him. She just has the inborn smarts to know what to say, and when to say it, to a whacko, aka the mentally ill.

    ReplyReply
  14. Jarhead68 says: 11

    I noticed that the author of the article at MSLSD uses the term “alleged” quite a bit as a qualifier. I guess he really still has doubts as to the existence of an al Qaeda-linked group in Iraq prior to the liberation. I know so many lefties who still think Bush lied about the intelligence and won’t for a minute give him the benefit of the doubt. But Slick Willy and The Bitch and The Bamboozler get a free ride day and night.

    ReplyReply
  15. Formerly known as Skeptic says: 12

    FYI: The MSNBC piece linked is from April 2003.

    ReplyReply
  16. MataHarley says: 13

    Where do you get that, Formerly… this link, the same as above, is to an article by Preston Preston Mendenhall, dateline Sarqat – April 4th. The 2008 date is at the bottom.

    What makes you believe it’s April 2003?

    ReplyReply
  17. MataHarley says: 14

    Correction … Formerly Skeptic is absolutely correct. Did a search of article’s title and found many blog references and reproductions of it back in 2003.

    Old news… still valid today, and still ignored today.

    Good call, Formerly.

    ReplyReply
  18. Scott Malensek says: 15

    date is irrelevant imo. If one wants to MAKE it relevant, then check the timeline of the Zarqawi ricin attacks in Europe, and recall that he was in Iraq, w Ansar (an Al Queda group), and that both fmr regime and AQ detainees confirm that Saddam’s IIS was giving orders as well as training and supplying the group at the time Zarqawi was there.

    BTW, ABC News had a piece on this too back in 2003, and The History Channel even has an episode of SHOOTOUT describing it.

    It’s not like this wasn’t reported….it was just ignored.

    ReplyReply
  19. Aye Chihuahua says: 16

    Mata,

    Formerly may actually be correct.

    A quick reading of the article produces a couple of references which appear a bit odd.

    The article references the “Feb. 5 speech to the U.N. Security Council” but doesn’t indicate a year. This would lead me to conclude that the article was referencing an event within the same year the article was written.

    Another similar reference

    In Britain, anti-terrorism authorities in January charged four men with producing deadly agents after they found traces of ricin in a north London apartment.

    That happened in Jan 2003

    Never mind.

    The dating of the article doesn’t change the validity or value of the information, only the time line.

    ReplyReply
  20. Pingback: Q & A around the ’sphere: See last Q | The Anchoress

  21. Dave Noble says: 17

    Aye Chi,

    Scott gets caught presenting a 2003 article as though it were a 2008 article, and the best you can do is say “Nevermind, the facts remain the same.” If Keith Olberman had done the same thing you know you’d have beat him like a rented mule.

    I noticed the same chronologically inconsistent references you did, but I thought I’d let you guys sort it out. To your credit for doing so. But I noticed you called it first and then crossed it out to put the emphasis on the “Nevermind.”

    BTW, I’d like to call your attention to another interesting fact stated in the article:

    The territory of northern Iraq where the traces of ricin were detected is not under the control of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

    ReplyReply
  22. Aye Chihuahua says: 18

    But I noticed you called it first and then crossed it out to put the emphasis on the “Nevermind.

    I see you’re still picking and trying to find fault where there is none.

    I struck out the post once I discovered that others had already said the same thing while I was typing my post.

    That’s when I added the words “never mind”.

    Since you take issue with it, can you explain how the date makes any difference in the value of the information?

    FYI, I pay no attention to anything Olbermann has to say.

    ReplyReply
  23. Pingback: The death of an anti-war lie « DPGI - the return

  24. MataHarley says: 19

    Dave Noble, there were many places in N. Iraq not “under Saddam’s control”, because they were under the control of the jihad militants – you know, the same that so many anti-Iraq-freedom types tell us were not there at all?

    To suggest that Saddam – a control freak despot who used violence, torture and fear to enforce obedience – did not “control” a part of Iraq has always been a sketchy truth-of-convenience.

