29 Jun

MSM Ignoring The Victory In Iraq

                                       

We have victory in Iraq due to our brave military members, the brave Iraqi’s who stood and fought for their country, and President Bush. But where is the MSM on this great day?

Iraqi government TV has been playing patriotic music to celebrate the U.S. military withdrawal from cities, towns and villages across the country, officially set to be completed by Tuesday June 30th.

Iraqi military vehicles were also covered with flowers to celebrate the event, and military parades, complete with band music, were organized in Diyala and Diwania provinces.

The government declared a “Day of National Sovereignty” to mark the event, and has invited ordinary citizens to join evening celebrations at Baghdad’s Zawra Park for a festival of music and poetry.

Interior Minister Jawad Boulani told journalists the U.S. withdrawal is almost complete and Iraqi forces are capable of maintaining order across the country.

He says he believes Iraq’s security situation is under control. “I do not think we need to declare a curfew,” he insisted.

Why, their hiding because they said this day would never come. The left and the MSM (synonymous really) believed Bush would ruin everything he touches and now that they have been proven wrong they just ignore it or believe Obama fixed it, by doing the same thing as Bush of course, but why ruin a fantasy. They tell us all that Obama inherited this recession, its not his fault while at the same time trying to sell the case that he did not inherit the Bush victory in Iraq….it’s all him baby…..sigh.

Anyways, congrats to the Iraqi’s for proving that human beings, no matter where they live, DO want to live in freedom.

About Curt

Curt served in the Marine Corps for four years and has been a law enforcement officer in Los Angeles for the last 20 years.
This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Bush Derangement Syndrome, Bush Exceptionalism, Liberal Idiots, Military, MSM Bias, Obama Euphoric-Rapture Syndrome, The Iraqi War. Bookmark the permalink. Monday, June 29th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
| 76 views

150 Responses to MSM Ignoring The Victory In Iraq

  1. Wordsmith says: 101

    I’ll cite Mata:

    Now, also in your comment, you are misrepresenting the story of the “Mission Accomplished” banner as a White House organized photo op instead of a banner requested by the crew of the longest deployment. Also, it’s particular placement on the ship was the most logical giving the ship’s design, and where the formal gathering to greet the CIC was held on deck.

    Your comments suggest you are are clueless as to the ship’s history and the story, your forgot the story, or you just refuse to accept the facts.

    Assuming one of the first two, here’s a repeat via one of my mid January comments to bring you up to speed… hopefully for the last time.

    Also, Wordsmith did a post on this back in January, bu didn’t go into as much detail about the longest deployment for a naval vessel on record.

    In the future, it would be great if you didn’t continue to beat a dead horse with misleading talking points, and continually force us to dive into the archives to countermand your casual accusations.

    ReplyReply
  2. @Cary:

    So, how are we supposed to interpret THIS?

    Those damned Leftist talking points.

    They’ve entangled you and your buddy Mishmash.

    Ummmm….My initial interpretation would be that “You’re a dumbass”, but that may insult your overly active sensitivities leading you to threaten to gather your toys and run home to Mommy, so I won’t say that.

    Instead, I’ll say this: You are either painfully ignorant of the matter of which you speak or you’re hoping that we are.

    (Was that respectful enough?)

    ReplyReply
  3. Cary says: 103

    @Wordsmith:

    Regardless of what it actually tactically or politically meant, and I’m aware of your position of it as a “bogus talking point”. and am not necessarily bringing it up to refute you; but how do you expect any average Joe to look at that and think anything of it as anything other than a declaration that “we got the job done”?

    @Aye Chihuahua:

    (Was that respectful enough?)

    Imagine that I wrote in the same tone to you, and tell me yourself.

    ReplyReply
  4. Wordsmith says: 104

    but how do you expect any average Joe to look at that and think anything of it as anything other than a declaration that “we got the job done”?

    Cary,

    By listening to the actual substance in the speech.

    But Bush agrees with you, that it gave a false impression and opened himself up for political opponents to take full advantage and spin away on it.

    But for anyone paying attention to the speech, he spoke nothing about our mission in Iraq being over. He said just the opposite.

    ReplyReply
  5. MataHarley says: 105

    but how do you expect any average Joe to look at that and think anything of it as anything other than a declaration that “we got the job done”?

    By not repeating and/or spreading media distortions and lies, that aid in changing bogus talking points into perceived “facts”, Cary. You know the ol’ saying, repeat a lie often enough….

    ReplyReply
  6. @Cary:

    Regardless of what it actually tactically or politically meant…..how do you expect any average Joe to look at that and think anything of it as anything other than a declaration that “we got the job done”?

    People who live by six second soundbytes and juicy morsels that are fed to them by an eager Media spin machine are bound to be mislead.

    Those who have a hunger for the truth, and a willingness to sift through the garbage and distortions to get to the facts, will truly know what is going on.

    Most fit the former description.

    The latter, fewer.

    ReplyReply
  7. Barleymash says: 107

    @mata:
    It’s why I call them human cockroaches…

    Your words. And the context doesn’t help at all. When you equate the disposal of bugs to the eradication of humans, well, then, you’re referring to human beings as the tactical equivalent of cockroaches. That’s just completely f’d up.

    And I know you’ve got this long convoluted explanation for why the banner was there, and how Dubya didn’t notice it, and so on and so on and so on. On this one, I’m simply calling bullshit. In the non-blog world, leaders make speeches in front of banners they’ve approved. Leaders take responsibility for the props their own employees deploy. Even Rumsfeld acknowledged that the banner was a White House prop. He successfully pulled the phrase from Bush’s speech, but didn’t catch the banner. That says two things: Bush INTENDED to say Mission Accomplished until Rumsfeld stopped him, and yes, Bush’s staff is even more incompetent than we suspected.

    http://www.defenselink.mil/Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=3744

    ReplyReply
  8. Cary says: 108

    @Wordsmith:

    Thank you for providing that info – I was indeed unaware of those posts. My answer in 101 still stands: it sent the wrong message. Surely someone could see this beforehand. I’m glad we’re on the same page about it.

    ReplyReply
  9. MataHarley says: 109

    The jihad movement are human cockroaches in their waging of jihad and strategy of hiding behind human shields, and murdering civilians to advance their quest for a Caliphate. I’ll add to that the jihad movements are the scum of the earth as a lifeform and, as far as I’m concerned, long since forfeited their rights to share the planet with others.

    This is entirely different than your accusation that I called “foreigners” and “Iraqis” cockroaches.

    But as I said, I’m quite sure that you’d get along with them just fine in a personal meet and greet.

