Think there are no new options on Iraq? Here’s a really bad one, courtesy of Jonathan Chait in the Los Angeles Times: Bring back Saddam Hussein. Chait explains:
‚”The disadvantages of reinstalling Hussein are obvious, but consider some of the upside. He would not allow the country to be dominated by Iran, which is the United States’ major regional enemy, a sponsor of terrorism and an instigator of warfare between Lebanon and Israel. Hussein was extremely difficult to deal with before the war, in large part because he apparently believed that he could defeat any U.S. invasion if it came to that. Now he knows he can’t. And he’d probably be amenable because his alternative is death by hanging.”
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Jed on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
121 Comments
Reinstall Saddam – no flippin’ way! It is bad enough that we are stuck in the midst of a quagmire, but to put Saddam back in power would only prove what the world already suspects – we are a bunch of idiots.
Better to pull out and let the Iraqi’s battle it out than to put the Butcher of Baghdad back in power.
The War on Iraq was a monumental mistake, but putting Saddam back in the presidential Palace would only make matters worse.
Well we put him in power in the first place. So this wouldn’t be unprecedented!
We could say he has been suspended without pay and is now on probation.
Nahhh we can’t put him back. Then bush would have NOTHING to point to as an accomplishment.
Just give Iraq to the Iranians.
Then we can hear all the “I know better than anyone else” democrats squeal about their $10.00/gallon gas.
I’d rather pay $10.00 a gallon for gas than to see another American killed in an unwinnable war.
WSClark,
You wouldn’t just be paying 10 dollars for a gallon of gas, you would be paying the increased cost on every consumable good you depend on and simply want through increased costs in transportation.
Nathan, regardless of the cost of gasoline, this war was supposed to be about WMD and a threat to the US, not about the price of oil.
Actually, we only get about 30% of our oil from the Middle East, most comes from Canada and Venezuela.
I still don’t want to see another American killed in Bush’ war of choice.
War of choice? What war is not of choice?
How was it we had NO choice about invading Iraq???
Well, for starters, the Second World War was not a war of choice – we were attacked by Japan. Japan was allied with the Nazi’s, so we were forced to declare war on Germany as well.
Iraq did not attack us, they did not support our terrorist enemies, nor where they a threat to us.
So, logically, the War on Iraq is a war of choice.
Bush chose to invade Iraq.
“It’s about oil,” Robert Ebel told me. Who is Ebel? Formerly the CIA’s top oil analyst, he was sent by the Pentagon, about a month before the invasion, to a secret confab in London with Saddam’s former oil minister to finalize the plans for “liberating” Iraq’s oil industry. In London, Bush’s emissary Ebel also instructed Ibrahim Bahr al-Ulum, the man the Pentagon would choose as post-OIF oil minister for Iraq, on the correct method of disposing Iraq’s crude.
And what did the USA want Iraq to do with Iraq’s oil? The answer will surprise many of you: and it is uglier, more twisted, devilish and devious than anything imagined by the most conspiracy-addicted blogger. The answer can be found in a 323-page plan for Iraq’s oil secretly drafted by the State Department. Our team got a hold of a copy; how, doesn’t matter. The key thing is what’s inside this thick Bush diktat: a directive to Iraqis to maintain a state oil company that will “enhance its relationship with OPEC.”
Enhance its relationship with OPEC??? How strange: the government of the United States ordering Iraq to support the very OPEC oil cartel which is strangling our nation with outrageously high prices for crude.
Specifically, the system ordered up by the Bush cabal would keep a lid on Iraq’s oil production — limiting Iraq’s oil pumping to the tight quota set by Saudi Arabia and the OPEC cartel.
http://www.gregpalast.com/bush-didnt-bungle-iraq-you-fools
Greg Palast reveals that Bush (TM) invaded for the simple reason that by controlling this much oil, you can control the PRICE of oil. As in keep it high.
As in record profits for Bush (TM) cronies.
It always goes back to the money.
WSClark,
We chose to go to war with Japan. We could have just as easily decided to lift our embargos and supply them with the Natural Resources they needed and prevented any further hostilities.
War of choice.
Every war is one of choice.
Your statement is patently absurd.
“Your statement is patently absurd.”
Are you suggesting that after Pearl Harbor we should have submitted to the Japanese demands and stayed out of the war?
I stand by my statement and I will clarify it for you:
World War II was a war of necessity.
The War on Iraq is a war of choice.