    These militants (i.e. Zarqawi was running bio/chem training camps in the north since 1998…) co-existed under Saddam’s blind eye because Saddam’s own Ba’athist and IIS leadership had close relationships with these groups (shared religious beliefs). While Saddam was a pan-Arab, his regime was flush with wahhabi type mentalities. They accomplished his end goals with their militant contacts. They got a place to flourish, Saddam used them as weapons without taking state responsibility, and everyone was happy with the arrangement.

    The militants presence served the purpose – returning favors for a hands-off policy – i.e. to help push contraban thru borders in the OFF scam, plus acting trainers and non-state mercenaries in terrorist warfare.

    Saddam was able to say to the world, “they’re not under my control”, and thereby relieve him of the blame of using the militants on his behalf. It was a quid pro quo relationship… just as it was with all jihad movements since the early 90s.

    Details of this mutual benefit is in the latest Iraqi Perspective Study. Is reading such a lost art today??

    ReplyReply
  25. Dave Noble says: 20

    Nice copout in the last line. Alright, you know if anyone in MSM, Keith, Tom, Joe, Brian, whoever did that, there would be a post right here on this site calling it out.

    Then there is this statement in the article:

    “There is no immediate evidence that suggests Saddam’s regime provided the easily produced toxins to Ansar al-Islam or al-Qaida.”

    Both points are significant – “No evidence”/”easily produced.” Wasn’t the WMD logic for the invasion that Saddam would transfer his WMD technology to Al Quaeda. But if it’s easily produced why would AQ need Saddam’s assistance to produce it? BTW, I’m not an biological weapons expert, but I do know that botulinum is found in Botox, which would lead me to expect the same reasoning applies to botulinum. If I’m correct, how does the article above support the WMD rationale for the war? And if not, what is the article’s significance?

    ReplyReply
  26. doug says: 21

    A crude chemical laboratory was found in the village of Sargat. I cannot find evidence of any sophisticated chemical making or chemical delivery equipment on the site; therefore, this hardly warrants an invasion of Iraq; it does warrant a strike.

    Here’s how I see it:

    Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Richard Myers says, “We think that’s probably where the ricin that was found in London probably came; at least the operatives and maybe some of the formulas came from this site.” Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld comments, “We’re not certain what we’ll find but we should know more in the next three days – three or four days.” [New York Daily News, 3/31/2003]

    In a 2007 Tenet will claim in his book, “Shortly after the invasion of Iraq, al-Zarqawi’s camp in Khurmal was bombed by the US military. We obtained reliable human intelligence reporting and forensic samples confirming that poisons and toxins had been produced at the camp.” [Tenet, 2007, pp. 277-278] He will further claim that the camp “engaged in production and training in the use of low-level poisons such as cyanide. We had intelligence telling us that al-Zarqawi’s men had tested these poisons on animals and, in at least one case, on one of their own associates. They laughed about how well it worked.” [Tenet, 2007, pp. 350]

    Yet in April 2003, the Los Angeles Times will report that, “Documents obtained by the Los Angeles Times, along with interviews with US and Kurdish intelligence operatives, indicate [Ansar al-Islam] was partly funded and armed from abroad; was experimenting with chemicals, including toxic agents and a cyanide-based body lotion; and had international aspirations. But the documents, statements by imprisoned Ansar guerrillas, and visits to the group’s strongholds before and after the war produced no strong evidence of connections to Baghdad and indicated that Ansar was not a sophisticated terrorist organization. The group was a dedicated, but fledgling, al-Qaeda surrogate lacking the capability to muster a serious threat beyond its mountain borders.”

