Mark’s latest is a real hoot. To find the humor in it, you need only compare the language in the first paragraph to the language in the last. For example, look at all the equivocation and speculation in this one. He reads and article and....gulp!....swallows it hook, line and sinker. Why? Because it plays into his pre-conceived opinion of pre-war intelligence. Have a look:

You certainly don't go to that sort of effort to hide nothing - something was in those bunkers, that is for certain. The circumstantial evidence in the article strongly suggests it was WMDs, including nuclear weapons materials. The article goes on to claim that this evidence is being shoved under the rug for two reasons - GOPers don't want it known that a GOP Administration blew it on securing Iraqi WMD materials and Democrats don't dare press the issue because it would entirely undercut their "Bush lied" meme about getting us into Iraq. I'm not so sure about the first part - more than likely it wasn't GOPers suppressing the info...

See that? “Circumstantial,” “claim,” “suggests,” and “not so sure.” Sounds kinda weak, doesn’t it? But by the time we get to the last paragraph, there is no doubt at all. The Kool-Aid has been fully digested:

The really hard thing to take in all of this is that our leftwing critics have made it very hard to have a clear, dispassionate look at the facts in preparation for making a solid decision on where to go from here. So many lies and slanders have been heaped up by the left that even when we've got the truth 100% on our side, we have to move with caution because so many people are not only believing lies, but have become comfortable with the lies, and get angry when anyone asks them to reconsider. It may be that only 50 years from now, when most of us are safely dead, that the full truth about Iraq will be able to be told.

Now, at the very end, there is no longer speculation. The claims are now “facts.” Anything that suggests otherwise? “Lies and slanders.” Poor, brainwashed liberals refusing to believe Mark’s fairy tale and take it all at face value. What chumps.

But, hey, don’t worry! The truth will come out! When?

When we’re all dead.

Very comforting, Mark. Thanks.

Mark:

What "lies and slanders have been heaped up by the left"?

Very nearly everything the "left" said/criticized about Iraq has come true, while nothing the Bush "administration" said has been anything close to the facts.

Liberation of Iraq? If it wasn't so sad I would laugh. We have liberated 600,000 or so Iraqi's from their lives and created a chaotic situation and unleashed a civil war.

Keep hunting for your WMD's and speculating they may still be hidden or moved out of the country. The rest of us have moved on, realizing that Bush, and a do nothing, rubber stamp Congress are to blame.

The Democrats once more were put in to clean up.

Wade

I have to agree with Cyberactor here. So many coulda, woulda, shoulda's, so much implied incompetence related to an issue of paramount importance (i.e., preventing WMD from falling into the wrong hands), and then the last twist in the logic where it is said... "The really hard thing to take in all of this is that our leftwing critics have made it very hard to have a clear, dispassionate look at the facts in preparation for making a solid decision on where to go from here."

Yeah, that's the really hard thing to take in all this. Sure.

Thats interesting. I've always wondered in the back of my mind about something like that. It's certainly interesting, but I wouldn't use that as an arguement. I also find it pointless to attack Mark the way you have Cyberactor. I suppose i'm not surprised though. Your name says it all.

You realize, of course, that if you buy this theory, you're also buying the theory that the Bush administration is engaged in a major cover-up (and is even in cahoots with the evil, hated Democrats in doing so!) to keep the truth under wraps, don't you?

What's it like living life under a web of conspiracy theories?

We are in Iraq for many reasons, but it is pointless to discuss those reasons again with Democrats (Liberals). Democrats don't want to understand the reasons, and I don't think most are even capable of understanding the reasons. Contrary to what you may believe, it's not just a matter of WMDs or no WMDs -- it is also the real threat of future WMDs. It's not just an issue of stopping Saddam, his sons, and his regime from killing and torturing hundreds of thousands of his own people.

It is much more complex than that. If it weren't for 9/11, Saddam would probably still be in power -- indefinitely. If Saddam and his two sons had just limited their killing and torture to his own people, Saddam would probably still been in power -- indefinitely. Saddam and his two sons would still be killing and torturing thousands and thousands of his own people -- indefinitely.

The United States, Britain, and coalition members would still have troops, planes, and materiel in the region and on standby to stop or contain Saddam's latest or next military invasion, or plans for invasion of neighboring nations like Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- indefinitely . We would still be flying constant missions over the no-fly zones to offer a measure of protection to the Shiites and Kurds from elimination and genocide -- indefinitely. The tens of thousands of children would still be dying each year due to the U.N. sanctions -- indefinitely. Saddam would still be funding the suicide bombers to kill Israel families -- indefinitely. Saddam would still be threatening Israel and his neighbors, with missiles and invasion -- indefinitely. Saddam would still be secretly providing funding and who knows what else to terrorists to use against the U.S. -- indefinitely.

Saddam's actions would be constantly affecting the U.S. and world's stock markets, and people's retirement accounts -- indefinitely. Saddam would be a constant threat to the U.S. and world economies -- indefinitely. And that bad commodity, on which every economy runs and every nation depends -- that oil that Democrats love to hate -- Saddam would still be whipsawing the world markets up and down, mostly up, affecting every American's pocket book -- indefinitely.