    Oh yes… not to leave a stone unturned INRE “Mission Accomplished”, never once did I say Bush “didn’t notice”, for in fact he assumed responsibility for the miscommunique…. unlike your hero who always lets someone else take the fall.

    You may call “bullshit” all you want, but the sign was the request of the naval crew, who had just finished the longest sea deployment in history. The task of making a banner… a sign business not being set up as part of a battleship’s facilities… came from the WH.

    Rumsfeld removed the words from the speech knowing it wasn’t an accurate assessment of Bush’s position. Rumsfeld says “they” fixed the speech, but not the sign. Was Rumsfeld aware that the WH made the banner at the crew’s request? He doesn’t say. Was Bush? We don’t know. Doesn’t matter because even tho it was not their message to convey, they still absorbed the flack for it.

    What we do know is that was the crew’s perception of *their* mission, and a well deserved pat on the back. That you want to make it a political issue of ineptitude proves you’re desperate to grasp at straws to support your BDS. Perhaps you would prefer they hid behind the military and blamed the crew instead of taking the heat themselves?

    Frankly, I thought it was stellar they took crap from people like you and stood behind their troops.

    ReplyReply
  10. @Cary:

    My answer in 101 still stands: it sent the wrong message to those who are easily, or willing to be, mislead.

    FTFY

    ReplyReply
  11. Wordsmith says: 111

    He successfully pulled the phrase from Bush’s speech, but didn’t catch the banner. That says two things: Bush INTENDED to say Mission Accomplished until Rumsfeld stopped him, and yes, Bush’s staff is even more incompetent than we suspected.

    BM, the mission was accomplished. For the crew of the Abraham Lincoln after a long deployment, they were home. As for the war, major combat operations were done. But then what did President Bush say in his speech? Only your partisan brain makes you refuse to accept the reality of the facts. When facts are in the way, you decide to “simply call bullshit”. And I’m still waiting for the supporting evidence on the Administration officials who knowingly lied about wmd.

    Also, from the Woodward interview and referencing Draper’s account, there’s no indication the phrase “Mission Accomplished” was exxed out by Rumsfeld; what he disapproved of were statements that suggested a McArthurian finality of victory.

    MR. WOODWARD: — that the country is dealing with. And you know, one thing — just one quick thing not on the list but someone told me about the other day, which I found fascinating. When the person that gave that speech on the Lincoln with the “Mission Accomplished” on the back, somebody told me that the White House speechwriters had used MacArthur’s surrender speech on the Missouri as a model. And they literally had in that speech “the guns are silent,” and you edited it out.

    SEC. RUMSFELD: I took “mission accomplished” out. I was in Baghdad, and I was given a draft of that thing to look at. And I just died, and I said my God, it’s too conclusive. And I fixed it and sent it back..

    That reads like a “catch-all”- of what the phrase came to symbolize to Bush war critics- and not specifically the words themselves. I could be wrong; but irregardless, the mission was accomplished.

    ReplyReply
  12. @Cary:

    Here’s a good example for you Cary:

    Image Source,Photobucket Uploader Firefox Extension

    Nice shoes Cary

    If I posted the above pic and caption some might be misled into thinking that you are an overly eager Mets fan.

    Those of us who are in command of the facts, however, know that you are a Yankees fan.

    See how easy that was?

    ReplyReply
  13. Barleymash says: 113

    I can only work with information in the public domain. Rumsfeld said “I took Mission Accomplished out.” In fact, he specifically CORRECTED Woodward when Woodward suggested he had done something else. I rarely hear people correct a specific with a “catch-all.” Especially when that “catch-all” is already a specific part of the conversation — a specific PHYSICAL ITEM already referred to.

    Sure, the ship’s mission was accomplished. But the phrase was in the speech about combat operations. Why would you suspect the banner referred to the ship, while the exact same phrase in the speech referred to something different? Why would anyone do that? Even if you’re entirely correct about the genesis of the banner, and that’s entirely possible, the Bush administration used it as a PR prop AS IF they meant it for the entire Iraqi operation until months later, when conditions on the ground were making them look foolish.

    ReplyReply
  14. Cary says: 114

    @Aye Chihuahua:

    I was trying to distract them from catching the ball. It finally worked!

    Glad you like the pic.

    ReplyReply
  15. MataHarley says: 115

    Barley: Even if you’re entirely correct about the genesis of the banner, and that’s entirely possible, the Bush administration used it as a PR prop AS IF they meant it for the entire Iraqi operation until months later, when conditions on the ground were making them look foolish.

    It was the Bush speechwriters who inserted the phrase, perhaps referencing the banner. Not Rumsfeld nor Bush. Rumsfeld screened the speech, and removed it as inappropriate. Whatever powers that be did not remove the banner.

    That you are confused is obvious. And, perhaps, understandable. However I’d like to point out that the rest of us also “only work with information in the public domain”, and we are well aware of the banner’s origin.

    As far as looking foolish, thanks to mentalities that did not find out the story behind the banner, that is absolutely true. And while the Bush WH could legitimately point to the crew as an excuse for the miscommunique, they did not throw the crew under the bus (like the current POTUS does at every instance) in order to save their own face… and instead accepted the criticisms from a lazy and uninformed media and public with grace.

    And for that, you call them inept.

    ReplyReply
  16. @Barleymash:

    Like others here, I am still waiting to find out what the government lied about, specifically?

    We’re still waiting for your proof about Administration officials who sent the country to war, knowing the threat of WMDs was just a lot of malarkey.

    In addition, could you please share with us where Tenet said that there were no WMD.

    We have him on videotape saying that he believed that there were WMD.

    Where did Tenet say otherwise as you contend?

    ReplyReply
  17. MataHarley says: 117

    Careful, Aye… you’re going to get one monster of a headache pounding your kepi against that brick wall.

    ReplyReply
  18. @Cary:

    You should get the entire context before making assumptions.

    Which is precisely the point I was making.

    Thanks for reiterating it for me.

    ReplyReply
  19. Wordsmith says: 119

    @Barleymash:

    Rumsfeld said “I took Mission Accomplished out.” In fact, he specifically CORRECTED Woodward when Woodward suggested he had done something else. I rarely hear people correct a specific with a “catch-all.” Especially when that “catch-all” is already a specific part of the conversation — a specific PHYSICAL ITEM already referred to.

    You might be correct. But looking at the context of the exchange, it’s not at all clear he was “correcting” Woodward, but summing up the content of what he disapproved of as “Mission Accomplished”, basically borrowing the phrase with all the negative connotations that came to be associated with it, thanks to the spinmeisters.

    Sure, the ship’s mission was accomplished. But the phrase was in the speech about combat operations.

