Done deal: US agrees to Russian terms on UN Syria deal

posted at 8:31 am on September 14, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

There was coverage of the prospect of this happening by the time Quotes of the day went up last night, but this morning it seems the news is official. A deal has been struck, and it’s pretty much everything Vladimir Putin was insisting on and nothing that the Obama administration wanted for insurance.

U.S., Russia reach agreement on seizure of Syrian chemical weapons arsenal

The United States and Russia agreed Saturday on an outline for the identification and seizure of Syrian chemical weapons and said Syria must turn over an accounting of its arsenal within a week.

The agreement will be backed by a U.N. Security Council resolution that could allow for sanctions or other consequences if Syria fails to comply, Secretary of State John F. Kerry said.

Kerry said that the first international inspection of Syrian chemical weapons will take place by November, with destruction to begin next year.

I’ve been watching some talking heads on CNN this morning trying to spin this as some sort of a win-win, but that sounds like an awful lot of lipstick to try to paint on one rather sickly pig. On the plus side, if you weren’t interested in a war where we wind up helping one of several sets of bad guys, this clearly will be a win. But if you’re monitoring the domestic and international politics and power plays in action, this wound up being nothing but a big old black eye for Barack Obama and John Kerry, while returning Vladimir Putin for a strutting turn on the world stage as a power broker.

Will this be quick, as the President demanded? Not hardly. There will supposedly be “a list” turned over within a week. Of course, you know how lists are… details, details. Things can change, ya know? And will there be severe repercussions if Assad fails to live up to the terms of the deal in an orderly fashion? Of course there will! But it will be more sanctions, which never seemed to bother him in the fist place. Kerry was clearly pushing for a resolution which included at least a hint of a shadow of a possibility that the UN would give the thumbs up to some form of military action in the event of non-compliance, but Putin managed to erase that entirely.

In short, if this turns out to be a ploy and nothing in Damascus really changes, the UN – with Russia’s blessing – is firmly on track to resort to some serious tongue clucking and speaking in lofty tones. That should show Assad who’s the boss of him, eh? But on the plus side, we seem to be off the hook for becoming al Qaeda’s air force, so that’s better than nothing. Unfortunately, it looks like this deal only produced one real winner, and he’s the man with three letters in his eyes.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

OVER

Bmore on September 14, 2013 at 7:00 PM

N

Bmore on September 14, 2013 at 7:00 PM

Bmore:They are all awesome pics,nice job,kudos:)

canopfor on September 14, 2013 at 7:10 PM

Six hours and not one leftist commenter registered here can say anything remotely intelligible on this?

DAMNING.

Murphy9 on September 14, 2013 at 3:25 PM

What can they say? The wife couldn’t stay up for B’s speech. Couldn’t stand to listen to him. I couldn’t stop watching. She asked the next morning, “What’d he say?”
He said, “I didn’t want to bomb Syria but the muslim bros were gonna make me, and now Putin say’s I can’t.” Basically, only with more words and less eloquent.

onomo on September 14, 2013 at 7:20 PM

At first I thought that was a pic of Daniel Craig.

Midas on September 14, 2013 at 7:25 PM

Yep, shrewd negotiator, that Barack.

Shay on September 14, 2013 at 7:31 PM

http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2013/09/dangerous_times_putin_the_peacemaker_vs_obama_the_warmonger.html

onlineanalyst on September 14, 2013 at 7:31 PM

Notwithstanding all that has been said, written or know on this matter of the chemical’s used by Syria only one thing is for sure 100% true.

Obama and Kerry are life long liars.

Therefore nothing good can come of this for U.S..

APACHEWHOKNOWS on September 14, 2013 at 8:09 PM

Six hours and not one leftist commenter registered here can say anything remotely intelligible on this?

DAMNING.

Murphy9 on September 14, 2013 at 3:25 PM

JustTheTalkingPoints has been soiling a few other threads.

slickwillie2001 on September 14, 2013 at 8:10 PM

If your wrote a fiction novel and used these real things as the plot the book would be seen as a commic book and no more.

No one would belive such worthless piss ants could ever have this much power in any universe.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on September 14, 2013 at 8:13 PM

JustTheTalkingPoints has been soiling a few other threads.

slickwillie2001 on September 14, 2013 at 8:10 PM

From what I can tell, JustObsessedWithNonsense is a hard core Truther.

farsighted on September 14, 2013 at 8:21 PM

“But on the plus side, we seem to be off the hook for becoming al Qaeda’s air force, so that’s better than nothing.”

This…!

… And it must be pissing off Obowma to end.

Seven Percent Solution on September 14, 2013 at 8:29 PM

http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2013/09/dangerous_times_putin_the_peacemaker_vs_obama_the_warmonger.html

onlineanalyst on September 14, 2013 at 7:31 PM

onlineanalyst:

Thank-You,that is a good read,and nailed Obama!———-:)

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/09/dangerous_times_putin_the_peacemaker_vs_obama_the_warmonger.html

canopfor on September 14, 2013 at 8:30 PM

http://rt.com/op-edge/us-syria-cia-fabrication-620/

‘CIA fabricated evidence to lure US into war with Syria’
Published time: September 09, 2013

The intelligence gathered against Syria’s Assad was manufactured by elements within the spy community in order to mislead the US President to take punitive action, Ray McGovern, a veteran CIA analyst, told RT.

followed link from Steve Pieczenik Talks
http://pieczenik.blogspot.com/

maverick muse on September 14, 2013 at 8:36 PM

that’s better than nothing.”

This…!

… And it must be pissing off Obowma to end.

Seven Percent Solution on September 14, 2013 at 8:29 PM

Seven Percent Solution:Good evening 7,and little 7%:)

Just read this,awesome it is,and speaking of AQ!!
=================================================

September 14, 2013
Dangerous Times: Putin the Peacemaker vs. Obama the Warmonger
**************************************************************

(a exerpt)

In the strangest twist of history, it is Obama the radical leftist who is now acting as the destabilizing warmonger in the Middle East, while Vladimir Putin may be emerging as a stabilizing peacemaker.

Nobody can figure out whether Obama is the most hapless bumbler in history, or whether there is some sinister purpose behind it all.

It could be both.

But just as big a surprise is Putin’s emerging role as a peacemaker.

Last week, we saw the first step in that process, when Putin and Assad agreed to allow supervised surrender of Syria’s chemical weapons. We can assume that Putin also assured Assad of his continuing support

[against American-supported al-Qaeda rebels,]

which makes the rebellion unwinnable.

Meanwhile, Egypt’s new military ruler, General Al Sisi, is reaching out to Putin to help stabilize his position against the Muslim Brotherhood, the war fanatics whom Obama has been aiding.

The Saudis, seeing Iranian mullahs with nukes emerging 50 miles from their shores, are also looking to make a deal with Putin. They have a lot of oil and money, and they cannot trust their American ally anymore.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/09/dangerous_times_putin_the_peacemaker_vs_obama_the_warmonger.html

canopfor on September 14, 2013 at 8:38 PM

“But on the plus side, we seem to be off the hook for becoming al Qaeda’s air force, so that’s better than nothing.”

This…!

… And it must be pissing off Obowma to end.