Saddam would still have his plans to restart his WMD as soon as he "convinced" the world he had "changed" -- indefinitely. Saddam would have remained a constant threat to mid-East peace and a major obstacle in current and future efforts to, at some point, establish a lasting peace there -- indefinitely. A leopard does not change its spots. Saddam is and would have remained all the evil things that made Saddam and his two barbaric sons what they were and what they would have remained! There are many more issues and reasons, and there are many, many details and discussions related to each reason. Those could fill books.

If it were possible to actually stack up into one enormous pile all of the dead and tortured men, women, children, and families who were victims of Saddam and his murderous, sadistic, and barbaric sons, perhaps that would help Democrats understand why Saddam had to be removed. If it were possible to actually see the trillions of dollars in damage that Saddam and his actions has and would continue to do the U.S. and world economies, and all the people of the world, perhaps that would help Democrats understand why Saddam had to be removed. If it were possible to actually see Saddam's secret plotting, funding, and supporting terrorists behind the scenes, perhaps that would help Democrats understand why Saddam had to be removed. If it were possible to actually see Saddam's plans for future WMDs, military development, and military conquests when U.N. sanctions were removed, perhaps that would help Democrats understand why Saddam had to be removed. I can go on. But NO -- that would not help either -- Democrats would deny it did or would happen!

If Democrats can't actually see or touch something, it didn't happen; it isn't happening; and it won't happen. The fact is, even if Democrats can actually see and touch something, they won't admit that it has or does exist... unless it fits in with their agenda or supports their rhetoric and propaganda mill! Regardless of the facts, Democrats will take it for a "spin around the block" and keep on spinning with their conspiracy theories, allegations, implications, guilt transference, and their brainwashing techniques until their version no longer bears any resemblance to the facts! Democrats live in a world of denial... even when the evidence is dumped and piled at their feet!!!

At some point, enough is enough. At some point talk, tolerance, and containment ends. At some point, it becomes necessary to stop the INDEFINITE actions of Saddam, his sons, and his regime and put a FINITE END to them. At some point it becomes necessary to remove Saddam and his regime.

President Bush, Tony Blair, and a few other world leaders saw that need, and more than that, saw an opportunity -- a fleeting moment in history -- to do just that. President Bush acted -- decisively! President Bush acted as he should have acted. President Bush was exactly the right man for the job and did the right thing at exactly the right time. President Bush put a FINITE END TO SADDAM'S INDEFINITE killings, torture, invasions, threats of invasions, and constant threat to the world's security and economies!!!

Yes, I know, Democrats would have allowed Saddam's regime and business as usual to have continued -- indefinitely, but fortunately for the United States and the World, Democrats weren't in charge or in a position to keep Saddam in power -- even with the help of France, Germany, and Russia.

Yes, there is a cost for putting an end to Saddam's regime, but there would have been far greater costs to allow it to continue -- indefinitely.

If it had not been for DEMOCRATS providing aid, comfort, hope, encouragement, and emboldening the terrorists to start their reign of terror in Iraq... to continue their reign of terrorism... to kill and injure thousands and thousands of American soldiers and Iraqi families... if it were not for DEMOCRATS, Iraqi might already be stable and our American soldiers might already be home!

AAR

I saw this story linked to at another blog a couple days ago, and it got me thinking back to the days leading up to the fall of Bahgdad. It was widely reported that Sadaam had constructed miles and miles of underground tunnels and bunkers under Bahgdad. Within a day or two of the fall of Bahgdad, the news media showed the entrance to one of the underground bunkers, and then it was like the whole topic simply disappeared into a black hole. My biggest concern has never been whether or not Sadaam had WMDs, it's who has them now. It would be an interesting time to be back in the Intelligence Community again.

To me the key point of the article is in the second paragraph:

Dave Gaubatz, however, says that you could not be more wrong. Saddam’s WMD did exist. He should know, because he found the sites where he is certain they were stored.

Where he was certain they were stored. In other words, he hasn't FOUND them, he found the bunkers that once stored them... once being prior to Gulf War I no doubt.

Nobody disputes Saddam did at one time have WMD (mainly because America sold them to him) but he didn't have any left in 2003 and certainly didn't have them poised and ready to fire at either America or Israel.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 passed unanimously on November 8, 2002, offering Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284). Resolution 1441 specifically stated in part:

"That Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by its troops in 1991."

AAR

President Bill Clinton (February 17, 1998)...

"If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force... We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

President Bill Clinton (December 16, 1998)...

"Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."

"The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."

"The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War."

AAR

AAR:

You missed the key quote, you silly person. "Left unchecked." But, fortunately, he was being checked. All the time. We had him contained. No-fly zones. Shoot, we even got the U.N. inspectors back in there! Made him cough up his list of weapons. We had him right where we wanted him.

But was that enough? Nope. Bush, Dick and the heo-cons wanted to OWN the country. Saddam posed NO threat at the time. None. Yet we invaded anyway. And now we own it all right. The whole mess belongs to us.

Hoo. Ray.

Whisperwolf ,

RE: "...Saddam did at one time have WMD (mainly because America sold them to him)..."