    “Tests have revealed the presence of hydrogen cyanide and potassium cyanide, poisons normally used to kill rodents and other pests. The group, according to Kurdish officials, had been experimenting on animals with a cyanide-laced cream. Several jars of peach body lotion lay at the site beside chemicals and a few empty wooden birdcages.” While a lot of documentation is found showing intention to create chemical weapons, the actual capability appears to have been quite low. [Los Angeles Times, 4/27/2003]

    Christian Science Monitor will later concludes, the “‘poison factory’ proved primitive; nothing but substances commonly used to kill rodents were found there.” [Christian Science Monitor, 10/16/2003] Journalist Jason Burke will also later comment, “As one of the first journalists to enter the [al-Qaeda] research facilities at the Darunta camp in eastern Afghanistan in 2001, I was struck by how crude they were. The Ansar al-Islam terrorist group’s alleged chemical weapons factory in northern Iraq, which I inspected the day after its capture in 2003, was even more rudimentary.” [Foreign Policy, 5/2004]

    After 2004, as far as I know, the hype, the story of Sargat and its chemical “factory” dies in the media and what rises from its ashes is the story of no WMDs.

    ReplyReply
  27. Scott Malensek says: 22

    Dave, if I show you an article from 12/8/41 saying Japan attacked the US….would it be outdated and irrelevant? No. It remains a historical fact. I didn’t intend to misrepresent the date on the article, but to show the article and remind people of Saddam’s support for Al Queda groups.

    btw, the “that area wasn’t under Saddam’s control” line is really what’s out dated and hypocritical because the only control Saddam had in the N was [drum roll] by using the Al Queda group to do his bidding in exchange for some training and supply from him. Ironic.

    I think what we’re seeing here is people presented with a myriad of confirmed and corroborating evidence that Saddam’s regime worked with Al Queda groups (and even the CIA repeatedly published that it would do so in the future if the regime had remained). When presented with facts undeniable by logic, they’re forced to either open their minds that they’d been more misled by the left than the right, OR illogically seek to deny reality w such classics as…’Saddam didn’t control that area [ignoring that his only influence was through the AQ group]’ and ‘that date is old, so it doesn’t matter [as if the older the record of history the LESS true it is rather than more]’

    Remember when “LIBERAL” meant ‘open-minded’? Today it means DENIAL or opposition for opposition’s sake

    When it gets whittled down to it, the opposition to the invasion has always really been just a catalyst for political alienation, frustration, and rejection of President Bush. Now that such opposition is moot, useless, and ineffectual at removing him from office…one would think that historical (ie dated) fact would pry open the closed minds of faux liberals who are so often proving themselves to be little more than gullible DNC pawns who couldn’t open their mind to any concept or discussion beyond what they hold dear let alone what others might believe…even when the others are supported by multiple corroborated sources etc.

    So deny on my friends, but President Obama will take office, and immediately tell you that the fight against AQ is in Iraq, and has to be continued, and like wide-eyed lemmings or screaming teenage girls at a Beatles concert…you’ll not only believe it, but promote it as well.

    btw, Doug, GREAT post! I admire that kind of research. The only thing I disagree with is that it was hype. Multiple detainees-AQ and regime-claim that Saddam’s IIS sent orders to Ansar and other groups to do his bidding and give him an iota of control in the N. I also disagree that a little poison and a little poison testing on the part of terrorists seeking to kill as many Americans as possible is somehow not a big deal. For example, if you look at the Duelfer Report you’ll see a pic of some poison found at the IIS HQ. It’s just a can, but it has the same toxicity as anthrax. When people look for a “warehouse” of wmd, they’re looking for a drop in a river. It only takes a little-not a warehouse. Specifically, it only takes a can.

    Interesting that we’ve seen so many comments on regime ties in general….and not on things like the 2002 Zawahiri letter.

    ReplyReply
  28. Aye Chihuahua says: 23

    A crude chemical laboratory was found in the village of Sargat. I cannot find evidence of any sophisticated chemical making or chemical delivery equipment on the site; therefore, this hardly warrants an invasion of Iraq; it does warrant a strike.

    Doug,

    There was no single piece of evidence which was relied on exclusive of all others.

    This location, and the activities going on there, was just one more link in a long chain.

    Dave,

    An honest error was made in presenting this article as being recent.

    The error was immediately discovered and corrected.

    If the MSM did the same thing I cannot imagine anyone here that would fault them for either the error or the correction providing that the correction came in a timely manner.

    Another thing to keep in mind as well is that the MSM does this stuff for a living. The standard, therefore, is higher (or should be).

