I’m about 2 weeks behind this topic, because I was focusing on other things (like surviving bronchitis), but I brought myself up to speed this morning. What I discovered is that the US press has subjected the American public to one of the most th…

You know how the left has been insisting – all the way up to right now – that Saddam had no ties to terrorist groups? And you know how that’s totally retarded? It’s really retarded: Saddam Hussein’s intelligence service……

Not splitting hairs and trying to apologize for the two terror sponsoring regimes in Damascus and Tehran but at least they knew when to not mess with us (apparently now it’s ok again to kill Americans for them though).

for the rest of us, it shows that Saddam needed to go — and the sooner, the better.

That’s B.S.: Iran and Syria had (and have) greater ties to international terrorists than Saddam Hussein ever did. But (at the time), they had no visible WMD obfuscation, no UN entanglement, so they weren’t the right targets; Iraq was. Every time we put it as a simple case of “Iraq funded terrorists, thus we changed the regime,” we present a weak and incomplete argument that plays into the left-wing arguments against the war.

If enabling terror was the gold standard, Iraq might be one of the last countries in the region we would have gone after: Iran first, then Syria. Iraq would be somewhere in the middle of terror-ambivalent governments like those in the PA, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Lebanon. Iraq was a threat because it had had nuclear and other WMD programs, it used WMDs, it continued to hide the status of these programs, and it demonstrated antagonism toward its neighbors, Israel, and the U.S., to the point of both invasions and terror programs. This could be said of no other country in 2003. “Terror-friendly” could be said of sadly many countries (and still can).

Nice on paper, but that’s not even close to what happened. What happened was hard leftists as usual obstructed the Iraq war on grounds that “war is not the answer,” and that we ought to be like children and “visualize world peace.”

In other words, the left had no coherent argument against the war in Iraq. Just hatred of America and vacuous slogans, which is all they’ve ever had.

Actually, the Left did have some (semi)coherent arguments against the war, and I still remember them well;

1) Saddam is in a box, he’s got now friends internationally, and has no way to sell oil for anything other then humanitarian needs.

2) If we do go to war, Saddam will use his WMD on our soldiers or our allies.

3) If it looks like he is losing said war, Saddam will turn over his WMDs to his terrorists allies.

We don’t hear these anymore, of course, because #1 turned out to be false, and #2 and #3 directly contradict the current lefty talking point that everyone knew Saddam didn’t really have WMD…

I’ve only briefly looked through this report so far and this thing is AWSOME. In all seriousness, except for the part where the report says “no smoking gun,” this thing IS A SMOKING GUN!

One nice tidbit, from the report. Here’s a list of weapons and explosives stored in IRAQI EMBASSIES around the world:

Romania – Missile launcher and missile
Athens [Greece] – Explosive charges
Vienna [Austria] – Explosive charges, rifles with silencers, hand grenades,
and Kalashnikov rifles
Pakistan – Explosive materials ofTNT
India – Plastic explosive charges and booby-trapped suitcases
Thailand – Plastic explosive charges and booby-trapped suitcases
Prague [Czech] – Missile launcher and missile
Turkey – Missile launcher, missile, and pistols with silencers
Sana’a [Yemen] – Missile launcher, missile, plastic explosives and explosive
charges
Baku [Azerbaijan] – American missile launcher, plastic explosives and
booby-trapped suitcases
Beirut [Lebanon] – American missile launcher, plastic explosives and
booby-trapped suitcases
Gulf nations – Explosive material outside the embassies

BohicaTwentyTwo on March 14, 2008 at 10:36 AM

Great post. I hope to couple this stuff with some old posts I did about what was found in Saddam’s embassies that I wrote about at my site.

I hope to see more reporting on this in the coming days and will do a post of my own with quotes from naysayers.

Likewise, in their land of milk and honey (and other illegal substances), with three suns rising every morning, Bill Clinton’s Justice Department’s 1998 indictment of bin Laden, which specifically mentioned ties between OBL and Saddam, never existed. In fact, I’ve repetaedly posted the actual indictment text to many blogs, and the BDS’ers all deny that it’s “real” or even happened. Likewise when I give specific news reporting examples from the late 1990s from such non-right wing sources as the BBC, they stick their fingers in their ears and go “La-La-La, I can’t hear you!”

Let’s face it-the modern Left’s second-worst nightmare is that bin Laden and Saddam had some sort of relationship. And their worst nightmare is that Iraq could possibly had some sort of role in terrorist attacks AQ made against the US. They would rather be waterboarded and then fed into a Usay Hussein people shredder than admit such a possibilty. Because that would (1) destroy the Bill Clinton “legacy” and in turn enhance the legacy of Chimpy Bush.

The vast majority of these deniers are college kids, who are fed on a weekly and even daily basis such BS by their “professors” that there is no way Saddam would work with Ozzie. But they are blinded by their own hate to see reality. In their warped vision, al Qaeda existed in nearly every country on the planet except one-the one we invaded in 2003. HELLO?

Let’s remember what an ancient sage once said, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”.

Oooh, my position’s changed more than yours has! Nanny, nanny, boo, boo! I’m hurt…

My point was in response to your assertion at 6:11 PM that I was unable to bring myself to reevaluate.