Specifically, what WMD did the U.S. sell to Iraq, how much, and when?

AAR

Where's all the liberals? Their normally foaming at the mouth whenever WMD's are mentioned.

Wow. Gaubatz knows through hearsay from a few Iraqi locals that there are massive bunkers. He's never seen those massive bunkers but there is no doubt in his mind that they exist, that they contained biological and chemical weapons, material for a nuclear programme and UN-proscribed missiles. Not only that, he also believes that the US Government + the Republican Party + the Democratic Party + the Military + Great Britain + Russia + China + Syria are all aware of these findings but are all in on the conspiracy to hide this information from the public. He doesn't mention the CIA, the IAEA, Hans Blix, El Baradei, the Iraq Survey Group, David Kay or Charles Duelfer but apparantly they are all part of that conspiracy too.

Oh, and his reports about this when he was in Iraq have all gone missing. Plus it took him four years to come forward with this.

And al of this because David Gaubatz talked to a couple of Iraqis.

Yep, there really must be a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

Cyberactor,

Sure... America and the world had Saddam just where they wanted him... and if it were up to you and the nutty Democrats...

Saddam would still be in power. Saddam and his two sons would still be killing and torturing thousands and thousands of his own people.

The United States, Britain, and coalition members would still have troops, planes, and materiel in the region and on standby to stop or contain Saddam's latest or next military invasion, or plans for invasion of neighboring nations like Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- indefinitely .

We would still be flying constant missions over the no-fly zones to offer a measure of protection to the Shiites and Kurds from elimination and genocide. The tens of thousands of children would still be dying each year due to the U.N. sanctions. Saddam would still be funding the suicide bombers to kill Israel families. Saddam would still be threatening Israel and his neighbors, with missiles and invasion . Saddam would still be secretly providing funding and who knows what else to terrorists to use against the U.S.

Saddam's actions would be constantly affecting and whipsawing the U.S. and world's stock markets, the price and availability of oil upon which every nation's economy runs and depends.

Saddam would still have his plans to restart his WMD as soon as he "convinced" the world he had "changed". Saddam would have remained a constant threat to mid-East peace and a major obstacle in current and future efforts to, at some point, establish a lasting peace there.

AAR

Specifically, what WMD did the U.S. sell to Iraq, how much, and when?

I'm actually glad you asked that. A brief google search turned up this. I'll dig deeper if you want.

Reports by the US Senate's committee on banking, housing and urban affairs -- which oversees American exports policy -- reveal that the US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Snr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene. Classified US Defence Department documents also seen by the Sunday Herald show that Britain sold Iraq the drug pralidoxine, an antidote to nerve gas, in March 1992, after the end of the Gulf war. Pralidoxine can be reverse engineered to create nerve gas. The Senate committee's rep orts on 'US Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual-Use Exports to Iraq', undertaken in 1992 in the wake of the Gulf war, give the date and destination of all US exports. The reports show, for example, that on May 2, 1986, two batches of bacillus anthracis -- the micro-organism that causes anthrax -- were shipped to the Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education, along with two batches of the bacterium clostridium botulinum, the agent that causes deadly botulism poisoning. One batch each of salmonella and E coli were shipped to the Iraqi State Company for Drug Industries on August 31, 1987. Other shipments went from the US to the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission on July 11, 1988; the Department of Biology at the University of Basrah in November 1989; the Department of Microbiology at Baghdad University in June 1985; the Ministry of Health in April 1985 and Officers' City, a military complex in Baghdad, in March and April 1986. The shipments to Iraq went on even after Saddam Hussein ordered the gassing of the Kurdish town of Halabja, in which at least 5000 men, women and children died. The atrocity, which shocked the world, took place in March 1988, but a month later the components and materials of weapons of mass destruction were continuing to arrive in Baghdad from the US. The Senate report also makes clear that: 'The United States provided the government of Iraq with 'dual use' licensed materials which assisted in the development of Iraqi chemical, biological and missile-system programmes.'

Source: http://www.rense.com/general29/wesold.htm

No, that story's not right.

Here's what really happened. I have it on good authority (my friend's brother is married to the sister of a guy who's brother is an Iraqi) that Saddam took his tons of WMDS (nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, sharks with laser beams) and was going to send them to Syria. Unfortunately, Iran, in concert with Russia, France, Michael Moore, and Howard Dean used a secret team of ninjas trained by a DNC death squad to hijack the shipments and take the WMDs to Iran. This was all part of a plot by Iran to take over the US, kidnap all our women, and make them wear burkas. Also, Democrats suck and want America to fail.

Since we're sharing conspiracy stories today, I thought I'd lay mine on you.

AAR, the big unanswered question to me is... what would have happened had Bush allowed the UN arms inspectors to ramp up their continuing inspections past March, 2003? This may be tantamount to beating a dead horse (since it will in no way change the present), but seeing as how you seem to be perfectly willing to beat dead horses, I'm curious how you'd answer that. I don't mean my question to be construed as some simple yes/no, invade/don't invade question -- although both those options could be considered. I'm really asking about all the options surrounding the whole milieu -- the timing, the conditions, the diplomatic options available at the time (with regard to the UN, Europe, Russia, China, Iran, Syria, the rest of the Middle East, etc.), so on and so forth. Specifically, what do you perceive to be the downside to continuing the inspections, if any? And what do you perceive to be the upside, if any?