    We post because we enjoy it. We don’t get paid and our livelihoods don’t depend of our absolute accuracy.

    Therefore, one could rightly expect our error rate to be a bit.

    The linked article does not have a year in the byline so I can see how the mistake was made.

    ReplyReply
  29. Scott says: 24

    I love Love LOVE that line, “______hardly warrants an invasion of Iraq.” Oh, that is AWESOME. I mean, really….does anyone believe the invasion of Iraq was the result of a single [fill in the blank] reason? Omg, if there’s one thing everyone should agree on it’s that there’s a long list. Even opponents of the war have a long list of alleged reasons for the invasion.

    btw, there’s no need for sophisticated chemical making or chemical delivery equipment. It’s WWI technology.

    While not at the Ansar camp (not sure though), ISG did find things like this:
    jvnbvbn

    ReplyReply
  30. doug says: 25

    Scott said,

    “I love Love LOVE that line, “______hardly warrants an invasion of Iraq.” Oh, that is AWESOME. I mean, really….does anyone believe the invasion of Iraq was the result of a single [fill in the blank] reason? Omg, if there’s one thing everyone should agree on it’s that there’s a long list. Even opponents of the war have a long list of alleged reasons for the invasion.”

    However, it’s been argued that preserving a strike on the camps helped build the case for war:

    [MSNBC] With Tuesday’s attacks, Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian militant with ties to al-Qaida, is now blamed for more than 700 terrorist killings in Iraq.

    But NBC News has learned that long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself — but never pulled the trigger.

    In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide.

    The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council.

    “Here we had targets, we had opportunities, we had a country willing to support casualties, or risk casualties after 9/11 and we still didn’t do it,” said Michael O’Hanlon, military analyst with the Brookings Institution.

    Four months later, intelligence showed Zarqawi was planning to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe.

    The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and the White House again killed it. By then the administration had set its course for war with Iraq.

    “People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president’s policy of preemption against terrorists,” according to terrorism expert and former National Security Council member Roger Cressey.

    In January 2003, the threat turned real. Police in London arrested six terror suspects and discovered a ricin lab connected to the camp in Iraq.

    The Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the National Security Council killed it.

    Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi’s operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.
    [my emphasis]

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/
    and…

    [WSJ] As the toll of mayhem inspired by terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi mounts in Iraq, some former officials and military officers increasingly wonder whether the Bush administration made a mistake months before the start of the war by stopping the military from attacking his camp in the northeastern part of that country.

    The Pentagon drew up detailed plans in June 2002, giving the administration a series of options for a military strike on the camp Mr. Zarqawi was running then in remote northeastern Iraq, according to generals who were involved directly in planning the attack and several former White House staffers. They said the camp, near the town of Khurmal, was known to contain Mr. Zarqawi and his supporters as well as al Qaeda fighters, all of whom had fled from Afghanistan. Intelligence indicated the camp was training recruits and making poisons for attacks against the West.

    . . .

    But the raid on Mr. Zarqawi didn’t take place. Months passed with no approval of the plan from the White House, until word came down just weeks before the March 19, 2003, start of the Iraq war that Mr. Bush had rejected any strike on the camp until after an official outbreak of hostilities with Iraq. Ultimately, the camp was hit just after the invasion of Iraq began.

    and…

    A former top CIA spy says the United States deliberately turned down several opportunities to kill terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in the lead-up to the Iraq war.

    Mike Scheuer headed the CIA’s bin Laden unit for six years before resigning in 2004.

    He has told the ABC’s Four Corners program the Bush administration had Zarqawi in its sights almost every day for a year.

    He says a plan to destroy Zarqawi’s training camp in Kurdistan was abandoned for diplomatic reasons.

    “The reasons the intelligence service got for not shooting Zarqawi was simply that the President and the National Security Council decided it was more important not to give the Europeans the impression we were gunslingers,” he said.

    “Mr Bush had Mr Zarqawi in his sights for almost every day for a year before the invasion of Iraq and he didn’t shoot because they were wining and dining the French in an effort to get them to assist us in the invasion of Iraq.”