Seven Percent Solution on September 14, 2013 at 8:29 PM

Imagine you are an al Qaeda jihadi, in Pakistan, or Yemen, or Afghanistan. You spend your days listening for American drones, hoping you don’t get blowed up like so many of your friends.

You make your way to Syria, as directed by your leaders. Suddenly America is your ally, you are given American guns, ammunition, anti-tank missiles, medicines, and other gear. You pray to allah with your fellow fighers that the same drones you feared in your home country will now come to your assistance.

Insanity.

slickwillie2001 on September 14, 2013 at 9:23 PM

I do not know if it was mentioned, but what’s up with the glamour picture of Putin?

OliverB on September 14, 2013 at 9:31 PM

canopfor on September 14, 2013 at 8:38 PM

*clinky!*

:)

slickwillie2001 on September 14, 2013 at 9:23 PM

Pretty much sums it up…

… and I also have noticed that the MSM have still yet to connect the dots.

Seven Percent Solution on September 14, 2013 at 9:38 PM

Putin is sitting back drinking Dom Perignon and eating tins of beluga caviar thinking he’s king of the world. He stole Obama’s lunch money without even breaking a sweat

jaywemm on September 15, 2013 at 12:23 AM

He said, “I didn’t want to bomb Syria but the muslim bros were gonna make me, and now Putin say’s I can’t.” Basically, only with more words and less eloquent.

I’m against going to war in Syria so I’m glad a deal was struck.

But I admit that Obama had only deviated at the very last minute from continuing the Bush doctrine/policies by reaching a less expensive and peaceful solution to the WMD’s.

If we followed the same pattern as the Bush administration had done its obvious we would have been at war for a regime change in Syria.

Condoleezza Rice July 29, 2001:

But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let’s remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.

Secretary Powell 2001:

The Iraqi regime militarily remains fairly

weak

. It doesn’t have the capacity it had 10 or 12 years ago. It has been

contained

… He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. They have not been able to come out with the capacity to deliver these kinds of systems or to actually have these kinds of systems that is much beyond where they were 10 years ago… He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq…

In January 2003, United Nations weapons inspectors reported that they had found NO indication that Iraq possessed nuclear weapons or an active program.

But Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said:

There’s another way to phrase that and that is that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It is basically saying the same thing in a different way. Simply because you do not have evidence that something exists does not mean that you have evidence that it doesn’t exist.

The UN inspectors said that even if Saddam had in his possession WMD’s from all those years ago, if retained, would have long since turned to harmless substances. They stated that Iraqi Sarin and tabun have a shelf life of approximately five years, VX lasts a bit longer (but not much longer), and finally they said botulinum toxin and liquid anthrax last about three years.

Not only did the UN inspectors say they found NO WMD’s but Saddam repeated in interviews, speeches, and news broadcasts that Iraq did NOT have any WMD’s.

“We are not weapons collectors,” the official Iraqi News Agency quoted him as saying.

“When Saddam Hussein says he has no weapons of mass destruction, he means what he says,” Saddam said.

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. 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.

After failing to secure U.N. authorization to use force to disarm Iraq, Bush gave Saddam 48 hours to step down or face war.

So all U.N. inspectors, whom had insisted that Saddam was fully cooperating with them and had released a preliminary report that said Iraq had NO WMD’s, now had to immediately evacuate Iraq after Bush declared a 48 hour deadline to war. http://www.foxnews.com/story/2003/03/18/un-inspectors-leave-iraq/

After the above we should all be thankful we have not entered into another expensive military disaster in the middle east.

JustTheFacts on September 15, 2013 at 12:45 AM

After the above cut and pasted BDS Talking Points that totally ignore the truth, we should all be thankful we have not entered into another expensive military disaster in the middle east.

JustTheFacts on September 15, 2013 at 12:45 AM

Edited for clarity.

Del Dolemonte on September 15, 2013 at 1:22 AM

Wow! I guess we really showed ‘em! Like Nasty Pelousi said, Obama is one tough hombré . . .

tpitman on September 15, 2013 at 5:29 AM

LOL….Putin told obama to squat …. obama squatted then began to make grunting noises

Aggie95 on September 15, 2013 at 7:16 AM

oatmeal maybe ….Biden Flashback: Obama Has ‘Steel in His Spine.

Aggie95 on September 15, 2013 at 7:18 AM

hey maybe obama can ask hillery for a loner

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSyPNSvWn-A

Aggie95 on September 15, 2013 at 8:53 AM

But I admit that Obama had only deviated at the very last minute from continuing the Bush doctrine/policies by reaching a less expensive and peaceful solution to the WMD’s.
JustTheFacts on September 15, 2013 at 12:45 AM

By “reaching a less expensive and peaceful solution” can you admit it was fully unintentional on B’s part? Putin flexed his navy, B filled his shorts.
You keep trying to make cole slaw out of this cow sh!t. Don’t look or smell right, but you keep chopping it up and try to feed it to us. Check the top of the page, this isn’t Politico.
I can admit I never liked Bush. Can you admit B’s got as serious a love jones for the mulim bros as you do for him?

onomo on September 15, 2013 at 9:16 AM

Putin flexed his navy, B filled his shorts.

onomo on September 15, 2013 at 9:16 AM

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/09/obama-defends-shifting-syria-policy-im-less-concerned-about-style-points/

davidk on September 15, 2013 at 9:52 AM

Putin is sitting back drinking Dom Perignon and eating tins of beluga caviar thinking he’s king of the world. He stole Obama’s lunch money without even breaking a sweat

jaywemm on September 15, 2013 at 12:23 AM

*ugh* How anyone eats that crap, I’ll never know. I tried it once thinking “ooh, this is gonna be good” based on everyone talking about it as being so awesome, and… holy crap I thought I was gonna hurl. Fishy, salty (x1000) black lumpy goop.

Midas on September 15, 2013 at 10:54 AM

But on the plus side, we seem to be off the hook for becoming al Qaeda’s air force, so that’s better than nothing. – Jazz

‘Tis indeed a shame when America’s castration is celebrated.
To be sure, our intervention is Syria is 100% unwarranted, however the Butt-Boy-in-Chief is embarrassing us all. If only he would just shut up, stop the woofing, the bellicosity, and self-aggrandizement – all a result of The Øne’s unjustifiably immense ego, we and the world would be better than it is now.
Sic Transit Gloria Mundi
Thanks, Øligula. *sigh*
~(Ä)~.

Karl Magnus on September 15, 2013 at 11:39 AM

So all U.N. inspectors, whom had insisted that Saddam was fully cooperating with them and had released a preliminary report that said Iraq had NO WMD’s…

JustTheFacts on September 15, 2013 at 12:45 AM

Well, Ray Robison didn’t… you know, a lead UN weapons inspector?

And how could the UN come out with a comprehensive report when they couldn’t inspect all the sites on the list, and were played with by Saddam moving equipment ahead of inspections? How could ANYONE certify that he had no WMDs under those conditions?