Exit question: Why did you mention Wolfowitz, as opposed to other, much better-known members of the Bush Administration? Just words?

Wolfowitz was the policy architect most focused on the Iraq invasion and favored doing so with a small troop footprint. I brought his name up because of the disgreements he had with Anthony Zinni over the policy of containment, a policy which Wolfowitz famously criticized in a 1998 article in Foreign Affairs. Four days after 9/11 Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz met with the President with three options for military action–Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Iraq. It was Wolfowitz who made the strongest case for Iraq.

Wolfowitz was also providing senior level analysis while Rumsfeld failed to react properly to the insurgency. Wolfowitz said during one of the meetings with the military, where senior officers were requesting more forces be deployed into Iraq: “I don’t see why it would take more troops to occupy the country thant to take down the regime.”

I think McCain has been pretty good with Iraq. He supported the invasion, criticized the Pentagon, called for Rumsfeld to be fired, supported the surge, and given credit to Petraeus

Did the “too politically sensitive” bit apply to the Saudi Royals?
If so, what’s changed?

OldEnglish on March 14, 2008 at 6:18 PM

Oh, you mean THAT Army of Mohammad, nevermind.

Angry Dumbo on March 14, 2008 at 6:20 PM

It seems that I was remiss in not further expanding my last comment. What I was referring to was the enormous power wielded by this small group of individuals in areas such as ideological guidance and financial patronage, throughout the Islamic world.

My position on what we should do has changed more than your’s has.

Oooh, my position’s changed more than yours has! Nanny, nanny, boo, boo! I’m hurt…

Maybe my position hasn’t changed (you’re ASSuming, again, that it hasn’t, and that you’ve known what it has been, since 2003) because information (say, like, the topic at hand) has confirmed my “position”, rather than created a necessity to change it, as, obviously, it has with your incorrect position. As you’ve just admitted.

Exit question: Why did you mention Wolfowitz, as opposed to other, much better-known members of the Bush Administration? Just words?

dmh0667 on March 14, 2008 at 6:11 PM

My position on what we should do has changed more than your’s has. In 2002 I thought containment was the best strategy. After the capture of Saddam I saw that we had to stay and have been critical of those who have favored withdrawal.

What is the obvious connection between Don Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz based on their names? It seems important to you, but you haven’t advanced an argument.

Most people consider history worth studying.

Didn’t say whether I did or not, so you’ve made an pompous ASSumption of yourself, once again. Again, what does this have to do with where we are RIGHT NOW? In other words, you can’t bring yourself to RE-EVALUATE, because you clearly can’t handle what answer you just know will spit out. I feel for you….but your willingness to admit your problem (i.e. “additional information doesn’t change my opinion”) is the first step to the cure.

What is it about the names Rumsfeld and Lieberman that you are reaching for? Not sure whether your point is inaccurate or illogical.

Yeah, I guess your obvious negative feelings about people who have names like the ones I mentioned doesn’t strike you as neither inaccurate or illogical, do you? Otherwise, why was Wolfowitz’ name right on the tip of your tongue when condemning OIF?

Methinks you’ve flown too near the Sun, much like your ill-fated son. Have a nice swim!

So which is it? You don’t wish to accept things that prove the invasion was a good idea, after all? You don’t like rosy scenarios that don’t turn out “happily ever after”? (If this is it, don’t ever get married!) Or is it you don’t like people with names like Wolfowitz, Perle, Rumsfeld, Cohen, Lieberman, etc. making policy in this country? Hmmmmm?

dmh0667 on March 14, 2008 at 5:21 PM

Most people consider history worth studying.

Addressing the thread topic, the additional information doesn’t change my opinion from 2002 or now that the invasion and occupation don’t pass the cost/benefit test.

I agreed with then Secretary of State Powell that the Pottery Barn principle applied. Here in 2008 we’ve clearly bought it and we need to make it work. It doesn’t mean it was a good purchase.

What is it about the names Rumsfeld and Lieberman that you are reaching for? Not sure whether your point is inaccurate or illogical.

Remember earlier this week how the media reported – probably on the basis of false anti-Bush leaks from inside the Pentagon – that a new report cleared Saddam of ties to AQ? Turns out, not so much: A new……

dedalus on March 14, 2008 at 4:30 PM

And this blathering and your “learning from history” has what to do with disproving the topic of the thread? Only that you don’t wish to accept facts surfacing RIGHT NOW which dispense for why you don’t like Wolfowitz(?) and his peeps, apparently…

So which is it? You don’t wish to accept things that prove the invasion was a good idea, after all? You don’t like rosy scenarios that don’t turn out “happily ever after”? (If this is it, don’t ever get married!) Or is it you don’t like people with names like Wolfowitz, Perle, Rumsfeld, Cohen, Lieberman, etc. making policy in this country? Hmmmmm?

dmh0667 on March 14, 2008 at 3:18 PM

Mostly skeptical of rosie scenarios and Wolfowitz and Co. seemed that way in 2002. Once we were in and toppled Saddam it became important for us to stay committed until we can leave the country stable. It doesn’t mean that the invasion itself was a good idea. It certainly doesn’t mean that the architects of the invasion did their jobs well.

Are you in favor of learning from or repeating history?