    The only way to know if it was or wasn’t is to obtain a copy of the draft itself, and what was being specified. And the major combat operations had come to a close, at the time. But what did the speech Bush actually delivered- not the draft versions that were rejected- say regarding our mission in Iraq?

    Why would you suspect the banner referred to the ship, while the exact same phrase in the speech referred to something different? Why would anyone do that?

    Because it doesn’t look to me like the phrase itself was in the speech.

    Even if you’re entirely correct about the genesis of the banner, and that’s entirely possible, the Bush administration used it as a PR prop AS IF they meant it for the entire Iraqi operation until months later, when conditions on the ground were making them look foolish.

    PR prop gone bad? Sure. And it’s exactly the kind of finality Rumsfeld didn’t think was warranted by the speech writers.

    I really encourage you to read the links I provided of previous posts; and re-read the Carrier speech itself.

    ReplyReply
  20. Wordsmith says: 120

    BM,

    Looking through my copy of Woodward’s “State of Denial” (pg 186), I’ll concede the point that the phrase itself was in the original draft. Although from the interview snippet, it doesn’t come across as entirely clear.

    And they literally had in that speech “the guns are silent,” and you edited it out.

    SEC. RUMSFELD: I took “mission accomplished” out.

    ReplyReply
  21. @MataHarley:

    Yes, I know.

    Seeing as how BM told us that he “only work[s] with information in the public domain” I am quite sure that he has some sort of source for what he posted.

    He’ll be by any minute now to support his claims by citing something straight from Tenet himself….or, perhaps he’ll finally have the stones to admit that he was deliberately misleading, yea, even LYING, about information that is in the “public domain” while hoping that no one here would notice or call him on it.

    Any. Minute. Now.

    Yeah.

    ReplyReply
  22. Barleymash says: 122

    And… TADA! Aye, it’s not that covert. (You do know what public domain means, right?) I was simply referring to the quote I cited and, thank you, Wordsmith, to my reading of “State of Denial.” Rumsfeld was quoted and then his quote was requoted all over the media. I had no reason to second-guess it since as far as I knew, he’d never disavowed his own statement. Jeez. Sometimes a cigar…

    So here’s the post we’ve all been waiting for. Barleymash delivers the evidence that Bush & Co. KNEW there were no WMDs! The problem is, you’re all going to jump all over this as “debunked.” It’s a matter of opinion.

    Here are my sources. They all assert that the Bush adminsitration was informed that Iraq had no WMDs and that Bush “didn’t give a fuck.” I’m sure you’ve heard of them:
    Scott Ritter
    Ron Suskind
    Michael Shipster
    Carne Ross
    David Kelly and, of course,
    The Downing Street Memos

    So I assume you guys have already gnawed these sources to pieces for years, but I’ve done the same to yours in other venues. Knock yourselves out refuting this testimony, but now you can let go of the “we’re still awaiting…” silliness.

    ReplyReply
  23. Cary says: 123

    @Aye Chihuahua:

    Yeah, I removed that part of my comment knowing you’d jump on it. Of course, I get your point. It doesn’t negate mine that it was a major blunder which sent the wrong message.

    And, in all honesty, I root for the Mets unless they’re playing the Yankees. I’m a New Yorker.

    ReplyReply
  24. @Barleymash:

    No, no, no.

    A million times NO.

    Pay attention man. Focus.

    Here’s what you said:

    He [Tenet] also said there were no weapons.

    You said that Tenet said it. Where did he say it?

    Where’s the video tape? Where’s the interview in the media?

    Where’s the quote from Tenet’s book?

    Your duck-n-dodge shuck-n-jive routine may may work in the echo chambers you slither in and out of, but it won’t work for you here.

    As your credibility reaches its’ nadir, we’re still waiting on you to prove your contention.

    ReplyReply
  25. @Cary:

    The only people that it sent the “wrong message” to are those who willfully ignore the facts surrounding the photo, the event, and the speech itself.

    Anyone who is intellectually honest would admit that the banner was nothing more than innocuous.

    ReplyReply
  26. Cary says: 126

    innocuous

    1 : producing no injury : harmless 2 : not likely to give offense or to arouse strong feelings or hostility : inoffensive, insipid

    Anyone who is intellectually honest would admit that the banner was nothing more than innocuous.

    In light of what’s been discussed in the context of this thread, I’ll have to disagree.

    ReplyReply
  27. @Cary:

    In light of what’s been discussed in the context of this thread, I’ll have to disagree.

    If that’s your position, then it’s entirely appropriate to exclude you from the intellectually honest group.

    ReplyReply
  28. Barleymash says: 128

    “Your duck-n-dodge shuck-n-jive routine may may work in the echo chambers you slither in and out of, but it won’t work for you here.”

    Jeezus! Chill out, ChiChi! Is the Tenet quote what you’re freaking out about? Try post 46, Mr. Pee Pee Pants.

    “On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam’s inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.

    And didn’t we have this conversation last night?

    ReplyReply
  29. Barleymash says: 129

    if that’s your position, then it’s entirely appropriate to exclude you from the intellectually honest group.

    Getting a little lonely on the outskirts, ChiChi?

    ReplyReply
  30. @Barleymash:

    Found that Tenet quote yet BM?

    No?

    Tick. Tock.

    It’s becoming more and more apparent that you’re living up to your initials.

    ReplyReply
  31. Barleymash says: 131

    Tick tock? Here’s a funny story to while away you time, puppy-dog. I had a girlfriend many years ago who insisted that every argument be framed to her exact specifications, very much the way you’re ignoring my source for the claim that Tenet told Bush about the lack of WMDs. “It must be in the form of a direct quote or video!” Yap! Yap! Yap! I dumped her because she was a tiresome and petty little bitch. Gee, this story gets more and more relevant every moment, huh?

    ReplyReply
  32. @Barleymash:

    I’ll type this more slowly so it’s easier for you.

    You claimed Tenet said there were no WMD.

    I’ve repeatedly asked for your proof. Where is it?

    Your claim. Your contention. Your burden.

    Where’s the proof that Tenet said that? Or were you LYING?

    Given that you’re the self-proclaimed master of the “public domain” it should be easy enough for you to cite it….if it exists.

    Great story about that girlfriend of yours. Turns out, she’s a very lucky lady….she’s rid of you.

    ReplyReply
  33. Aqua says: 133

    @Barleymash
    Not speaking for anyone here at FA or the Bush Admin, but I’ve pretty much laid everything out for you Barley.
    So, I have a question for you. You’ve pretty much shot straight with me and I with you, so don’t dodge the question, answer it straight up.