Cyberactowned...well done, sir (or madam).

Gar Wood

whisper - i've cited that very same document in this blog on an earlier wmd-related diary. brings to mind that haunting image of rummy shaking hands with saddam in 1983.

this is classic however:

GOPers don't want it known that a GOP Administration blew it on securing Iraqi WMD materials..

astonishing leap of logic.

The problem for the GOP right now is that there IS a paper trail and it goes back decades. While AAR and Keefer would dearly love to accuse me of trying to make up facts, their stumbling block is the paperwork for all these sales together with the fact that the media doesn't want the knowledge to leak out. It's not so much that people are ignorant about these things, it's that the media - yes, I mean you, Fox News (among others) - has specifically steered clear of telling people.

But that doesn't mean this hasn't been going on. And I look at the banner at the bottom, saying "what book will drive Democrats crazy this year?" and I look at the paper trail that proves corruption in Bush Sr, Bush Jr and Reagan's administration and I can't help thinking... these things must be driving Republicans crazy this year!

These aren't just random things plucked out of thin air, or imagined... these are documented sales of WMD to Iraq, specifically a Saddam Hussein run Iraq. You can pretend they don't exist if you want but that won't make it so.

cyber - let me give you a rough summary translation from AAR:

"if it were not for george bush, and the dems were still in power, we'd be sitting around eating goat meat and rice, prostrating ourselves at the feet of our newly self-imposed invader and dictator, saddam hussein.."

must be one of those types that actually gets frightened everytime we have a conveniently-timed threat status alert upgrade.

Well, I mean- that's the way the Bush Admin. is run. It's fuel is fear. Scaring the bejesus out of you is part and parcel of their success. The trouble is, when you go back and look at their claims later on, you see what B.S. it all is.

Again, look at the Lynch and Tillman testimony yesterday. The Bushies needed good news out of a bad war so they took great pains to lie about the soldiers and make them poster children. But when the facts are examined? Oops.

And that's this Administratino in a nutshell. One big "Oops."

Well, if you really want to have this debate on the proper stage, the Dems are about to subpoena Condi Rice about just that sort of item... Why not encourage her to go forth & answer these questions honestly (or at least "as honestly as she can", a la Gonzo) rather than continue to stonewall, if it's such a goldmine for Republican PR...

Also,

Yes, I know, Democrats would have allowed Saddam's regime and business as usual to have continued -- indefinitely

Yeah! Just like... Bush senior did in '91.

Oops.

where have those semi-monthly threat status alerts been of late anyhow???

must no longer be politically expedient now that the elections have come to pass.

Whisperwolf,

I don't have time right now to do more research on your information, but if true...

It certainly would give most rational thinking people reason to believe (to know beyond any doubt) that Saddam had WMD which could have killed millions of Americans, either directly by Saddam's agents or if sold or given to terrorists like Al Qaeda to attack the U.S.

It certainly gives credibility to the constant fears of Israel and the countries around Iraq that he could, at any time, unleash an attack of chemical and biological weapons on them which could kill millions of their citizens.

Saddam was asked -- ordered by the U.N. -- on numerous occasions to show and prove what he did with the WMD he was KNOWN to have. Saddam chose not to do that. Saddam defiantly refused to do that and allowed the world to believe he still had those WMD that we KNEW he had!

Considering that the U.S. in fact KNEW Saddam had WMD... and that he kicked the U.N. inspectors out before they could determine what he did with them... and considering that he only allowed the U.N. inspectors back in becasue of the threat of action by President Bush... and considering that he had more than ample time an reason to hide the WMD to use later... and considering he in fact burried entire airplanes...

That would certainly give President Bush a REAL and VALID reason to either know definitely where those KNOWN WMD were or to REMOVE Saddam to prevent him from using them or developing others which could end up in the U.S.... especially following the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and demands that the president do whatever was necessary to prevent another, or possibly greater attack.

Perhaps that is what lead to the following DEMOCRAT comments...

Joe Biden (August 4, 2002)...

"I think he has anthrax. I have not seen any evidence that he has smallpox, but you hear them say, Tim (Russert), is the last smallpox outbreak in the world was in Iraq; ergo, he may have a strain."

Al Gore (September 23, 2002) ...

"We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Ted Kennedy (September 27, 2002)...

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

Considering the facts, the many unknowns, the dire consequences to the U.S. if those WMD were used by Saddam or permitted to fall into the hands of terrorists...

President Bush was more than justified in removing Saddam and searching the country for those weapons. Most Americans would not really have wanted the deaths of millions of Americans, attributable to Saddam's WMD, to actually confirm their existence.

Of course, with the DEMOCRATS 20/20 perfect hindsight, they can claim otherwise. Why didn't they claim that at the time the votes were cast?!!!