And if Saddam had complied, why the cat and mouse games? Why the harassment of inspectors? Why the shifting of equipment and personnel, yanking around of what could be inspected and what couldn’t? If he was going to comply with the cease-fire agreement, and had already destroyed the PROGRAMS, chem/bio/nuclear, then why not just let the inspectors go through the facilities? Why no documentation by Saddam’s regime of how and when items were destroyed? You know, to comply with the cease-fire agreement? You do remember the cease-fire agreement, right? Saddam promised much and then did not deliver. A cease-fire agreement is a treaty and both sides are bound by it. Saddam was not complying with what he agreed to comply with…

And we will now get a replay of that, save with Assad doing the shifting, the dancing… he can buy a decade, easy, with doing that. Since this is no cease-fire and since the CWC gives a wide leeway for circumstances, like Iraq joining the CWC and having a few extra years to come into compliance with it due to the state of their country. Imagine that, after OIF, the country of Iraq is having a hard time getting certification that they can be in compliance with the CWC. And that is AFTER the fall of Saddam, years after. Why does anyone expect Assad to go any faster during a civil war?

A treaty is only a guarantee if you hold the signatories to it. Saddam had his promised obligations and didn’t carry through. He violated what he said he would do to gain a cease-fire. There is no axe over Assad or Syria like that, so why does anyone expect better compliance from another Ba’athist dictator?

ajacksonian on September 15, 2013 at 12:34 PM

news flash

http://www.jpost.com/Syria-Crisis/Report-Syria-transported-chemical-weapons-to-Iraq-326141

Syria has moved 20 trucks worth of equipment and material used for the manufacturing of chemical weapons into neighboring Iraq, the Lebanese daily Al-Mustaqbal reported on Sunday.

I’m shocked. Are you shocked? mildly surprised?

dogsoldier on September 15, 2013 at 1:47 PM

JustTheFacts on September 15, 2013 at 12:45 AM

The AUMF passed by bi-partisan majorities in Congress, listed out over 20 reasons for the use of force against Iraq…WMD was only one of these. The crux comes down to Iraq’s complete and utter non-compliance with the UNSC resolutions, including those of weapon inspections, as well as it’s responsibilities under the 1991 Gulf War cease fire.

What’s to happen in Syria when Assad, protected by Putin, start pulling the same shenanigans? The UN was proven feckless and weak during the decade after the first Gulf War with Iraq, and there is little sign of anything changing with the UN relevance or abilities in the decade since Saddam’s removal.

Not only with Assad, but Iran and Hizbollah are also the big winners here. Iran will have nuclear weapons inside of the next 18 months – and protection from the UN via Putin. Hizbollah will also gain – gaining effective control of the Lebanese government.

Obama’s threats or future red lines will be seen to be empty comments, made by an empty chair, for appearances only. There will be no there there. He’s been proven as vapid in international leadership as Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain were in the 1930′s when faced with a growing evil.

The UN today is as feckless as the League of Nations was in the 1930′s – and that past farce was powerless to end regional conflicts and the use of chemical weapons in them (Italy’s invasion of Ethiopia and the Mukden Incident).

We appear destined to repeat history because our arrogant and incompetent leaders failed to learn from history.

Athos on September 15, 2013 at 1:56 PM

And how could the UN come out with a comprehensive report when they couldn’t inspect all the sites on the list, and were played with by Saddam moving equipment ahead of inspections? How could ANYONE certify that he had no WMDs under those conditions?

ajacksonian on September 15, 2013 at 12:34 PM

#1. In 2002 Saddam Hussein, in a letter to the UN invited UN weapons inspectors to come into Iraq to prove to Bush that the Iraq government had no WMD’s and was not a threat to the US.

#2. Saddam requested the UN send weapons inspectors to Iraq in 2002 because he had no WMD’s so he did not need to move any equipment ahead of inspections nor was he or his government told ahead of time were the inspections would take place each day. He had no WMD’s so he had nothing to worry about or move or hide because he had NO WMD’s!

#3. In 2002 inspectors began visiting sites where WMD production was suspected, but found no evidence of such activities and in January 2003, United Nations weapons inspectors reported that they had found no indication that Iraq possessed nuclear weapons or an active program. http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/quarterly_reports/s-2003-580.pdf

#4. On March 7, The UN inspectors reported accelerated cooperation throughout the month of February. The UN inspectors were picking the locations that they would inspect each day without giving any prior knowledge of the location or what they were looking for and yet the UN inspectors reported that they were still given full cooperation from the Iraq government. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0303/S00109.htm

#5. Although it received only mild press attention, a March 6, 2003 UN inspectors report said that incriminating documents had been forged to deceive the US public, particularly concerning Iraqi acquisition of uranium and further contended that some or all of the weapons inspectors’ reports were vastly misrepresented by the Bush administration, especially in the connection between Iraq and terrorist groups. Fundamentalist Muslim groups, at the time generally did not support Iraq, as it was a secular nation that did not enforce Sharia law. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59403-2003Mar7.html

#6. On several occasion Osama bin Laden said Saddam Hussein is an ‘ignorant infidel puppet of the US’ and is second on the list of evils, only after the United States. But Saddam had publicly called OBL a radical fundamentalists who’s views have been distorted by his CIA controllers.

Fundamentalist Muslim hated Saddam because he controlled Iraq through a sectarian government.

#7. Condoleezza Rice said Iraq had no WMD’s July 29, 2001:

But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let’s remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.

#8. Secretary Powell said Iraq had no WMD’s 2001:

The Iraqi regime militarily remains fairly weak. It doesn’t have the capacity it had 10 or 12 years ago. It has been contained… He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. They have not been able to come out with the capacity to deliver these kinds of systems or to actually have these kinds of systems that is much beyond where they were 10 years ago… He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq…

#9. The UN inspectors said that even if Saddam had in his possession WMD’s from all those years ago, if retained, would have long since turned to harmless substances. They stated that Iraqi Sarin and tabun have a shelf life of approximately five years, VX lasts a bit longer (but not much longer), and finally they said botulinum toxin and liquid anthrax last about three years and therefore Iraq was NO threat to the US.

#10. 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. 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.

After failing to secure U.N. authorization to use force to disarm Iraq, Bush gave Saddam 48 hours to step down or face war.

So all U.N. inspectors, whom had insisted that Saddam was fully cooperating with them and had released a preliminary report that said Iraq had NO WMD’s, now had to immediately evacuate Iraq after Bush declared a 48 hour deadline to war.

JustTheFacts on September 15, 2013 at 2:10 PM

An inconvenient truth….

The document is an unclassified summary prepared in 2006 listing Iraqi chemical munitions recovered in Iraq after May 2004….including over 500 shells containing degraded mustard gas and sarin nerve agent, with the assessment that many more still existed as of 2006.

What’s interesting are the levels of BDS that seem to come out re Iraq, particularly as so many are noticing and commenting on how feckless and weak Obama is trying to defend his red line in Syria regarding the use of WMD.

Rather than defend the indefensible, they resort to cut and paste old talking points and point the finger at Bush in a pathetic effort of deflection. The issue isn’t Iraq or the 43rd President.

The issue is the 44th President – who is feckless and weak. He’s now shown the world that he is feckless and weak – and they are reacting. Risks and threats are increasing, not diminishing – but despite all of this, the goalposts have to be moved to blame Bush.

Athos on September 15, 2013 at 2:36 PM

JustTheFacts on September 15, 2013 at 2:10 PM

Now if only Saddam had bothered to get inspectors there to check off stuff on the original cease-fire list as it was destroyed.