    If you were President and the Joint Chiefs told you exactly what you could expect with a war in Afghanistan, (read massive U.S. casualties and a very long Vietnam type war), but offered you an alternative, that being staging out troops in Iraq to lure the jidhadists to us….what would you do? Would you go on CNN and let the American people know, which would also alert the enemy to your plan? Would you just let Al-Q and the Taliban slide, admitting that we couldn’t take them on their home turf? Be honest, I would love to hear your response.

    ReplyReply
  34. MataHarley says: 134

    So many dichotomies… “never” any WMDs? Capability? Intent, we already know Saddam had. And I’m pretty sure that an op-ed summary by Sidney Blumenthal, sourcing unnamed CIA agents on hearsay about what Tenent supposedly told Bush… AND based on intel provided by Saddam’s foreign minister, Naji Sabri… doesn’t quite fit that “quote by Tenet” status. But, according to BM, he dumped his ex-girlfriend because he didn’t like to be pinned down to such details and specifics when framing his POV>

    Okay…

    Blumenthal Sept 2007 op-ed seems to be in direct juxtaposition to the ArabNews accounts of Sabri…. the former saying the CIA paid him $200K, and the later saying it was $100K. It could be that Saddam took a 50% cut for allowing him to force feed the CIA data about his “innocence”.

    But money aside, Blumenthal also says that Sabri said:

    Both the French intelligence service and the CIA paid Sabri hundreds of thousands of dollars (at least $200,000 in the case of the CIA) to give them documents on Saddam’s WMD programs. “The information detailed that Saddam may have wished to have a program, that his engineers had told him they could build a nuclear weapon within two years if they had fissile material, which they didn’t, and that they had no chemical or biological weapons,” one of the former CIA officers told me.

    ArabNews Mar 2008 account says the opposite.

    In September 2002, Iraq’s top diplomat Naji Sabri traded information on Saddam’s alleged weapons program for cash in a French-sponsored New York City hotel room meeting, NBC reported, citing intelligence sources.

    US intelligence agents believe Sabri was fully aware he was selling information to the CIA, it said.

    During the cloak-and-dagger meeting, Sabri told the CIA’s middleman that Saddam possessed chemical weapons and wanted a nuclear bomb but needed much more time to build one than the CIA estimate of several months to a year.

    He also denied Saddam had any biological weapons. Sabri’s tips were thought to be more accurate than the CIA’s own guesses on Saddam’s arsenal, NBC said.

    Let’s see… got $100K more than the Arabs knew, Blumenthal’s CIA sources say he said he didn’t have bio OR chem weapons, and ArabNews said he confirmed Saddam *did* have chemical weapons. Yeah… that’s clear as mud.

    I guess it doesn’t do much for his credibility when he broke off CIA contacts after they tried to convince him to defect, and to renounce Saddam…. I’d say that source could be pretty shaky. Looking pretty good that Saddam took a cut of him whispering in the CIA’s ear that he didn’t… no, he did… have chemical weapons.

    groan…

    ummmm, okay. We already know and have confirmed thru the Iraqi Perspectives report that Saddam could kick start his WMD program at will. Even Duelfer admitted that. It was one of the reasons Saddam organized his post Gulf War chemical facilities for a dual use production.

    We also know he shipped off proscribed missiles to a Netherlands junkyard that he acquired after 1998 prior to the March entry of US coalition troops. That ditty is courtesy of UNMOVIC.

    Then, of course, there’s those 11 mobile chem labs we found buried April 2003 that supposedly didn’t exist… and that the UN inspectors aver were never there. Doesn’t do much for the quality of their performance, eh? That would also be that same Scott Ritter who, in an interview with Rivers Pitt in Sept 2002, emphatically stated that:

    Pitt: Does Iraq have weapons of mass destruction?

    Ritter: It’s not black-and-white, as some in the Bush administration make it appear. There’s no doubt that Iraq hasn’t fully complied with its disarmament obligations as set forth by the UN security council in its resolution. But on the other hand, since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capability has been verifiably eliminated. This includes all of the factories used to produce chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and long-range ballistic missiles; the associated equipment of these factories; and the vast majority of the products coming out of these factories.

    Uh… okay. We won’t worry about that 5%, and his ability to kickstart a program quickly. Smoke and mirrors, as Ritter always liked to say. But apparently not *all* production facilities and missiles were “verifiably eliminated” since it’s damn hard to argue with the Netherlands missile discovery and the digging up of those non-existent mobile labs.

    Demerits for Ritter.

    In fact, gets a tad more embarrassing for him when, on July 23, 2002, he says:

    “The manufacture of nuclear weapons emits gamma rays that would have been detected by now if they existed. We have been watching, via satellite and other means, and we have seen none of this.”

    … which is, of course, countermands just how the UNMOVIC detected the missiles in the Netherlands junk yard the following year. (increased radiation readings and satellite photos) ooops…

    Global Security’s summary of the ISG final report notes Saddam maintained covert CW labs… which fits with the ArabNews account by Sabri…of which none yielded evidence that CW were actually being produced… either white gloved by Saddam, or pirated. But then they also documented source information that indicated “…M16 was planning to produce several CW agents including sulfur mustard, nitrogen mustard, and Sarin.”

    Exploitations of IIS laboratories, safe houses, and disposal sites revealed no evidence of CW-related research or production, however many of these sites were either sanitized by the Regime or looted prior to OIF. Interviews with key IIS officials within and outside of M16 yielded very little information about the IIS’ activities in this area.

    The existence, function, and purpose of the laboratories were never declared to the UN.

    The IIS program included the use of human subjects for testing purposes.

    And I guess it’s just unimportant that… atop all the above warm, if not smoking gun barrels.. that we did find both mustard and sarin nerve agents. But that doesn’t count because, according to that Huffpo braintrust, Eric Margolis, in his WMD Primer the only unconventional weapon that is considered a WMD is nuke… not chem or bio.

    Well ain’t that convenient? So “weapons of mass destruction” is destroying masses only with one method? And I always wondered… how many have to die before they consider it”masses”?

    Personally, I think Mr. Margolis should stick to his experience in strategy and drop the “expert” bit INRE unconventional warfare.

    BTW, anyone wonder just how much nerve gas needs to be parked atop a proscribed (that’s illegal for those of you to lazy to look it up) for it to be considered a WMD… er, dangerous weapon …. that kills “x amount”of people? And for that small amount, is it not like looking for a needle in a haystack?

    And hey? Did they ever get into those four Iraqi ID’d unsealed bunkers under the river the ISG guys never had time, equipment or budget to explore? You know, the ones David Gaubatz has repeated tried to bring to the nation’s attention for years? The same bunkers where all the houses nearby equipped with gas masks?

    Dunno… said it before and I still do. The jury is still on the WMD issue. Odd thing is no one seems to want to pursue the truth. Perhaps they believe it’s a waste of time. Or in the media’s case, they’d have a lot of years of “no WMD’s” headlines to explain away.