AAR

Perhaps that is what lead to the following DEMOCRAT comments...

do the ideals of DEMOCRACY and the DEMOCRATIC PROCESS sound too close for comfort for you and your fox news cohorts? so much so that you have to engage in behavior normally reserved for children?

that's DEMOCRATIC to you sir - and don't you forget it. grown-ups are in charge now and no amount of impish behavior will obscure that fact.

legion

RE: "Democrats would have allowed Saddam's regime and business as usual to have continued -- indefinitely..."

Just like... President William J. Clinton, the forty-second President of the United States (1993-2001) who KNEW that Saddam DID in fact HAVE WMD but did little to stop it or remove it during the time he was president.

Oh, yes... Clinton "contained" Saddam while he went on his merry way killing and torturing and threatening the nations around him, and while he kept our military busy monitoring and "spanking" him occasionally when he was a little more "misbehaved" than normal... and while 5,000 to 6,000 Iraqi children were dying each and every month that Clinton kept Saddam "contained" (not to mention the tens or hundreds of thousands of others Saddam and his sons tortured, raped, and killed while Clinton had him "contained"!!!

AAR

legion,

I haven't had time to check the latest news...

Are you saying "the Dems are about to subpoena Condi Rice" or are the "Dems going to try and issue another unconstitutional subpoena" which the President and Condi will ignore?

I really haven't checked yet.

AAR

AAR,

Let me add this quote:

"We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict."

Here is where I fault the Bush administration for their lack of communication skills. It seems that they spoke as if the mere presence of WMD in Saddam's Iraq was one of our reasons for going to war. More precisely, it was Saddam's failure to live up to the requirements of the 1991 cease-fire agreement, coupled with his subsequent defiance of several U.N. resolutions calling him to account for the WMD.

With that in mind, I'd better reveal the author of the above quote:

Senator Harry Reid, October 9, 2002.

All,

According to UNSCOM (That would be the United Nations Special Commission overseeing the weapons inspections in Iraq), the following WMD are STILL unaccounted for from the amounts declared by Iraq:

Scud missile components, warheads and propellant
17 tons of growth media for the production of BW agents
Items of CW production equipment
4000 tons of CW precursors
750 tons of VX precursors
100 al-Hussein missiles
31,000 CW munitions
20 R-17 Scud-B -type missiles
40-70 CBW-capable missile warheads
Significant quantities of biological warfare agents
Significant quantities of 155-mm ammunition rounds

This list is not made up. It is from the official UNSCOM document.

As others have stated, it is not whether or not Iraq possessed WMD. The had in the past and retained the capability to resume WMD programs (although prohibited by the UN). The question is: what happened to the WMD listed above, all of which were prohibited items?

Bigfoot bigfoot bigfoot...the windsock was blowing a different direction in 2002, you cant fault Reid for merely sticking his finger in the air and following the popular breeze.

Many democrats have advocated military action to remove Hussein, but that was BEFORE a republican achieved the presidency. Now things have changed. Its not about the interests of the nation anymore, its about picking up senate seats (also the words of Harry Reid).

Ricorun, Bigfoot, I read your posts and intend to leave a few comments, but it may be tomorrow before I can get back to it.

Ricorun, I left a few links a couple of days ago in response to your question on the evolution thread. I don't know if you saw them, or if they were what you wanted.

AAR

To the nutty libs,

U.S. DID NOT sell chemical/biological weapons to Iraq. That is a flat out lie.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/az120103.html

The chemical weapons used on the Kurds were not of U.S. origin. That has been verified by the U.N. after the infamous attack. The residues leave a signature that can be traced back to the original formula. The formula did not match that of US weapons.

The biological SAMPLES sent to Iraq were from the CDC for "legitimate medical research" according to Iraq. Now, what they did with the samples..... but it was not WMD stocks. According to Jonathan Tucker former U.N. biological weapons inspector:

"I don't think it would be accurate to say the United States government deliberately provided seed stocks to the Iraqis' biological weapons programs. But they did deliver samples that Iraq said had a legitimate public health purpose, which I think was naive to believe, even at the time."

There is not corroburating evidence to support Whisperpup's claim. I have searched for the senate report he speaks of and the only site that comes up is his. Other senate reports discuss a DUTCH businessman selling chemical weapons to Iraq. His "SOURCE" is highly dubious.

Well, WMDs have been found in Iraq and they have to blame someone...why not the Republicans?

...grown-ups are in charge now and no amount of impish behavior will obscure that fact.

Yeah, the impish behaviour of Harry and Nancy isn't obscuring anything. The DemocRAT party is in charge...the grownups. I feel safer already...

...its about picking up senate seats (also the words of Harry Reid).

That's Harry W.F. Reid-tard, DemocRAT party leader in the Senate. Nancy Piglosi, Speaker of the Mosque, is DemocRAT party leader in the House, along with Steny Hoyer, DemocRAT party majority leader.

that's DEMOCRATIC to you sir - and don't you forget it.

No, constripper, we'll stick with DemocRAT party, thanks very much...

We are in Iraq for many reasons, but it is pointless to discuss those reasons again with Democrats (Liberals).

AAR, it's pointless to discuss anything but appeasement and surrender with the DemocRAT party...