Yet that did not happen.

Great that a bunch of inspectors certify that Saddam didn’t have any CWs… save for the original equipment that was supposed to be verified as being destroyed. You can look all you want but an agreement is an agreement: if he destroyed material and had no one there to certify it destroyed, then no later inspection can verify it without finding serial numbers and then checking items off.

Given the indications of shifting equipment out of the country and a visit by Russian Spetsnaz CW specialists, I’m not surprised that inspectors found nothing. No one who lived through the ’90s could be so gullible as to assume that Saddam was being up-front on his WMD issues.

If you want to make the argument that he was clean but acted dirty so as to keep an image of being a marauding tyrant, then please go ahead.

There are stocks, stores and equipment that are left unaccounted for: saying that he was clean ignores the fate of that original list. You can’t prove that its not there, somewhere. But it was there at one time and there were procedures agreed to for getting rid of the material that Saddam did not comply with. It was done voluntarily by Saddam and then he reneged on his agreements. How do you trust a genocidal tyrant who has repeatedly used CWs and has spent nearly a decade trying to hide the fate of them while under agreement to be accountable for them?

Inspectors don’t cut it.

Great about 2002 and all that. The prior decade? Fine talking points, but you cannot prove the negative. If he didn’t have the equipment and stores, then where did they get to? There are two pre-war destinations that keep coming up: Syria and Russia.

And which two Nations are in the news, again, about CWs? Syria and Russia.

Pure coincidence, I’m sure.

And inspectors. Imagine if Assad decides to play games with those.

I’ve seen this film before.

A few missiles won’t cripple Syrian WMDs any more than it stopped Saddam’s games. And Saddam had the threat of boots on the ground, Assad doesn’t, and even gets Russian assistance in case anyone does try to go after him.

I’m no advocate for military adventurism in Syria.

Obama could have gotten a head start on all of this a year ago and gone right to the CWC and asked for help to arrange a sanctions regime against Syria on their use of CWs. He didn’t. Now we have the lovely specter of Putin being the peace-maker against a President of the US who couldn’t remember that it is diplomacy, first, before dropping bombs. It is called ‘escalating a threat’ utilizing Public Diplomacy and building a case. That should have been done after the first use of CWs in Syria: if they are so awful, then why let the first one go by without a murmur?

For me going against Saddam was one of those ‘worst wars’ sorts of deals: to enforce a treaty that one side decided to reneg on. He had a list of items to produce for verification, neutralization or destruction, and didn’t do so. He went back on his cease-fire agreement multiple times. That sort of war is to remind people that agreements made under cease fire agreements are not just treaties, but ones that involve the cessation of hostilities and may make a path to ending them. By the time the inspectors got there, it was a dead letter. It was no longer just about WMDs at that point since, by that time, the very character of that tyrant made any agreement he had suspect. He decided to play games when he could have just ended the war… yet he did not do so for over a decade. There is no joy in taking a rabid dog out and shooting it, but it is necessary to be safe that it is done.

That should teach us a lesson about the trustworthiness of tyrants.

Apparently it hasn’t and the lesson is about to be repeated.

ajacksonian on September 15, 2013 at 3:18 PM

shells containing degraded mustard gas and sarin nerve agent

Athos on September 15, 2013 at 2:36 PM

If Americans don’t learn from the past then it will be repeated and the US will again be in another worthless and unnecessary war.

The UN weapons inspectors did not care about degraded mustard gas and sarin nerve agent that long since turned to harmless substances. For Iraq to have usable chemical weapons Iraq would have to have active chemical weapons facilities because Sarin and tabun have a shelf life of approximately five years, VX lasts a bit longer (but not much longer), and finally they said botulinum toxin and liquid anthrax last about three years and therefore Iraq was NO threat to the US.

My point is Americans are once again being manipulated and misled to support another war that we don’t need and will only wast precious blood and treasure for nothing once again.

In order to avoid this unnecessary war Americans need to remember that shortly before the Iraq invasion, the lead weapons inspector, advised the UN Security Council that Iraq was fully cooperating, even proactively cooperating, with inspections and that the confirmation of disarmament through inspections could be achieved in a short period of time if Iraq continued to remain cooperative.

“From our experience Iraq has decided in principle to provide cooperation on process, most importantly prompt access to all sites and assistance to UNMOVIC in the establishment of the necessary infrastructure. This impression remains and we note that access to sites has so far been without problems.” On time remaining until the confirmation of disarmament he said “the period of disarmament through inspection could still be short if immediate, active and unconditional cooperation with UNMOVIC and IAEA were to continue to be forthcoming.”

The real reason many people in the US supported the invasion of Iraq was because of Bush.

“Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner.” Source: President Bush: “World Can Rise to This Moment”, White House (2/6/2003).

“He’s a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaida. In my Cincinnati speech I reminded the American people, a true threat facing our country is that an Al Qaida-type network trained and armed by Saddam could attack America and leave not one fingerprint.” Source: President Outlines Priorities, White House (11/7/2002).

“The regime . . . has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda. The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.” Source: President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours, White House (3/17/2003).

“Saddam Hussein had an established relationship with Al Qaida providing training to Al Qaida members in areas of poisons, gases and conventional bombs. He built, possessed, and used weapons of mass destruction.” Source: Richard B. Cheney Delivers Remarks at the James A. Baker, III, Institute for Public Policy, White House (10/18/2003).

“Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help develop their own.” Source: President Delivers “State of the Union”, White House (1/28/2003).

“Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses, and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other planes—this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.” Source: President Delivers “State of the Union”, White House (1/28/2003).

“The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We’ve removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more.” Source: President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003).

etc, etc, etc,

But the joint FBI-INS-police PENTBOM investigation, the FBI program of interviews and numerous other post-9-11 inquiries, together comprising the most comprehensive criminal investigation in history — chasing down 500,000 leads and interviewing 175,000 people —- have been unable to show “ANY” ties between Saddam’s secular regime and al-Qaeda.

Which was to be expected because all the following reports said there were no links between Al Qaeda and Iraq:
The 2001 President’s Daily Brief, 2001-2 Atta in Prague investigations, 2002 DIA reports, 2002 British intelligence report, 2003 CIA report, 2003 British intelligence report, 2003 Israeli intelligence Report, 2004 Carnegie study, 2004 9/11 Commission Report, 2004 Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq, 2004 CIA report, 2005 update of CIA report, 2006 Pentagon study, 2006 Senate Report of Pre-War Intelligence, 2007 Pentagon Inspector General Report, 2008 Pentagon report, 2008 Senate report, including the INS, FBI, DOD, NSA, CIA, DIA, British intelligence, and Israeli Intelligence reports that were sent to Bush.

Up to just before the US invasion Saddam was openly killing and ordering the executions of fundamentalist Muslim leaders even ones whom were out side his country such as in Iran.

JustTheFacts on September 15, 2013 at 3:20 PM

Obama is clearly playing 11 dimensional chess and putin is actually his pawn

nonpartisan on September 14, 2013 at 8:49 AM

Thank you for a good laugh, nonpartisan.

Burke on September 15, 2013 at 3:31 PM

More inconvenient facts for talking points.