    But I find the lack of curiosity by the led-around-by-the-nose types… well…. curious.

    ReplyReply
  35. Barleymash says: 135

    Hey, Aqua — given only the scenario you’ve painted, I might possibly consider the option you describe as a very last resort. There are innocents involved and I do really believe that American ideals compel us to protect the innocent.

    But the scenario you paint is not, IMO, a rational understanding of the nature of the conflict we’re in. Terrorists are not a finite number of troops. Their weapons are not manufactured like tanks and aircraft, in a specific array of factories that can be bombed to hell. A full-grown and committed suicide bomber can be created in a moment. It’s not about training (although that’s important); it’s about vengeance. And experts have pegged the foreign membership of Al Qaeda in Iraq at just about 10 percent. So our relocation of hostilities to Iraq moved a FEW local terrorists onto our chosen turf, but it also created a NEW enemy, 90% of it home-grown and self-replenishing. The math doesn’t work for me. And remember, I really do believe we have an obligation — as it states in the Geneva Conventions that we signed — NOT to endanger civilians. And frankly, we certainly have. I firmly believe our post 9/11 conflict was NOT the Iraqis war until we chose to make it so and it has NOT generated the outcome you hope for. We still have not established stability in Afghanistan, nor have we brought the mastermind of 9/11 to justice.

    I’m just not seeing the upside.

    B

    ReplyReply
  36. Aqua says: 136

    @Barleymash

    I’m taking this as a dodge. It’s easy to critize a plan. Much more difficult to come up with one of your own.
    A couple of points of contention:

    There are innocents involved and I do really believe that American ideals compel us to protect the innocent.

    Point to one operation where the U.S. military did not take into account the safety and welfare of the Iraqi people. This will prove difficult, because we used incredible surgical precision on our air strikes and with our ground forces. But I’d love to see any proof you may have that shows we intentionally put innocent Iraqi or Afghani citizens in harms way.

    Terrorists are not a finite number of troops. Their weapons are not manufactured like tanks and aircraft, in a specific array of factories that can be bombed to hell. A full-grown and committed suicide bomber can be created in a moment.

    Relatively speaking, no army is finite. I do understand your point here. However, the strategy is basically the same. Take the head off the snake and the body has no clue what to do.

    And experts have pegged the foreign membership of Al Qaeda in Iraq at just about 10 percent. So our relocation of hostilities to Iraq moved a FEW local terrorists onto our chosen turf, but it also created a NEW enemy, 90% of it home-grown and self-replenishing.

    I beg to differ on this point. You’ll have to cite your experts here. Even if your numbers prove accurate, it matters not. It wasn’t just about Al Qaeda. Knowing that no matter where we fought, jihadists of every ilk would come out of the woodwork to battle us. Hence, logistical terrain location.

    And remember, I really do believe we have an obligation — as it states in the Geneva Conventions that we signed — NOT to endanger civilians. And frankly, we certainly have. I firmly believe our post 9/11 conflict was NOT the Iraqis war until we chose to make it so and it has NOT generated the outcome you hope for. We still have not established stability in Afghanistan, nor have we brought the mastermind of 9/11 to justice.

    Can’t help you here. This is your view of things. You say a majority of Americans believe the way you do, but I’ve never seen this as a statistic. Are there people who didn’t believe we should be in Iraq? Oh yeah. Do these same people have the slightest idea how to prosecute a war of this nature? NO! Please, there are the same people who couldn’t name the speaker of the house or tell you which party controls congress.

    ReplyReply
  37. MataHarley says: 137

    If I’m not mistaken, the GC states it is illegal to *intentionally* engage in rules of war that pose extraordinary risk to endanger civilians. Using BM’s translation, every battle is “illegal”.

    Other than that, Aqua… I’d say you covered all my initial thoughts when I read his “dodge”…. and a big time “dodge” it was.

    ReplyReply
  38. MataHarley says: 138

    Ah yes… I remember when I was reading about that “civilian” bit. It was during the most recent Israel-Gaza conflict, and in relation to the jihad movements (which is, of course, not just AQ) using human shields.

    GC IV, Art 28: The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.

    … and was further clarified by Article 51 of the 1977 amendment to the 1949 Geneva Convention:

    Art 51. – Protection of the civilian population

    1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances.

    2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.

    3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.

    4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:
    (a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective;
    (b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or
    (c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol;

    and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.

    5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:
    (a) an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects;

    and

    (b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

    6. Attacks against the civilian population or civilians by way of reprisals are prohibited.

    7. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.

    8. Any violation of these prohibitions shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57.

    ReplyReply
  39. @Barleymash:

    We still have not established stability in Afghanistan, nor have we brought the mastermind of 9/11 to justice.

    Dayum!

    Is there no limit to your ignorance?

    KSM, the mastermind of 9/11, is currently sitting in a cell at Gitmo.

    If it hadn’t been for whiny Leftist pantywaists like yourself he would likely have already been tried, and perhaps even punished, for his crimes.

    ReplyReply
  40. MataHarley says: 140

    Aye: KSM, the mastermind of 9/11, is currently sitting in a cell at Gitmo.

    If it hadn’t been for whiny Leftist pantywaists like yourself he would likely have already been tried, and perhaps even punished, for his crimes….

    ah yes… good ol’ KSM. Coming soon to a Starbucks in *your* neighborhood when the US judicial system decides they can’t use evidence obtained with interrogations, and sets him free. You have to wonder, is this what the ACLU types had in mind all these years, preventing tribunals and trials from happening?

    ReplyReply
  41. Cary says: 141

    @Aye Chihuahua:

    If that’s your position, then it’s entirely appropriate to exclude you from the intellectually honest group.

    Okay then, I’ll direct you Wordsmith’s comment #102…

    But Bush agrees with you, that it gave a false impression and opened himself up for political opponents to take full advantage and spin away on it.

    So your ad hominem insult towards me, which you base on my disagreement with you on this matter, can also be applied to Bush.

    Then I can summarize that it’s clear that I’m not afraid to admit that I agree with Bush, as you are to admit you agree with Obama.

    I’ll let the last word be yours. No doubt you’ll use it to bully me as I walk away from you. But I’m quite content with not being alpha.

    So until our next discussion…

    be well.

    ReplyReply
  42. Wordsmith says: 142

    @Barleymash:

    “On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam’s inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.

    And didn’t we have this conversation last night?

    Yup. And didn’t I address that, indirectly in comment #68?