Please do present your evidence for WMDs in Iraq Mark. Where can we go dig them up?

AAR: Ricorun, I left a few links a couple of days ago in response to your question on the evolution thread. I don't know if you saw them, or if they were what you wanted.

Yes they were. Thanks. I thought they'd sort of help to fill the argument out a little for those so interested.

Speaking of WMD, remember Pakistan has a nuclear arsenal. This development is BAD!

Musharraf Caves to Islamists, Will Implement Sharia...

"Musharraf Caves to Red Mosque Demands": Islamists' 'Death By A Thousand Cuts' Strategy Gains Another Slice

(ThreatsWatch.org) Pakistan Muslim League president Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain visited Lal Masjid (Red Mosque) and conveyed to its two leaders that the Pakistani government has accepted all of Lal Masjid’s demands, including the implementation of Sharia Law in Pakistan. It is another example of the Musharraf government’s inability to contain the pro-Taliban and pro-al-Qaeda Islamist movement inside Pakistan. While ceding real estate to the Taliban-al-Qaeda alliance through the various ‘peace accords’ that handed terrorists South Waziristan, North Waziristan and Bajour agencies is troubling in its own right, this latest set of concessions is more troubling still.

First, it occurs not in the wild tribal areas that the Pakistani government exerts little control over. Rather, this latest concession takes place right in downtown Islamabad, Pakistan’s capital city.

Second, it cedes not territory but ideological ideals to violent Islamists aligned with the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Ideological ground is exponentially more difficult to regain once ceded than real estate.

We know saddam had WMD because he USED THEM on his own people. It is crystal clear. This is a fact which the libs choose to ignore. There is no evidence that saddam destroyed them. Therefore, there are two choices. Either they are still in Iraq and we just have not located them or more likely they were taken out into another country before the war began. I wonder what all those trucks going into syria from Iraq were for.

Freedom1,

I've said before that Pakistan could pose a nuclear threat to the United States... a possibility that our elitist pseudo-intellectual Democrats can't imagine or understand.

My most recent comments to that effect was during the recent discussion on the topic "Successful SDI Test" in which I said:

China has nuclear missiles and they are developing newer and more advanced ones. What happens if we get into a conflict over Taiwan? What happens if China or another nation tries to blackmail America? India and Pakistan have nuclear missiles and are working on longer range and more advanced ones. An anti-American group, an Islamic fundamentalist group, an Al Qaeda group, or even Osama bin Laden himself and his followers could very easily overthrow the current Pakistani government and gain control of their nuclear missiles and weapons.

Here's another interesting paragraph from the article you referenced:

Meanwhile, Hamid Gul and Usama bin Laden bide their time patiently. Musharraf’s caving to the pro-Taliban and pro-al-Qaeda Lal Masjid Islamists is but another cut in their ‘Death By a Thousand Cuts’ strategy. And patiently they will wait until the time is right for the final cut, which will almost certainly be a swift and violent insurgency initiated by a Madrassa Match in the Pakistani Tinderbox.

And here are a few comments from our pseudo-intellectual Democrat "defense planning strategists" from the discussion on the "Successful SDI Test":

Okay, let's think about this. If a rogue state such as North Korea or Iran, or more plausibly, a terrorist organization were to use a nuke against our country, do you really think it would come in the form of a ballistic missile? Do you really? ...

I hate to burst your bubble, but unless we are expecting Mexico or Canada to turn on us, or to be susceptible to Iranian boomers in the Chesapeake, there is nothing 'common senseical' about the billions of dollars we continually pour into a still-failing missile defense system.

Scud-D have a max range of 700 km (under 450 miles). And while I agree that there may come a day where we face another nation's force on our borders, the fact that the last 50 years and untold billions have produced nothing greater than the ability to shoot-down mid-range ballistic missiles 60 seconds before they land would be a pathetic legacy, even with respects towards Bush's 'accomplishments' so far.

I'm not defending the democrats. I'm saying there is a much better chance of a nuke coming in over our border than by missile.

To ignore, as Democrats do, the real possibility that a nuclear missile could be fired from a country such as Pakistan, which could fall into the hands of Islamic fundamentalists and terrorists, including Osama bin Laden, is like playing Russian roulette with America's major cities!

The nation itself need not fall into the hands of the fundamentalists and terrorists to pose that threat. There are many millions of bin Laden and Taliban sympathizers who could overthrow a missile site, or fundamentalists and terrorists could infiltrated a site and be among the workers and operators!

Does any rational thinking individual believe Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda, or a group of radical Islamic fundamentalists would even worry about retaliation for a nuclear missile strike, if they could take out one or more American cities, Israel, or our allies? Not in the least... they would view their actions as a ticket to heaven just as the suicide bombers do who blow themselves up along with their victims!