The_Livewire on September 15, 2013 at 4:00 PM

Great that a bunch of inspectors certify that Saddam didn’t have any CWs… save for the original equipment that was supposed to be verified as being destroyed. You can look all you want but an agreement is an agreement:

ajacksonian on September 15, 2013 at 3:18 PM

During inspections in 1999, U.S. intelligence agents were caught violating UN regulations and charter by secretly planting US intelligence agents in the UN inspection team. The planted US intelligence agents were knowing violating the UN regulations and the UN charter by secretly supplying the United States with a direct feed of conversations between Iraqi security agencies as well as other information. This was confirmed by the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal.

an agreement is an agreement

It was a direct violation to plant US intelligence agents in the UN inspection teams to secretly supply a feed of conversations between Iraqi security agencies to the US.

But despite that the US had violated the UN regulations and charter Saddam still requested UN weapons inspectors to come into Iraq in 2002 to prove to Bush that he did not have any WMD’s and was in no way a threat to the US.

Just like Syria the Iraq war was unnecessary and only wasted precious blood and treasure for absolutely nothing. So lets not let it happen again by stoping Obama from attacking Syria.

JustTheFacts on September 15, 2013 at 4:08 PM

J

ust like Syria the Iraq war was unnecessary and only wasted precious blood and treasure for absolutely nothing. So lets not let it happen again by stoping Obama from attacking Syria.

JustTheFacts on September 15, 2013 at 4:08 PM

Um, no. You are completely wrong chump. There were many other reasons than WMDs that justified the attack on Iraq. Now crawl off back under your rock.

This thread is about Zero bungling the situation with Vlad and your messiah is a laughingstock.

dogsoldier on September 15, 2013 at 4:25 PM

There were many other reasons than WMDs that justified the attack on Iraq.

dogsoldier on September 15, 2013 at 4:25 PM

So what reason do you believe made the long Iraq war worth all the precious blood and treasure.

The only people who benefited from the Iraq war are fundamentalist Muslims, Iran from the power vacuum and China because they have enormous contracts for cheap oil from Iraq.

JustTheFacts on September 15, 2013 at 4:43 PM

How do you trust a genocidal tyrant who has repeatedly used CWs and has spent nearly a decade trying to hide the fate of them while under agreement to be accountable for them?

Inspectors don’t cut it.

That should teach us a lesson about the trustworthiness of tyrants.

Apparently it hasn’t and the lesson is about to be repeated.

ajacksonian on September 15, 2013 at 3:18 PM

So you believe the US should waste its precious blood and treasure on attacking Syria?

JustTheFacts on September 15, 2013 at 4:49 PM

So what reason do you believe made the long Iraq war worth all the precious blood and treasure.

The only people who benefited from the Iraq war are fundamentalist Muslims, Iran from the power vacuum and China because they have enormous contracts for cheap oil from Iraq.

JustTheFacts on September 15, 2013 at 4:43 PM

Many of them. They have a shot at democratic rule. France did the same for us, as I recall. I didn’t like that fact that Saddam was helping AQ and giving them space to train to attack us, or that he violated all those UN sanctions. He did turn the oil for food into the most corrupt humanitarian effort of all time.

Bush’s big error was not dealing with the aftermath properly.

dogsoldier on September 15, 2013 at 5:15 PM

So you believe the US should waste its precious blood and treasure on attacking Syria?

JustTheFacts on September 15, 2013 at 4:49 PM

Nope. Not if they don’t threaten us. Zero cannot just determine there is a vital national interest somewhere all on his own. That may be his opinion, but he’s wrong. His ego does not equate to vital national interest. I know that burns his bacon, but oh well…

dogsoldier on September 15, 2013 at 5:18 PM

I didn’t like that fact that Saddam was helping AQ and giving them space to train to attack us

dogsoldier on September 15, 2013 at 5:15 PM

What you said above is a perfect example of why Americans will once again be mislead into another unnecessary and costly war.

It has been overwhelmingly proven that there was NEVER an Iraq & Al Qaeda connection!

The joint FBI-INS-police PENTBOM investigation, the FBI program of interviews and numerous other post-9-11 inquiries, together comprising the most comprehensive criminal investigation in history — chasing down 500,000 leads and interviewing 175,000 people —- have been unable to show “ANY” ties between Saddam’s secular regime and al-Qaeda.

Which was to be expected because all of the following reports said there were NO links between Al Qaeda and Iraq:
The 2001 President’s Daily Brief, 2001-2 Atta in Prague investigations, 2002 DIA reports, 2002 British intelligence report, 2003 CIA report, 2003 British intelligence report, 2003 Israeli intelligence Report, 2004 Carnegie study, 2004 9/11 Commission Report, 2004 Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq, 2004 CIA report, 2005 update of CIA report, 2006 Pentagon study, 2006 Senate Report of Pre-War Intelligence, 2007 Pentagon Inspector General Report, 2008 Pentagon report, 2008 Senate report, including the INS, FBI, DOD, NSA, CIA, DIA, British intelligence, and Israeli Intelligence reports that were sent to Bush.

Saddam hated and feared fudamentalist Muslims and was still ordering the execution of their leaders up until the US invaded.

On several occasion Osama bin Laden called Saddam Hussein an ‘ignorant infidel puppet of the US’ and is second on the list of evils, only after the United States. But Saddam had publicly called OBL a radical fundamentalists who’s views have been distorted by his CIA controllers.

Fundamentalist Muslim hated Saddam because he controlled Iraq through a strict sectarian government.

JustTheFacts on September 15, 2013 at 5:55 PM

I didn’t like that fact that Saddam was helping AQ and giving them space to train to attack us

dogsoldier on September 15, 2013 at 5:15 PM

Here are some quotes of pre-war intelligence reports given to Bush BEFORE the invasion.

2001 President’s Daily Brief:

Ten days after the September 11 attacks, President Bush receives a classified President’s Daily Brief (that had been prepared at his request) indicating that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the September 11th attacks and that there was “scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda.”

2002 DIA reports:

“Saddam’s regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control.”
In April 2002, the DIA assessed that “there was no credible reporting on al-Qa’ida training at Salman Pak or anywhere else in Iraq.

2002 British intelligence report:

“We have no intelligence of current cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda and do not believe that al Qaeda plans to conduct terrorist attacks under Iraqi direction.”

2003 CIA report:

“The Intelligence Community has no credible information that Baghdad had foreknowledge of the 11 September attacks or any other al-Qaida strike.” Michael Scheuer, the main researcher assigned to review the research into the project, described the review and his conclusions: “For about four weeks in late 2002 and early 2003, I and several others were engaged full time in searching CIA files — seven days a week, often far more than eight hours a day. At the end of the effort, we had gone back ten years in the files and had reviewed nearly twenty thousand documents that amounted to well over fifty thousand pages of materials…. There was no information that remotely supported the analysis that claimed there was a strong working relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.

2003 British intelligence report:

In January 2003, British intelligence completed a classified report on Iraq that concluded that “there are no current links between the Iraqi regime and the al-Qaeda network.” The report says “al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden views Iraq’s ruling Ba’ath party as running contrary to his religion, calling it an ‘apostate regime’. ‘His aims are in ideological conflict with present day Iraq.”