    Yes, better a war, than gunslingers.

    …And who can forget the great Colin Powell speech to the UN Security Counsel using Zarqawi as a linchpin, arguing for a “sinister nexus”, for Zarqawi, Saddam and AQ, thus pushing for the invasion.
    http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.alqaeda.links/

    In essence, containment was overturned by an interest, for whatever reasons, to invade and Zarqawi was needed to establish this goal.

    ReplyReply
  31. MataHarley says: 26

    In essence, containment was overturned by an interest, for whatever reasons, to invade and Zarqawi was needed to establish this goal.

    Doug, you disappoint me, guy. Zarqawi had been operating bio/chem training camps in Iraq since 1998 (from my reading in early 2003). And I have little doubt that intel… what little we had at our fingertips after the 90s bloodbath of HUMINT … would have also been available to Teflon Bill and Not-So-Albright of his existence and camps there.

    Are you suggesting that:

    1: the US would have had no problems bombing just Zarqawi’s facilities post 911 with the int’l world?

    2: that the destruction of his training camps would have stopped Saddam’s association with Zawahiri (a much bigger and more powerful fish…) and other militant groups sympathetic and willing to work one on one with AQ?

    If you buy this as an argument, you are the fool the media took you for, and your thought processes disappoint me greatly.

    The reason’s GWB went in are for the reasons we see in the Iraqi Study Perspectives recently released. They, in fact, confirm the int’l intel we used as the foundation – and were supplied to he and Congress (thus their approval of AUMF) and not to the public. Only now are you getting a clue…. except you’re not getting a clue!

    The simplistic American needs a simple answer… oh, it’s Zarqawi or WMD… it’s because Saddam wears a silly beret. Anything to occupy them for 2 seconds so they can return to Entertainment Tonight and American Idol. Load ‘em up with real facts, and their eyes glaze over…. just as aptly demonstrated now by oh so many.

    But this from you? I gave you more credit, I guess.

    ReplyReply
  32. bigpapa says: 27

    So AQ attacks us in 2001,,, we go after them in Afghanistan and then Iraq…

    The Japanese attacked us in 1941,,, so we went after them all over the Pacific…

    What’s the freaking problem?????

    Christ,,, good men and women volunteer to defend this great country everyday,,
    Some give all, and some will live with injuries the rest of their lives.

    Screw you whiny ass liberals and your BDS… almost everyone of your socialist leaders voted for the war….
    Most didn’t even read the information they were given but did it out of the selfish notion that it would get them votes and keep their commie asses in office.
    Then,,,,, they flip flop..

    I’m sick of Rinos and liberal/socialists… quit trying to bring this Republic in to the communist ideal.

    ReplyReply
  33. doug says: 28

    MH, you have a tendency to load your guns and pull the trigger pretty fast don’t you? ; )

    I have no idea what you are accusing me of, but if it happens to be a media conformist, then you are the first to ever brand me of that; and might i say, falsely, too.

    ReplyReply
  34. MataHarley says: 29

    Let’s take a wild guess MT is really “MH”, eh Doug? If I’m wrong, “never mind”…. :0)

    My gun’s always loaded, and I’m really quite patient before pulling the trigger, so not guilty. But if it’s my post that has you befuddled, just look at the two questions.

    You can’t honestly believe that “containment” as applied to Zarqawi and thug/comrades alone was either going to be internationally sanctioned, OR a productive progress in battling jihad elements present in Iraq and elsewhere.

    Or do you??

    And nope… while we see differently on most aspects, I don’t think you’re a media conformer. Thus my surprise at your “containment” comment.

    ReplyReply
  35. You have to hand it to Doug. He has an inexhaustible supply of denial.

    ReplyReply
  36. doug says: 31

    I believe Z., his camps and cohorts, should have been hit.

    Just as in 2002 there was a push on us to paint those who favor containment of unfriendly regimes as somehow “pussies”, times haven’t changed all that much for the ‘pushers’ of war, we’re still seen as lazy mother hens. But if one looks past the label…

    Sometimes it’s too easy to forget containment worked against Stalin and Mao –both unbalanced and evil dictators with nuclear weapons; both formidable tyrants with wicked dreams of world domination. Yet we managed to preserve our security without resorting preemptive war.