AAR

Whisper,

From your same source:

HBCC UFO Research Note: at the end of this wonderful report you will find 4 links which will take you to a diagram and graphic work which shows what this craft appeared to look like. Also I would like to mention that I will be doing a telephone interview with the gentleman and will be airing this coming up soon. Lastly if anyone who is or was living in the Fort Stockton, Texas area at the time of this sighting and happens to know anything about this, would they please contact either myself at HBCC UFO Research or Mr. John Hayes at UFOINFO with the details. Description: Although this sighting happened in 1974, I was afraid to go public with it because of my paranoia of the Government and the ridicule of my friends or family. What I am about to tell you needs further investigation because there were numerous witnesses at the time. Yet, it never was mentioned by the media. This sighting happened when I was a Sophmore in High School at Ft. Stockton, Texas. Ft Stockton is a small town of 10,000 in far west Texas on the way to El Paso.

http://www.rense.com/general76/footufo.htm

Please don't ever post anything from that site again - it will be deleted.

AAR,

Don't bother - its from a paranoid, conspiracy theory site.

And, Whisper,

You should know that Saddam was a Soviet client - his State was Stalinist; he never, ever was a client of the United States. He received more than half his military hardware from Russia and about a third from France. Over the years of Saddam's rule, he managed to obtain more military hardware from Brazil than from the United States and Great Britain COMBINED.

Please stop thinking that one grainy photo of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand proves a whole slew of conspiracy theories...

Adding to what Mark said...

During the period from 1973-1990, the Soviet Union, China, France, Germany, and Czechoslovakia were the big suppliers of military materiel and hardware to Iraq... and they continued to do so until President Bush stopped the need for their sales!

The Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact provided 68.9% of the military sales to Iraq; France provided 12.7%; China provided 11.8%; and the rest of the world, excluding the United States provided 6.1%.

The United States provided only .5 %, or $200 million dollars, of the total arms sold to Iraq from 1973-1990 -- a small and rather insignificant amount when compared to the $30 plus BILLION sold by rest of the world!

And why did the United States sell anything at all to Iraq? Because it was in the best of the interest of the United States to do so based on other threats and circumstances.

During that time, providing a small amount of support to Iraq was the best of two evils to counter and balance Iran and other threats. When circumstances and threats changed, however, the United States changed accordingly.

Saddam became a bigger threat and, by 1989, the United States stopped arms sales to him altogether... unlike our "allies" like France and Germany, and those who oppose the United States like Russia and China!

AAR

Posted by: AAR at April 26, 2007 12:42 AM

I agree completely, AAR. Excellent post!

Oh, and speaking of China's military capabilities, didn't China just blow up a satellite in space? This is soooooooooooo dangerous in sooooo many ways. I could just imagine China destroying a US space shuttle while in orbit-or docked at the ISS. Or nuclear blackmail, or....

I hate to burst your bubble, but unless we are expecting Mexico or Canada to turn on us,

Neither Mexico nor Canada needs to turn on us to be a major threat. Canada has approximately 700,000 Muslims living there right now and a recent poll indicated that 12% of those Muslims favored violent jihad against Canada. Those Muslims could harbor jihadists who have smuggled in nuclear missile technology from Pakistan or Iran. These jihadists could launch a nuclear strike from Canada on Washington, D.C, New York, etc. The possibilities are endlessly scary. SDI is vital to America's survival! America needs to deploy the SDI shield at every strategic location possible.

I don't know about psuedo-intellectual Democrats, but I'd rather have a shield and not need it, than not have it and be nuked.

I see that the responses to the Wisperingpup's post from a more than less credible site has shut him up!

It is amazing the lengths libs like him will go to put ANY negativity towards this administration and any Republican administration before, regardless of the inaction of previous Democrat administrations. They chose to ignore the problem, through appeasement. While at the same time, pat themselves on the back for the "tough" stances they took against these thugs.

We are getting more of the same from the libs in the House and Senate. They are playing politics with the lives of the military and every US citizen in the world.

Weakness is just asking for trouble.

Those Muslims could harbor jihadists who have smuggled in nuclear missile technology from Pakistan or Iran. These jihadists could launch a nuclear strike from Canada on Washington, D.C, New York, etc

Posted by: Freedom1 at April 26, 2007 03:36 AM

Holy Moly, Freedom, you have enough evidence right there to launch a shock & awe invasion against Canada. How dare those terrorist-loving pacifists give solace to the enemy. You have no choice, nuke those Canadian traitors before the jihadists do their damage.

I've got your attention, CO.

Good.

Bigfoot,

Thanks for the link. I'll use some of those quotes in future posts!

RE: "Here is where I fault the Bush administration for their lack of communication skills. It seems that they spoke as if the mere presence of WMD in Saddam's Iraq was one of our reasons for going to war. More precisely, it was Saddam's failure to live up to the requirements of the 1991 cease-fire agreement, coupled with his subsequent defiance of several U.N. resolutions calling him to account for the WMD."

I agree, the Bush administration definitely lacks communication skills, or at least they don't use them very effectively, on issue after issue! In the case of Iraq, the administration's almost sole reliance on the actual existence of WMD to justify the Iraq was a major mistake.

We know that now, but we didn't find that out until well afterwards. There were, in fact, numerous reasons that could have been used to justify the war and removing Saddam, including the failure of Saddam to live up to the previous cease-fire agreement as you said. The administration selected and concentrated on WMD "the reason" because it was easily understood, and it was a "known" fact... which even the Democrats and Saddam's friends in France, Russia, and around the world KNEW and BELIEVED was true. The possibility of a WMD attack on the U.S. was an immediate and major concern to the security of the U.S. after 9/11. Just look at what happened with the anthrax incident immediately after 9/11.