2003 Israeli intelligence:

In February 2003, Israeli intelligence sources told the Associated Press that no link has been established between Saddam and Al Qaeda. According to the AP story, “A senior Israeli security source told the AP that Israel has not yet found evidence of an Iraqi-Palestinian-Al Qaeda triangle, and that several investigations into possible Al Qaeda ties to Palestinian militias have so far not yielded results.”

JustTheFacts on September 15, 2013 at 6:02 PM

It has been overwhelmingly proven that there was NEVER an Iraq & Al Qaeda connection!

JustTheFacts on September 15, 2013 at 5:55 PM

zarqawi and AQ in Iraq did not exist, I guess.

Why did Saddam host the guy and his crew? Jeez Louise. Why was AQ there before during and after we attacked Iraq?

dogsoldier on September 15, 2013 at 6:03 PM

JustTheFacts on September 15, 2013 at 6:02 PM

Was Zarqawi there or not? Saddam tolerated this guy? No, he HOSTED AQ. But ok you can believe the reports. We’ll have to disagree on this point.

dogsoldier on September 15, 2013 at 6:05 PM

Hey, Barry BAMSTAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU DA MANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN BAMMMMYYYYY BABYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOVE YA BARRY OL BUDDY OL PALLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
PEyote on Sept13 at 9:AM

cableguy615 on September 15, 2013 at 6:13 PM

So you believe the US should waste its precious blood and treasure on attacking Syria?

JustTheFacts on September 15, 2013 at 4:49 PM

Not at all, and I’ve said as much multiple times.

Saddam’s failure to comply with the entire cease-fire package, including repatriating kidnapped Kuwaiti civilians, returning medical equipment and stolen vehicles, allowing allies to search for missing soldiers… there was a host of reasons cited by Congress beyond CWs for restarting hostilities with Saddam. There was an entire list of items far beyond CW components and equipment, including SCUDs and other missiles that had to be accounted for and dismantled. Didn’t happen. Saddam was not complying with so many parts of the cease-fire that it wasn’t funny, but everyone wants to talk about the CWs like they were IT. Sadly those who fetishize on such things believe that it was the magic sauce. It wasn’t. Not by a long shot. Allowing searches for military personnel is an SOP during cease-fires and by not allowing that and not being accountable for those missing in areas held by Iraqi forces, Saddam was violating codes of conduct that date back for centuries. There is no magic about that.

CWs, to me, are something that have limited utility in a military sense beyond area denial, and are generally used as a terror weapon. I really can’t see how they get into the WMD category as they do not evaporate thousands of people at a single shot or leave an infectious agent to propagate in an unsuspecting population, like the Japanese did in Central China during WWII. It doesn’t meet up with the criteria of ‘mass’ being thousands to tens of thousands with a single device. They require finicky conditions to be used, can turn on you if you don’t watch the wind and once used the few who die are then tipping off everyone else as to what is going on.

Chemical warfare is bad, yes, but once it is known it is going on it becomes a nuisance weapon that requires decontamination procedures to safeguard troops. They are terror weapons against civilians and take concentrated use or use of specialized agents with known weather conditions and a population kept in place in a target zone, like Saddam did with night gassing of the Kurds who were in basements trying to get to some safety from an artillery barrage.

What is going on in Syria is a civil war and those are nasty, cut-throat and messy in all regards. The worst war the US has ever been in was the US Civil War because Americans died on both sides fighting each other.

I don’t see CW weapons to be any worse than napalm. But if you are a Leftist there is apparently something magic about CWs, while they would be perfectly fine if people were killed with good old napalm. And if they are such horrific weapons, there have been multiple instances beyond Saddam that have happened by multiple Nations since the CWC. Yet we hear no great outcry about those.

I am at Option #2.

Option #1 is to be friends amongst Nations. Can’t get that from the tyrant. Sorry.

Option #2 is you leave me alone, I leave you alone. That is where we are at, and the Assad regime has by and large done that. If we wanted to go in to Syria the time was when they were supplying jihadis in Iraq and getting US and Coalition forces killed. We didn’t do squat. Dead letter. If we have problems after that, diplomacy is what you have. Convene a general meeting of the CWC to draw up sets of sanctions against ALL non-signatory Nations to be used on first use of CWs. Sanctions, seizure of accounts and goods, ending trade, freezing bank accounts… that sort of thing. After that with continued use the CWC Nations could seek a general embargo at sea to try and bring some sense to a Nation using CWs.

Option #3 is war. Not for it, ruins lives. It isn’t a last resort but at the end of a process.

If this is such a hot item, don’t bother with the UN: go to the CWC signatory Nations and get something done. Make it a serious matter if it is so freaking serious. The way this is being played with shows just how unserious a matter it is to all and sundry. By the way this subject has been treated, I think it is absolutely nuts for anyone to advocate doing anything about Syria. If you feel there is some moral obligation then arm the civilians: they are the victims of both sides, arm them up and let them get a say in what the outcome is. I can’t say that its a good idea but it is far better than trying to attack the place, that’s for sure. Cheaper, too. Gets results and is humanitarian as well, since the positive natural right to defend yourself during conflict is upheld.

Saddam is dead. His actions as a brutal, genocidal dictator speak for themselves on the battlefield and off of it in all realms. If he had kept his word he would be alive and probably have re-armed completely as we would have no say over what would happen after a full armistice. That is all that would have been required for Iraq to have gotten out of its jam: keep its full word as promised in the cease fire for all parts of it, beyond the CWs. Didn’t happen. Can’t say that I was enthused, but it was a necessary war.

Attacking Syria is not necessary.

Use that other form of war called diplomacy instead.

ajacksonian on September 15, 2013 at 6:17 PM

The charade continues, according to VDH.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/358544/charade-can-go-and-and-victor-davis-hanson

The best thing to do is to let the opposing forces in Syria duke it out; it’s their civil war. We absolutely must not arm or assist the “rebels.”

onlineanalyst on September 15, 2013 at 6:21 PM

zarqawi and AQ in Iraq did not exist, I guess.

Why did Saddam host the guy and his crew? Jeez Louise. Why was AQ there before during and after we attacked Iraq?

dogsoldier on September 15, 2013 at 6:03 PM

Bush, talking to ABC’s Martha Raddatz:

BUSH: One of the major theaters against al Qaeda turns out to have been Iraq. This is where al Qaeda said they were going to take their stand. This is where al Qaeda was hoping to take–

RADDATZ: But not until after the U.S. invaded.

BUSH: Yeah, that’s right. So what? The point is that al Qaeda said they’re going to take a stand. Well, first of all in the post-9/11 environment Saddam Hussein posed a threat. And then upon removal, al Qaeda decides to take a stand.

On March 21, 2006, Bush sought to distance himself from the allegation of any link. He said:

“First, just if I might correct a misperception, I don’t think we ever said — at least I know I didn’t say that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein.”

When asked what the connection was between Iraq and the September 11th attacks, Bush replied, “Nothing…. Nobody has ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq.”

Then the Bush Administration began to completely deny that they ever suggested there was an Iraq, Al Qaeda connection.

Even Fox & Friends, Brian Kilmeade falsely claimed that:

“the president of the United States never even said there’s a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq,” and that “[t]hat wasn’t the premise for going in there.”

2004 9/11 Commission Report:

“We have seen no evidence of a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.”