    Sometimes it’s too easy to forget containment worked against Saddam Hussein– an evil, ugly twisted US puppet we kept him in a box for a dozen years; he was no threat to us or his neighbors. In 2002, he even had to accept the return of United Nations weapons inspectors — who found no weapons of mass destruction because, thanks to our efforts, he had none.

    And sometimes it’s too hard to remember, due to the pain, that if we had understood the complexities of Iraq, stayed with containment, instead of coopting what the Brits endured, how the Iraqis have suffered, came to oppose our occupation, we then might have not have done the invasion.

    But that’s just history.

    Now it’s all about Iran. One should never forget that Iran is now what it is because of our invasion. We emboldened and strengthened them; we did that while we weakened ourself, over staining our forces, resources, alliances.

    So now do we want another preemptive war? Are the Iranians are too crazy to be deterred from using nukes against Israel or giving them to terrorist groups to use against us?

    One common trait of governments and their leaders is an overriding desire to survive; it’s the will-to-life that precedes the Will-to-power on a social scale. If Iranian nukes are ever used for aggression, the regime can be sure “Iran will be”, as Hillary so blunted put it, “obliterated.”

    We aren’t pussies.

    Preemptive hawks like to brush us aside for their various reasons, they never think we are “getting it;” unless we summon their ‘free “military” spirits’ that can cause citadels to fall and new empires to reign out of their destructive creativity, then we are ‘old-school’. Thus, anyone that doesn’t accept their post 911 mindset they regard as a fool.

    However, preemptivity is a dangerous path to travel –philosophically, historically and politically. We’ve now seen how it can go wrong. I don’t care how preemptivists may perceive the facts of this; they actually don’t matter; who matters is everybody else! …perception and perspective rule here! Politics is the art of perception; war is the height of political engagement; thus, war is perception. If you can’t manage the media wheel, you have lost the war, your enemy has gained advantage and it is just time and resources before you lose.

    This happened to Europe and now it’s happening to Americans; the public turned against a war that the media –rightly or wrongly– controlled and reflected back to us our discontent and opposition; it solidified our sentiment against the war and the administration… and congress when it would not stop the war, when it was elected to do so.

    These Americans have learned the hard way. Now they understand preemptivity as fool’s gold; they are more patient, more skeptical, more sober. It’s the pre-emptive contingent hawks that still don’t grasp these basic points.

    One, three, five years from now, Iraq will lean closer and closer to Iran; they will because they have a common history, religion, culture, …. As that happens, we will have “lost”. Not because we didn’t bomb Iran, or, win with the surge, or any other military action. We will have lost because the public/political/polis turned against us as we ‘perceived’ it in the media mirror.

    That is why preemptivity is risky business and containment a wiser option.

    ReplyReply
  37. MataHarley says: 32

    Sometimes it’s too easy to forget containment worked against Stalin and Mao –both unbalanced and evil dictators with nuclear weapons; both formidable tyrants with wicked dreams of world domination.

    Yet they were a state enemy… not a rogue group of cockroaches running from friendly territory to friendly territory. Nor were they spread out across such a wide region as the Middle East and Africa as the global Islamic jihad movement. Add Indonesia etal as well.

    Different enemy requires different tactics.

    Sometimes it’s too easy to forget containment worked against Saddam Hussein– an evil, ugly twisted US puppet we kept him in a box for a dozen years;

    Really? IAEA was booted out in 1998. When they were there, they were led around like monkeys on a lease to prepared locations. I have to wonder how he obtained those Samoud missiles they rapidly discarded in the Netherlands junk yard… and the rest of the various proscribed stuff we can’t find and isn’t accounted for? And the Oil for Food scandal helping him to thwart sanctions is not of our imagination. So I question your definition of “containment”, Doug.

    This Americans now learned the hard way. Now they understand preemptivity as fool’s gold; they are more patient, more skeptical, more sober. It’s the pre-emptive contingent hawks that still don’t grasp these basic points.