    “two former senior CIA officers”. I wonder which shadow warriors these were. Drumheller is probably one of them. He’s 60 Minutes’ “go-to” expert on intell and so full of shit-spinning, that he was rebuked by the Senate Select Committee on post-war findings. They were baffled by his claims, taken to the media, which were patently false. Seems Blumenthal is one of those media-partisans who ate it up, hook, line, and sinker. Prior to the Senate Report, the media had run at least 134 stories referring to Drumheller’s claims and criticism. And this is how spin becomes the accepted narrative.

    Sabri did indeed warn that Saddam had wmd- the opposite of Drumheller’s claims.

    I’ve already linked to what I wrote before:

    Tenet said that the source — meaning Sabri — had said Iraq was stockpiling chemical weapons and that equipment to produce insecticides, under the oil-for-food program, had been diverted to covert chemical weapons production.

    As for Drumheller, he’s a lying partisan sack of shit.

    His media spin garnered the attention of a Senate Select Committee on Intelligence investigation, which rebuked Drumheller’s misrepresentations.

    Read: Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on Postwar Findings about Iraq’s WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and How They Compare with Prewar Assessments, with Additional Views, pg 141-144

    And my other quote:

    This whole media circus-jerk around leaked intelligence, with Drumheller making his rounds of the usual willing suspects, is directly referred to in the link I provided to you (pg 143):

    The Committee was aware of this source’s WMD reporting [Sabri] during the first phase of the Committee review, the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Assessments on Iraq, but began exploring this issue again as a result of press reports, in particular a story on 60 Minutes, “A Spy Speaks Out,” which seemed to contradict the information available to the Committee.

    The 60 Minutes story focused on the account of the former Chief of CIA’s Europe Division (Chief/EUR) [i.e., Drumheller] who claimed that the source described above “told us that [Iraq] had no active weapons of mass destruction program.” This story was followed by numerous other media appearances by the former Chief/EUR such as, CNN’s Lou Dobbs Tonight and Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees, and MSNBC’s Hardball, in which he claimed that the source said Iraq had no WMD programs.

    Concerned that something may have been missed in our first Iraq review, the Committee began to request additional information from the Intelligence Community and to question current and former CIA officers who were involved in this issue. As noted above, the Committee has not completed this inquiry, but we have seen the operational documentation pertaining to this case. We can say that there is not a single document related to this case which indicates that the source said Iraq had no WMD programs. On the contrary, all of the information about this case so far indicates that the information from this source was that Iraq did have WMD programs. Both the operations cable and the intelligence report prepared for high-level policymakers said that while Saddam Hussein did not have a nuclear weapon, “he was aggressively and covertly developing such a weapon.” Both documents said “Iraq was producing and stockpiling chemical weapons” and they both said Iraq’s weapon of last resort was mobile launched chemical weapons, which would be fired at enemy forces and Israel. The source’s comments were consistent with the nuclear, chemical and missile assessments in the October 2002 WMD NIE. The only program not described as fully active was the biological weapons program which the source described as “amateur,” and not constituting a real weapons program.

    The former Director of Central Intelligence testified before the Committee in July 2006 that the former Chief/EUR “has mischaracterized [the source's] information” and said the former Chief/EUR never expressed a view to him, as the former Chief/EUR has claimed publicly, that the source’s information meant Iraq did not have WMD programs. The Committee is still exploring why the former Chief/EUR’s public remarks differ so markedly from the documentation.

    Steve’s Salon quote:

    “They described what Tenet said to Bush about the lack of WMD, and how Bush responded, and noted that Tenet never shared Sabri’s intelligence with then Secretary of State Colin Powell.”

    George Tenet, in his “tell-all” memoir, devotes 7 pages to debunking Drumheller, who

    “had dozens of opportunities before and after the Powell speech [at the UN] to raise the alarm with me, yet he failed to do so.”

    Records show that Drumheller paid Tenet’s office 22 visits during this time period.

    ReplyReply
  43. Barleymash says: 143

    That’s very cute, Chalupa. So you don’t hold Osama Bin Laden responsible for 9/11 anymore? Sure, KSM’s sitting in a cell. That satisfies you, fine. We got the job half-one and you’ve declared “Mission Accomplished” (oops there you go again.)

    Mata: In post 136, were you making a point?

    Aqua: Consider it a dodge if you will, but I’m not interested in falling into the “when did you stop beating your wife” hypothetical trap of your argument. For the record, I’m all for torture in ACTUAL ticking time-bomb situations. I’m all for sacrificing hostages to ACTUALLY save a greater number of innocents. I would arm insurgents to take down a murderous dictator. I have no objection to these tactics — my objection is to the idea that we’re ALWAYS in a hair-on-fire crisis. Sure, move the battlefield somewhere more practical, once you’ve established through experience that the battlefield you’re on is a serious problem. But we were NOT in a shooting war with anyone when moving the battlefield to Iraq was presented. The goal of attacking Iraq was in play long before 9/11. It was never a tactic of last resort to save American lives in Afghanistan. Justify it in hind-sight all you like, but that’s all you’re doing.

    ReplyReply
  44. Aqua says: 144

    @Barleymash

    Fair enough. You answered my question. I had a suspicion you believed Dubya wanted to finish what his daddy started. We’ll never know for sure that was his intent, but it’s certainly a fair assumption. I would like to point out that my scenario is just as fair. There is plenty of evidence to support an all out war in Afghanistan would have been incredibly ugly to watch on CNN every night and moving the front lines to Iraq was a good move.

    ReplyReply
  45. @Barleymash:

    That’s very cute, Chalupa. So you don’t hold Osama Bin Laden responsible for 9/11 anymore? Sure, KSM’s sitting in a cell.

    Listen Mishmash, you’re the one whining about the “mastermind of 9/11″ not having been brought to justice.

    Those were your words. Own them. Embrace them. They’re yours.

    OBL is a different person, he played a different and, in the scheme of things, a rather minimal role, in the events of 9/11.

    If you meant OBL, then you should have said OBL instead of “mastermind”.

    Say what you mean. Mean what you say.

    It’s pretty apparent that you didn’t know about KSM’s role, thus you left your mental midgetry exposed….again.

    That’s becoming a rather distinctive pattern for you isn’t it?

    my objection is to the idea that we’re ALWAYS in a hair-on-fire crisis.

    If you were being honest in the quote above, the time period since Jan 20, 2009 has been rather unpleasant for you, eh?

    PS….Still waiting in eager anticipation for the direct quote from Tenet regarding WMD…I cannot wait to see precisely what “he said”.

    What were Tenet’s words exactly, you know, since you said that “he said” it.