If all of the reasons had been stated and discussed prior to the war, the American people would have had a much better understanding of the totality of reasons for the war and why Saddam had to be removed... and removed then! Had that been done, it is not likely that Democrats would have been able to make WMD the central and single issue they did following the war.

Where I fault the Administration, though, is in not recognizing what the Democrats were doing... for not mounting a full court press to counter the Democrat's obvious propaganda and brainwashing campaign... for not stopping the Democrats from pressing and succeeding in their false "Bush lied" propaganda... and for sitting idly by while the Democrats worked methodically and repeatedly, 24/7, day after day, and over and over and over, to develop the reflexive Pavlovian response to their "Bush lied" catch phrase. It was obvious to many of us what was happening. Anyone who talked to the average American voter could see and understand what was happening -- anyone that is but the Republican politicians!

Republicans had issue after issue and opportunity after opportunity to do exactly what Democrats are doing now and have done in the past. Republicans could have conducted many, many legitimate "inquisitions" on all of those security leaks and the leaking of classified data to the news; on the illegal aliens and their negative impact on this nation; on English as our official language; on the facts and impacts of judges making laws and their unconstitutional rulings; on Democrats blocking efforts to increase our own oil and gas and the cost of those actions to the American people; on Democrats using the terrorist violence and deaths of American troops and Iraqi families causing even more deaths and, in effect, the Democrat's killing our soldiers; etc., etc., etc.

The Republicans did little then to counter the Democrat's rhetoric and propaganda, and they continues the same way today. The Democrats continue with their "believable lies" and propaganda with little effective response from Republicans.

We cannot afford to support or vote for any Republicans who do not understand brainwashing and indoctrination techniques; who cannot understand how to use today's media; or who sit idly by and allow Democrats to say and do as they please -- uncontested and unchecked by Republican politicians!

AAR

Bigfoot,

From one of my previous posts...

The President talked almost exclusively about the WMD. Why? Because the ENTIRE WORLD KNEW it was a FACT. Even Saddam's friends -- France, Russia, and others -- believed and KNEW Saddam still had the WMD. And why wouldn't they? Saddam did have them. Saddam had used them many times. The UN weapon's inspectors said and reported that he still had them when Saddam threw them out. Saddam told the world he had them and would use them!

Further and foremost, WMD and their potential consequences to the United States and the world were something that was easily understood by most Americans -- and WE and the ENTIRE WORLD KNEW they were there! So why spend time and effort talking about all of the other issues when that one was more than enough to justify the war? Of course, now that we have the benefit, clarity, and accuracy of history and hindsight to tell us more about the event, our Democrat left can stand back and tell us what we (THEY!) "should have known". The fact is... it was the correct action then... and it still was the correct action now... for many reasons!

After 9/11, President Bush and most Americans were in no position to allow another enemy to directly or indirectly provide the means for another massive and devastating attack on the United States. President Bush and America took the action that needed to be taken. Now, however, Democrats stand back and falsely call President Bush a liar -- which he isn't! But that's another one of those "believable lies" the Democrats are so good at using.

The REAL MISTAKE President Bush and Republicans made was in allowing the Democrats (LIBERALS) to continue their misleading lies and hate filled propaganda essentially unchallenged. Perhaps the President and Republicans thought that most Americans could and would see through the Democrat's propaganda and hate. That was a costly mistake and misjudgment on the part of Republicans -- a mistake for which ALL Americans must suffer until the Democrats are once again removed from power.

Republicans MUST LEARN that if they allow Democrats to repeat lies and propaganda over and over and over, more and more people will begin to believe it... just like many millions have been mislead into falsely believing that the U.S. government blew up the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and President Bush dynamited the levees around New Orleans. Some people will believe anything -- and the Democrats use that fact very effectively to support their agenda!

AAR

Ricorun,

RE: "AAR, the big unanswered question to me is... what would have happened had Bush allowed the UN arms inspectors to ramp up their continuing inspections past March, 2003? This may be tantamount to beating a dead horse (since it will in no way change the present), but seeing as how you seem to be perfectly willing to beat dead horses, I'm curious how you'd answer that. I don't mean my question to be construed as some simple yes/no, invade/don't invade question -- although both those options could be considered. I'm really asking about all the options surrounding the whole milieu -- the timing, the conditions, the diplomatic options available at the time (with regard to the UN, Europe, Russia, China, Iran, Syria, the rest of the Middle East, etc.), so on and so forth. Specifically, what do you perceive to be the downside to continuing the inspections, if any? And what do you perceive to be the upside, if any?"

Yours are very good questions to which there are no quick, short, simple, and easy answers. In spite of my best intentions, I still haven't had a chance to put together a good draft, first-cut in response to your questions.

Since this thread is nearing the archives, and your questions deserve more than a few quick comments (which would only serve as targets for passing trolls), I think I will wait to a future topic to even begin that discussion.

AAR