    Yes, Doug. The nation is in that frame of mind. We will sit back and wait for another 911.

    Yet if that “preemptive” strike on Iraq takes hold, and AQ enjoying less support because of them proving to the world they are un Islamic animals by their warfare on the Iraq battlefield, we may have done enough shift in their nests to hold it off for awhile. We can only hope it’s for generations and that the new Muslim youth are not raised on jihad and hate.

    We aren’t pussies.

    Agreed wholeheartedly… for now. I’ll hope that remains the case thru future POTUS terms. It is not a given anymore.

    ReplyReply
  38. DW 5000 says: 33

    We will sit back and wait for another 911

    To make the discussion meaningful, it would be helpful if you were to define your terms. For an attack to qualify as “another 911,” it have to have a certain death toll? Does the target need to be of a minimum size? Or does any terrorist attack on American soil count as “another 911″?

    Tell us, General Einstein, what is your recipe for guaranteeing that we will never be attacked by terrorists again?

    ReplyReply
  39. MataHarley says: 34

    Well, DW… despite the fact I was not addressing you, and that you apparently didn’t read my conversion with Doug, I’ll make this simple.

    With fine, upstanding citizenry advocating trading surrender for peace – like yourself – being the country’s “majority” (so you tell us…), it’s unlikely this nation will engage in preemptive protection while under your choice of POTUS.

    However, the tea parties of talk will abound. Put the int’l caterers on alert…

    And while no one can guarantee we will never be attacked, returning to the vunerable state we were Sept 10th is dangerous retrograde. Disengaging battle with the jihad movement in order to have a friendly chat with persuasion is a suicide pact.

    So why don’t you ask yourself your own questions… then get back to someone who may give a damn.

    ReplyReply
  40. DW 5000 says: 35

    Nicely dodged! You’ve thoughtfully left the door open for any attack to be portrayed as “another 911.”

    To be consistent, however, the Right will need to blame Bush for anything that might happen during a hypothetical Obama presidency, as Clinton has been the whipping boy for everything bad that happened on Bush’s watch, even years after Clinton left office.

    So why don’t you ask yourself your own questions

    Well, because I’m not the one blathering on about how this or that Left-wing idea is going to cause the next 911, and I’m not the one pretending–as you are–that I have all the answers to the questions.

    Please, General Einstein, shower us with your wisdom. Maybe a President McCain will appoint you to the Joint Chiefs.

    ReplyReply
  41. MataHarley says: 36

    You must have confused me with someone that gives a damn, DW. Dodge? No. Just no patience to explain the obvious to the oblivious. Frankly, you and your simplistic, and extreme anal vision bores me to tears.

    You might have to get one of the other FA’ers here to play with you. One blessed with more patience for gutteral debate.

    ReplyReply
  42. bigpapa says: 37

    Tell you what DW or Doug… or anyone else who cares to argue….

    How many Americans do you have to kill to make it a terroist act???? 3 according to the FBI….
    So anymore than that and it’s a terrorist act…..
    If it was your mom or dad or brother or sister …. then how many does it take?

    I was in the military draw down during the clintoon administration… I know the facts I was there…
    All of you stupid libs like to point you grubby little fingers…. but we (the United States,,, look it up) were perceived as weak because of clintoon much like carter….. and so we were hit…

    You stupid f#$ks have no concept of what it takes to make this country safe for all you idiots to go about your daily lives safely ……
    You whine and cry about this and that….. but you’ve never given anything… I have, my friends have and you should be grateful to them… not me.. them…

    If our opponents percieve us weak they will attack… as soon as any one of these terrrorists have a nuke they will use it….
    God help you if it’s in your town….

    You can go suck off Barry and “feel” good about yourself but at the end of the day you will still be a POS..

    ReplyReply
  43. wordsmith says: 38

    Doug #31:

    Sometimes it’s too easy to forget containment worked against Saddam Hussein– an evil, ugly twisted US puppet we kept him in a box for a dozen years; he was no threat to us or his neighbors.