2004 CIA report:

In August, the CIA finished another assessment of the question of Saddam’s links to al-Qaeda. This assessment had been requested by the office of the Vice President, who asked specifically that the CIA take another look at the possibility that Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi constituted a link between Saddam and al-Qaeda, as Colin Powell had claimed in his speech to the United Nations Security Council. The assessment concluded that there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein’s regime harbored Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Reporters called the CIA study “the latest assessment that calls into question one of President Bush’s key justifications for last year’s U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.”

2005 update of CIA report:

In October 2005, the CIA updated the 2004 report to conclude that Saddam’s regime “did not have a relationship, harbor, or even turn a blind eye toward Mr. Zarqawi and his associates,” according to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Two counterterrorism analysts told Newsweek that Zarqawi did likely receive medical treatment in Baghdad in 2002, but that Saddam’s government may never have known Zarqawi was in Iraq because Zarqawi used “false cover.” An intelligence official also told Newsweek the current draft of the report says that “most evidence suggests Saddam Hussein did not provide Zarqawi safe haven before the war. According to Newsweek, “The most recent CIA analysis is an update—based on fresh reporting from Iraq and interviews with former Saddam officials—of a classified report that analysts in the CIA’s Directorate of Intelligence first produced more than a year ago.”

2006 Senate Report of Pre-War Intelligence:

“there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein had prewar ties to Al Qaeda and one of the terror organization’s most notorious members, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.”

2006 Pentagon study:

In February 2006, the Pentagon published a study of the so-called Harmony database documents captured in Afghanistan. After analyzing papers that offered insight into the history of the movement and tensions among the leadership it found evidence that al-Qaeda jihadists had viewed Saddam as an “infidel” and cautioned against working with him.

DIA conclusions:

The initial DocEx review focused on searching for WMD related documents, but the DIA also examined the documents for material related to Iraq’s link to terrorism. DIA officials explicitly stated that they did not believe that the initial review process missed any documents of major significance regarding Iraq’s links to terrorism. During an interview with Committee staff, the lead DIA analyst who follows the issue of possible connections between the Iraqi government and al-Qa’ida noted that the DIA “continues to maintain that there was no partnership between the two organizations.”

2007 Pentagon Inspector General Report:

In February 2007, the Pentagon’s inspector general issued a report that concluded that Feith’s Office of Special Plans, an office in the Pentagon run by Douglas Feith that was the source of most of the misleading intelligence on al-Qaeda and Iraq, had “developed, produced, and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al Qaida relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision-makers.”

2008 Pentagon report:

ABCNews Jonathan Karl reports
“The Bush Administration apparently does not want a U.S. military study that found no direct connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda to get any attention. This morning, the Pentagon cancelled plans to send out a press release announcing the report’s release and will no longer make the report available online.
The report was to be posted on the Joint Forces Command website this afternoon, followed by a background briefing with the authors. No more. The report will be made available only to those who ask for it, and it will be sent via U.S. mail from Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Virginia.

It won’t be emailed to reporters and it won’t be posted online.

Asked why the report would not be posted online and could not be emailed, the spokesman for Joint Forces Command said: “We’re making the report available to anyone who wishes to have it, and we’ll send it out via CD in the mail.”
Another Pentagon official said initial press reports on the study made it “too politically sensitive.”

2008 Senate report:

The report concluded that “Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa’ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.”

Finally after over a hundred reports investigating any ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda came out a report by the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform claimed that:

“in 125 separate appearances, they [Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld and Rice] made … 61 misleading statements about Iraq’s relationship with al-Qaeda.”

JustTheFacts on September 15, 2013 at 6:58 PM

JustTheFacts on September 15, 2013 at 6:58 PM

Meaningless nonsense.

The presence of zarqawi and AQ in Iraq prove beyond any lib talking point that there was collaboration. Saddam was not in the habit of having his enemies healed up in his capital.

As I said we’ll have to disagree on this.

We should not go into Syria.

dogsoldier on September 15, 2013 at 7:04 PM

just the facts
AQ and Saddam had a common enemy, and it wasn’t Iran.

rob verdi on September 15, 2013 at 7:11 PM

Captured documents do show that Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda did collaborate…

The new documents suggest that the 9/11 commission’s final conclusion in 2004, that there were no “operational” ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, may need to be reexamined in light of the recently captured documents.

While the commission detailed some contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda in the 1990s, in Sudan and Afghanistan, the newly declassified Iraqi documents provide more detail than the commission disclosed in its final conclusions. For example, the fact that Saddam broadcast the ser mons of al-Ouda at bin Laden’s request was previously unknown, as was a conversation about possible collaboration on attacks against Saudi Arabia.

“This is a very significant set of facts,” former 9/11 commissioner, Mr. Kerry said yesterday. “I personally and strongly believe you don’t have to prove that Iraq was collaborating against Osama bin Laden on the September 11 attacks to prove he was an enemy and that he would collaborate with people who would do our country harm. This presents facts should not be used to tie Saddam to attacks on September 11. It does tie him into a circle that meant to damage the United States.”

Mr. Kerry also answered affirmatively when asked whether or not the release of more of the documents captured in Iraq could possibly shed further light on Iraq’s relationship with al Qaeda. The former senator was one of the staunchest supporters of the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, which made the policy of regime change U.S. law.

The AUMF, linked before, lists out about 23 specific reasons for need of US military action against Iraq – Iraqi WMD is only one. If one wants to draw parallels between Iraq and Syria, there is far less justification for US military engagement in Syria.

The only justification that was offered by the President, was the Assad regime crossing the President’s Aug 2012 red line – which the President then walked back when at the G-20 meeting last week. And that red line was violated by the Assad regime at least 14 or 15 times prior to the largest chemical attack that killed about 1,400 – in a civil war that has seen Assad kill at least 100,000 more via bullets and shrapnel.

Both sides in Syria have committed war crimes. Both sides have used chemical weapons against the other or their civilian supporters. But this is also a conflict that remains taking place in Syria. We don’t want either side to win – both lead to more destablization in the region. But until this happens, it’s clear that there needs to be more of a reason to engage militarily than to make a symbolic gesture to support a feckless statement made by a feckless President whose weakness and incompetence has emboldened despots around the world.

Athos on September 15, 2013 at 7:28 PM

Was Zarqawi there or not? Saddam tolerated this guy? No, he HOSTED AQ. But ok you can believe the reports. We’ll have to disagree on this point.

dogsoldier on September 15, 2013 at 6:05 PM

The major claims set forth by the Bush administration that Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi constitutes a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, and that Saddam’s government provided training and assistance to al-Qaeda terrorists in Baghdad—have not only been disputed by the intelligence community and terrorism experts.

But have been openly proven false by the Bush administration themselvesIn June 2004, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld conceded that Zarqawi’s ties to Al Qaeda may have been much more ambiguous—and that he may have been more of a rival than a lieutenant to bin Laden. Rumsfeld said at a Pentagon briefing.

“Zarqawi may very well not have sworn allegiance to [bin Laden], Maybe he disagrees with him on something, maybe because he wants to be ‘The Man’ himself and maybe for a reason that’s not known to me.” Rumsfeld added that, “someone could legitimately say he’s not Al Qaeda.”