    ReplyReply
  46. Barleymash says: 146

    Wordsmith: Nice job on documenting the arguments against Blumenthal’s reporting. It’s been discussed ad nauseum since it’s appearance, so I’m not surprised you’d have counter-arguments. But I’m always surprised when people start trashing Ritter. I mean, Ritter was right. We’ve been there 6 frickin’ years. The only mustard or nerve gas we found was from before 1991. There were no WMDs. Deconstruct the way he came to that conclusion all you please, but whether you do math in your head or show your work, getting the right answer has got to count for something. I’m sure you don’t agree, but I’d rather be right than, well, STILL apologizing for the Bush Administration.

    So, you got anything to debunk the Downing Street Memos?

    ReplyReply
  47. MataHarley says: 147

    Why yes, Barley. My point in #136 was in reference to your narrow misinterpretation of the GC. To jog your memory, you said:

    And remember, I really do believe we have an obligation — as it states in the Geneva Conventions that we signed — NOT to endanger civilians.

    Since collateral damage has always been an unfortunate part of warfare, and most especially with a non-GC signatory and enemy combatant/non-State opposition who uses human shields, the GC was expanded with some clarification in some, but not all, of these kinds of circumstances. And key is whether the military target offers enough concrete strategic value for destruction that it justifies the risk for collateral damage. It also specifies that if you have several military objectives in a village, you can’t just bombard the entire village at random.

    Under your GC interpretation, any military object target located within a city, mosque, or other buildings which civilians patronize (willingly or not), our military or coalition could not wage an attack. That is simply not what the GC states.

    So to educate you to GC specifics, and how it relates to instances where civilians are apt to suffer negative consequences, I reprinted the updated rules of engagements sections.

    But I’m always surprised when people start trashing Ritter. I mean, Ritter was right. We’ve been there 6 frickin’ years. The only mustard or nerve gas we found was from before 1991.

    I’m not trashing Ritter. Nor do I hold him up on a pedestal as you do for being 100% correct. He was incorrect that “all” CW production facility and missiles were “verifiably eliminated”, as proven by the discovery of the buried mobile labs (not far from where they were inspecting, BTW) and the missile in the Netherlands junk yard (another oops for Scott “we woulda found it by now” Ritter).

    Your assertation that all sarin and mustard agents found were somehow acceptable as being manufactured prior to 1991 is not entirely correct. The key is was it caches declared to the UN, available for monitoring and in the sealed bunkers? No… quite the opposite. This discovery caught Saddam with his hand in the cookie jar.

    From the link INRE those in particular:

    They believe the mustard gas shell may have been one of 550 projectiles for which former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein failed to account when he made his weapons declaration shortly before Operation Iraqi Freedom began last year. Iraq also failed to then account for 450 aerial bombs with mustard gas. That, combined with the shells, totaled about 80 tons of unaccounted for mustard gas.

    It also appears some top Pentagon officials were surprised by the sarin news; they thought the matter was classified, administration officials told Fox News.

    An official at the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) headquarters in New York said the commission is surprised to hear news of the mustard gas.

    “If that’s the case, why didn’t they announce it earlier?” the official asked.

    As the Bush admin stated often, Saddam was not declaring all the facts and assets on CW agents he possessed… regardless of the year of manufacture. That discovery proved that accusation as undeniably true.

    So now we know, beyond any doubt, that Saddam possessed undeclared and illegal mobile labs and missiles with longer range than permitted, and he possessed unaccounted for nerve agents. Well, at least *some* of us know beyond any doubt this is true. You are still clinging to pro-Saddam fantasies. Or perhaps that’s just BDS fantasies.

    But wait… there’s *more*…. :0)

    There was the discovery of an active CW lab in northern Mosul that was established post OIF and contained 1,500 gallons of chemicals. More were found prior, including in Fallujah, but none as large as this one.

    Manufacturing CW requires both facilities and expertise. We already know Saddam never declared all his labs, and we most certainly never captured all the experts. Were the experts foreign entities? Were these labs completely built from scratch with equipment smuggled into a war zone? Or renovated from dual use facilties? The latter is most likely as Saddam procured the dual use equipment for use thru out the 90s.

    Or, per the CIA,

    Iraq’s historical ability to implement simple solutions to weaponization challenges allowed Iraq to retain the capability to weaponize CW agent when the need arose. Because of the risk of discovery and consequences for ending UN sanctions, Iraq would have significantly jeopardized its chances of having sanctions lifted or no longer enforced if the UN or foreign entity had discovered that Iraq had undertaken any weaponization activities.

    ISG has uncovered hardware at a few military depots, which suggests that Iraq may have prototyped experimental CW rounds. The available evidence is insufficient to determine the nature of the effort or the timeframe of activities.

    Iraq could indigenously produce a range of conventional munitions, throughout the 1990s, many of which had previously been adapted for filling with CW agent. However, ISG has found ambiguous evidence of weaponization activities.

    In short, Saddam possessed undeclared labs and CW caches, and retained facilities where the program could be easily kickstarted because of a dual use design. Saddam was also proven to have intent.

    Thus your most confident claim that there were no CW in Iraq is premature and, at best, pie in the sky. As I said…. I believe the jury is still out on the truth, and it’s a damn shame that there is little curiosity. But I guess that big time backpeddling on years of “no WMD” propaganda, and loss of credibility, serves as a serious deterrent.

    I doubt that any of the sources you hang your confidence on believed Saddam was an innocent victim with a change of heart about possessing chem/bio and/or nuke weapons. And all agree that he was in a position to ramp up to speed quickly once sanctions were removed. In the meantime, he did quite well eroding those sanctions with the black market and the UN’s OFF. ‘

    Saddam’s deposition is a good thing, and was official US policy since Clinton’s Iraq Liberation Act. It was sanctioned not only by that legislation, but by overwhelming Congressional approval on the AUMF, which contained at least 23 “whereas” reasons with only 7 or so pertaining to Wmd.

    Iraq has a much brighter future on it’s present course, and they’ve paid dearly for the price of governing themselves. I’m sure this bugs the tar out of you, but it is what it is.

    ReplyReply
  48. I love it when people trot out child predator Scott Ritter as a reliable source on WMD.

    His “rightness” on that matter all depends on which of his statements you choose to cherry pick.

    Since Ritter has been on every side and the middle of the WMD issue it’s easy, and quite disingenuous, for his non-critical thinking cheerleaders to say “he was right” as long as they ignore the statements that he made in the opposite direction.

    Perhaps if the WMDs in Iraq had been guarded by a 16 year old girl wearing a Burger King crown Ritter would have had better luck sniffing them out.

    ReplyReply
  49. Wordsmith says: 149

    @Barleymash #144:

    There were no WMDs.