    As Mata points out, part of the danger is in his willingness to work with and carry out common interests through Islamic terrorists.

    In 2002, he even had to accept the return of United Nations weapons inspectors — who found no weapons of mass destruction because, thanks to our efforts, he had none.

    Do you really think gambling on this sort of cat-and-mouse game, we’d indefinitely come out the winners? Out of that which we now know:

    In a tape dating to April 1995, Saddam and several aides discuss the fact that U.N. inspectors had found traces of Iraq’s biological weapons program. On the tape, Hussein Kamel, Saddam’s son-in-law, is heard gloating about fooling the inspectors.

    “We did not reveal all that we have,” he says. “Not the type of weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct.”

    There’s more. Indeed, as late as 2000, Saddam can be heard in his office talking with Iraqi scientists about his ongoing plans to build a nuclear device. At one point, he discusses Iraq’s plasma uranium program ? something that was missed entirely by U.N. weapons inspectors combing Iraq for WMD.

    This is particularly troubling, since it indicates an active, ongoing attempt by Saddam to build an Iraqi nuclear bomb.

    “What was most disturbing,” said John Tierney, the ex- FBI agent who translated the tapes, “was the fact that the individuals briefing Saddam were totally unknown to the U.N. Special Commission (or UNSCOM, the group set up to look into Iraq’s WMD programs).”

    Perhaps most chillingly, the tapes record Iraq Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz talking about how easy it would be to set off a WMD in Washington. The comments come shortly after Saddam muses about using “proxies” in a terror attack.

    …there’s a lot we don’t know. Many documents and records were destroyed during Invasion.

    stayed with containment, instead of coopting what the Brits endured, how the Iraqis have suffered,

    Were we not blamed for 500,000 Iraqi children who suffered and died under the policy of “containment”? While Saddam built palaces for himself in every city and his regime’s coffers filled with “food-for-oil” farce, his people suffered….and we were blamed and held responsible for it.

    Damned if we did…damned if we did not.

    Mata brings up “Food-for-Oil”. How was that working out? Any UN and French officials being bribed? Working with Saddam behind the scenes to eventually have sanctions lifted?

    If we continued on with the status quo of “containment”, knowing the possibility of his allying with Islamic terrorists to use as proxies, where might we be today? Would sanctions still be in place? And what did the Duelfer Report warn us of, should those sanctions have ended?

    Now it’s all about Iran. One should never forget that Iran is now what it is because of our invasion. We emboldened and strengthened them; we did that while we weakened ourself, over staining our forces, resources, alliances.

    Why not go further back in time to Carter’s Administration? The Shia half of the rise in Islamic militancy can be traced back to Carter’s blunders.

    Had we not removed Saddam, would the world be in a better place today? Cancer treatment is not without going through a period of pain…especially if not detected and treated early on. How much longer should we have allowed Saddam and his sons to metastasize?

    One common trait of governments and their leaders is an overriding desire to survive; it’s the will-to-life that precedes the Will-to-power on a social scale. If Iranian nukes are ever used for aggression, the regime can be sure “Iran will be”, as Hillary so blunted put it, “obliterated.”

    But how real is the “Ahmadinejad belief” in the 12th Imam theology? Given that- given the willingness of Islamic Holy Warriors to martyr themselves to serve Allah- can religious fanatics in control of Iran be trusted not to behave…suicidially if it brings about “God’s plans” and ushers in a whole new era of a super caliphate?

    ReplyReply
  44. wordsmith says: 39

    Forgot to add in additional counterpoint to this:

    In 2002, he even had to accept the return of United Nations weapons inspectors — who found no weapons of mass destruction because, thanks to our efforts, he had none.

    What if Saddam’s son-in-law, Hussein Kamil, head of Iraq’s WMD programs, not defected in August of 1995? UN WMD inspectors were surprised by what they learned from him: “Iraq admitted that it had weaponized BW agents and deployed biological weapons for combat use.” The admission was thanks to our luck in the defection; not in the luck of inspectors.

    ReplyReply
  45. Pingback: Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » Thoughts & Reaction On Tonight’s Debate

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>