According to the Senate Report on Prewar Intelligence released in September 2006,

“in April 2003 the CIA learned from a senior al-Qa’ida detainee that al-Zarqawi had rebuffed several efforts by bin Ladin to recruit him. The detainee claimed that al-Zarqawi had religious differences with bin Ladin and disagreed with bin Laden’s singular focus against the United States. The CIA assessed in April 2003 that al-Zarqawi planned and directed independent terrorist operations without al Qaeda direction, but assessed that he ‘most likely contracts out his network’s services to al Qaeda in return for material and financial assistance from key al Qaeda facilitators.’”

Counterterrorism scholar Loretta Napoleoni quotes former Jordanian parliamentarian Layth Shubaylat, a radical Islamist opposition figure, who was personally acquainted with both Zarqawi and Saddam Hussein:

“First of all, I don’t think the two ideologies go together, I’m sure the former Iraqi leadership saw no interest in contacting al-Zarqawi or al-Qaeda operatives. The mentality of al-Qaeda simply doesn’t go with the Ba’athist one. When he was in prison in Jordan with Shubaylat, Abu Mos’ab wouldn’t accept me, said Shubaylat, because I’m opposition, even if I’m a Muslim. How could he accept Saddam Hussein, a secular dictator?

When Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990, Osama bin Laden offered to defend Saudi Arabia by sending mujahideen from Afghanistan to repel Saddam’s forces. After the Gulf War, bin Laden continued to criticize Saddam’s Ba’ath regime, emphasizing that Saddam could not be trusted. Bin Laden told his biographer that “the land of the Arab world, the land is like a mother, and Saddam Hussein is fucking his mother.”

In the Arab world itself, Saddam’s image of a steadfast secular leader was not only enforced by the Iran-Iraq War, when he fought against the spread of the radical Islamism of Iran, but by also abolishing sharia courts, arresting clerics, cracking down ruthlessly against any Islamist movement, ordering the executions of any captured fundamentalists and liberalizing society by promoting western ideals of society and law (he bragged to western diplomats that the “National Drink” of Iraq was Johnnie Walker Blue Label). Therefore, Saddam had been long viewed unfavorably by Islamists.

JustTheFacts on September 15, 2013 at 7:38 PM

US media protection of Obysmal. Time has four editions worldwide. Note the cover on the US edition.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/09/the-media-protect-obama-where-it-counts.php

onlineanalyst on September 15, 2013 at 8:35 PM

The presence of zarqawi and AQ in Iraq prove beyond any lib talking point that there was collaboration. Saddam was not in the habit of having his enemies healed up in his capital.

I’m really glad to know that you don’t support attacking Syria.

But I’m surprised that you continue to insist that all of the US intelligence agencies and those of its allies including all of the the professional personal who work for them were involved in a MASSIVE CONSPIRACY to mislead Americans with false reports and hundreds of millions of dollars worth of fake investigations just to claim that there were no Iraq, Al Qaeda connections. If they can do that what else can the mislead Americans about?

I will admit that now declassified Military documents show how the U.S. military leaders had been conducting a psy-ops campaign to mislead Americans about Zarqawi’s role in the insurgency. The documents explicitly list the “U.S. Home Audience” as one of the targets of a broader propaganda campaign.

The Pentagon had concocted fake Al-Zarqawi letters boasting about suicide attacks and leaked them to Dexter Filkins of the New York Times, who splashed it on the front page the next day. Despite the fact that Filkins had severe doubts about the authenticity of the letter, the Times got down on their knees, licked boots, and published it anyway.

The same documents directly state that the false promotion of Al-Zarqawi includes marking the the “U.S. Home Audience” as one of the targets of a broader propaganda campaign.”

Internal military documents and officers familiar with the program including senior intelligence officers explain how Zarqawi’s role was overemphasized by the propaganda campaign, which has included leaflets, radio and television broadcasts, Internet postings and at least one leak to an American journalist, to magnify the role of the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq.

The effort has raised his profile in a way that military intelligence officials believe had overstated his importance and helped the Bush administration tie the war to the organization responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/09/AR2006040900890.html

According to CENTCOM’s Deputy Commander, Lieutenant General Michael DeLong and others, Zarqawi entered Iraq after the invasion which will be discussed bellow. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/interviews/delong.html

JustTheFacts on September 15, 2013 at 9:26 PM

@Athos on September 15, 2013 at 7:28 PM

That handwritten account you linked to of a February 19, 1995, meeting between an official representative of Iraq and Mr. bin Laden himself, which has no official stamps or markers, has been proven to be nothing more than an extremely amateur forgery.

It reports that Saddam was informed of the meeting on March 4, 1995 and he supposedly agreed to broadcast sermons of a radical imam, Suleiman al Ouda, requested by Mr. bin Laden.

#1.

The imam, Suleiman al Ouda was arrested in Saudi Arabia in late 1993 and was sentenced 1994 to prison were he remained incarcerated in Saudi Arabia until 1999 for inciting opposition to the Saudi government.

#2. Dr. al-Ouda is known for not only criticizing the September 11 attacks, but delivering a personal rebuke to Osama bin Laden. He addressed the Al Qaeda’s leader on MBC, a widely watched Middle Eastern television network, asking him:

My brother Osama, how much blood has been spilt? How many innocent people, children, elderly, and women have been killed … in the name of Al Qaeda? Will you be happy to meet God Almighty carrying the burden of these hundreds of thousands or millions of victims on your back?

#3. Regarding the documents from which the the obvious forgery came from intelligence expert Steven Aftergood suggested that many are using the release of these documents as an opportunity to find “a retrospective justification for the war in Iraq.”

The Pentagon also went through the documents and released an official study of the documents; the study reported NO evidence linking Saddam to al-Qaeda and the 2006 Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concluded that “additional reviews of the documents recovered in Iraq provided no information that contradict the Committee’s findings or conclusions.”

Saddam had fiercely opposed Islamists within his own country, responding with mass executions and torture whenever he felt threatened by them and usually kept secular Sunnis and Christians within his government. As such, many analysts found it impossible that Saddam would support Radical Islamists such as al-Qaeda after fighting Iran for eight years and suppressing his own Islamist rebellions throughout the 90′s. During the Lebanese Civil War, he supported Michel Aoun and the Christian Maronite Forces as opposed to Amal Movement or Hezbollah, which were funded by Iran and most other Arab countries.

Because Saddam fought against the spread of radical Islamism by abolishing sharia courts, arresting clerics, cracking down ruthlessly against any Islamist movement, ordering the executions of any captured fundamentalists and liberalizing society by promoting western ideals of society and law he knew that he was hated by fundamentalists and would never trust them or cooperate with them.

JustTheFacts on September 15, 2013 at 11:52 PM

Community organizing at its best. Now, if only the U.S. had a real Coomander-In-Chief who has a backbone.

Cherokee on September 16, 2013 at 7:50 AM

I am growing weary of seeing this post with Putin’s admiral look at the top of the page.

Leave it.

Sherman1864 on September 16, 2013 at 8:27 AM

Beyotch…I think that is the popular term for what Obama is for Putin…

right2bright on September 16, 2013 at 9:54 AM

Unbelievably small…

right2bright on September 16, 2013 at 9:56 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4