    Not entirely accurate (as Mata points out), but even if conceded…..so what? How does that invalidate/delegitimize the decision to finally enforce UNSCR 678? When weighing together all the intell info we pulled together at the time, the intell that pointed to Saddam as being a wmd threat outweighed the voices who cautioned otherwise. The case for war was built as much around capability and intent as much as the potential that he had posession of. President Bush never said the threat was imminent. That was language used by Democrats. President Bush said we had to act before the threat became imminent; because if it’s imminent, then we would have responded too late.

    Our intell on WMD appears to have overestimated Saddam’s status on those; but the CIA also underplayed the al Qaeda-Saddam links, which are extensive (and no, I did not overstate collaborative links- nor did Bush or Cheney; and no, I did not say Saddam had a hand in orchestrating the events of 9/11- a different argument). And given Saddam’s love for wmd and his extensive ties to and open state-sponsorship of Islamic terrorism, in a post-9/11 world, what the Administration feared was the marriage of the two: wmd attacks delivered by terrorist proxies. It’s a CIA myth that a secular Saddam would not collaborate with jihadis for common short term goals. The Iraqi Perspective Project pilloried Paul Pillar’s noncooperation theory on this.

    I’m sure you don’t agree, but I’d rather be right than, well, STILL apologizing for the Bush Administration.

    Who’s apologizing for the Bush Administration? I’m very proud of the fact that Bush kept America safe from another 9/11 terror attack on U.S. soil. And that’s related as much to military action in Iraq and Afghanistan as it is to diplomacy and cooperation between nations, disrupting al Qaeda financing, intell, wiretaps and Patriot Act.

    I’m sure you don’t agree, but I’d rather be right.

    So, you got anything to debunk the Downing Street Memos?

    Just what is it I’m supposed to “debunk”? I think it’s legit, although it’s a shame the reporter felt the need to destroy the original copy. And revisiting it, I still don’t see how this is supposed to be some “smoking gun” “a-ha” “gotcha” official document that “Bush lied, people died”. It’s a source speculating about a source speculating about a source speculating about what Bush was thinking about.

    Can it be argued that the Administration was mistaken about wmd (due to CIA’s oversell)? Yes. That they knew there weren’t wmd? No. That they knew for certain that they’d find wmd? Not so certain (even Rumsfeld’s “parade of horribles” which was a checklist of everything that could possibly go wrong in Iraq listed the possibility that they might not find wmd)- and that was part of the point! We just didn’t know. But in a post-9/11 world, we were no longer willing to wait him out and tolerate a metastasizing cancer upon the world who practiced a decade of defiance and deception, and kept us guessing.

    Given that Saddam was a constant menace throughout the 90′s with media reports that had linked him to bin Laden back then, the problem of Iraq and unenforced UN resolutions, any Administration would have been remiss not to take Iraq into foreign policy considerations on day one; and derelict to not examine whether or not Saddam had any involvement with 9/11 after it happened.

    The burden of proof was upon Saddam. Not the UN. Not the U.S. Saddam played his cards and ultimately paid the price when he underestimated the intent of this president and assumed more of the same: more angry UN resolutions and saber rattling that meant nothing to him, perhaps an aspirin factory or two bombed, which he could weather, perhaps more cat-and-mouse games with UN inspectors…followed by the status quo (minus the fact that he was close to achieving a lifting of sanctions….after which….well, go read the Duelfer Report) of remaining in power.

    This part of the memo seems to contradict “Bush knowing there were no wmds”:

    For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

    Then there’s the matter of the Emily Litella Memo, which seems to undermine the DSM.

    A memorandum written by Prime Minister Tony Blair’s cabinet office in late July 2002 explicitly states that the Bush administration had made “no political decisions” to invade Iraq, but that American military planning for the possibility was advanced. The memo also said American planning, in the eyes of Mr. Blair’s aides, was “virtually silent” on the problems of a postwar occupation.

    “A postwar occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise,” warned the memorandum, prepared July 21 for a meeting with Mr. Blair a few days later. It also appeared to take as a given the presence of illicit weapons in Iraq – an assumption that later proved almost entirely wrong – and warned that merely removing Saddam Hussein from power would not guarantee that those weapons could be secured.

    A transcript of the memorandum was posted Sunday on the Web site of The Sunday Times of London, after The Washington Post, citing one of the British paper’s own correspondents as a source, published excerpts. No image of the original was included, The Times said, to protect its source; a note on the Web site said the last page was missing.

    Read the rest. There’s much more.

    A number of independent investigations including the Robb-Silbermann Commission, Butler Report, and SSCI Report on Iraq Prewar Intelligence have exonerated the Administration of manipulating intell and pressuring analysts to “fix” the intell around the policy.

    In private conversations intercepted by U.S. intell, Iraqi officials spoke as if Saddam continued to possess wmd; even Iraqi generals believed Saddam possessed them. Intell agencies around the world and UN officials believed Iraq possessed wmd.

    Of course…..the Bush case for war was built around a lot more than the belief that Saddam was in possession of wmd stockpiles.

    From the dreadful neocon, Doug Feith, War and Decision pg 331:

    Nor were those errors an essential part of the Administration’s rationale for regime change. Suppose that President Bush had made the public case for war entirely accurately, in light of all that we learned afterward about Iraqi WMD programs. He would have presented the case essentially as he did- but without using the CIA’s incorrect assessment about stockpiles. He would have said that Saddam still intended to produce WMD and had preserved the ability to make chemical and biological weapons within a few weeks.

    In 2002, the idea of U.S.-led military action to overthrow Saddam had broad support across the United States, including in the Congress. Would those who supported the war have failed to support it because Saddam was three or five weeks- or even twenty weeks- away from having the chemical and biological weapons we thought he had? Would anyone concerned about Saddam’s obtaining nuclear weapons have been comforted to hear that he had simply put his enrichment program on hold, even though Iraq might still import fissile material and produce a nuclear weapon in less than twelve months? Saddam had the technicians and scientists necessary to produce a nuclear bomb- and he retained the intention to do so after economic sanctions were lifted.

    If not for Bush’s decision in 2003, President Barack Obama in 2009 would have not only Iran and North Korea to contend with, but Saddam’s Iraq- a wmd-loving friend and ally to the jihadi movement- to fence-straddle over as well.

    ReplyReply
  50. MataHarley says: 150

    Wordsmith: If not for Bush’s decision in 2003, President Barack Obama in 2009 would have not only Iran and North Korea to contend with, but Saddam’s Iraq- a wmd-loving friend and ally to the jihadi movement- to fence-straddle over as well.

    Shame on you, Word… we could have had another “czar”. The one who teaches Obama to juggle? And that would be one more (government) job saved and/or created.

    ReplyReply

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>

 

Switch to our mobile site