According to ProjectCensored, “In 2004, the major U.S. oil companies posted record or near record profits. In 2005 profits for the five largest oil companies increased to $113 billion. In February 2006, ConocoPhillips reported a doubling of its quarterly profits from the previous year, which itself had been a company record. Shell posted a record breaking $4.48 billion in fourth-quarter earnings—and in 2005, ExxonMobil reported the largest one-year operating profit of any corporation in U.S. history.”
http://www.projectcensored.org/censored_2007/index.htm#2
Wow, now that is an interesting COINCIDENCE isn’t it? The US invades Iraq for non-existent WMD’s and within three years, ExxonMobil breaks the all-time record for yearly profits.
Who could have imagined that would happen?
And on a similar note, Dick Cheney’s non-existent financial ties to the oil company Halliburton are worth 1500 percent more than when he took office, some 9 million dollars.
COINCIDENCE, pure coincidence, nothing to see here, move along . . .
Not to be petty.
Hitler declared war on the U.S. when Japan did.
War of choice IS accurate here.
Nathan you are playing at semantics.
America was not under any threat from Iraq.
I am not saying we should or should not have done anything in WWII.
I am saying that your statement of the war in Iraq being a war of choice can be applied to every war, conflict, or battle we have ever been involved in.
Well, technically JR, the US was constantly under threat from Iraq–the threat that Saddam could open the spigots and hurt profits for Bush cronies.
The pre-emptive strike eliminated that serious threat to Big Oil’s profits.
Mission Accomplished.
Before Pearl Harbour we placed strict embargos on Japan. In their view we were interfering with their ability to get the resources they needed. We in their opinion made it necessary to go to war because of our ‘hostile’ actions.
The war with Germany was the same. Although we promised to be neutral we took sides with Britain. We were being less than subtke with our support for Germanies ememies.
Nathan is right. We chose to go to war. And again, WWII was for oil. Every war in the last century was for oil. When Saddam Hussien invaded Kuwait in an attempt to control their oil reserves he was invading an ally. It was an act of war.
With the UN we chose then to go to war. Bush-the-younger merely finished a war that his daddy started.
Hank
Hank, I’m having trouble integrating the “Korean War” into wars for oil, and a bit of a problem with WWI (although I’m sure I can figure it out); now, if you are using oil as a “strawman” for other resources, I can go along with your analysis.
Indeed, the squeal factor is getting higher and nothing has occurred.
WW1 was certainly not about oil.
WW2 (in Europe) was about WW1
Korea? Political ideological differences.
Ditto Vietnam.
Certainly people do few things that are not the result of choice (e.g., an epileptic seizure would be an exception). My understanding of the term “war of choice” means that the Iraq war was an unjustified war. We were not attacked, as we were by Japan – hence WWII had a clear justification for war.
I think the first rationalization seized on by conservatives is that Saddam never stopped fighting the first gulf war.
The one justification for war with Iraq that is frequently ignored was Saddam’s attempt at the assassination of GHW Bush. This attempt occured when the elder Bush was visiting in the middle east and it was really a miracle that it was not successful. I can’t recall the year but this occured after Bush was out of the White House.
The Bush family was understandably upset by the lack of response by Clinton to this provocation. If I am remembering correctly Clinton fired off some missles, but that was about it.
Oil in WWI? Let’s see, by 1900 the Ottoman Empire had been pushed out of Europe, except for a tiny toehold in the insignificant Balkans. But it still controlled North Africa and the Middle East, enormous oil reservoirs. Why did the Ottoman Empire ally with Germany, instead of England-France (before America got involved)? Does anyone have an answer to this?
The bottom line is, it worked out nicely for our side, as we took control of the oil. Most Americans aren’t even aware of this aspect of WWI, even though it had monumental importance.
Commodore Perry forced America’s intrusion into the previously isolationist nation of Japan ca. 1845. Trade was set up. The Japanese learned much from the young nation, in the matter of expansionism. They, in particular, viewed mainland Asians as “inferior peoples” as Americans viewed Amerindians, and thought they could make “better use” of Asia’s natural resources, i.e. modern industrial uses.
Alas, their newfound ambitions collided with colonial Europe’s America’s, which led to trade embargos on steel, rubber and oil. We knew that the Japanese, proud, martial people, decided to prepare for war. Our Japan-stationed embassy personell, businessmen and spys reported this. Before the Pearl Harbor attack, our strategists thought that the Japanese might very well launch an assault on the West Coast.
The Roosevelt administration felt hamstrung by Lend-Lease, and wanted to declare war on Germany. But the American people wanted to refrain from war. Was it “lucky” that Pearl Harbor occurred, changing Americans’ sentiment? Or did the administration bait a trap?
We’ll never know for certain. But, were America’s leaders racist? Without question they were. For example, German-Americans were never interned in either WWI or WWII. Were America’s leaders not racist, could they have given Japan a partnership position and maintained alliance? Were choices made in Washington that directly, or indirectly triggered war against Japan?
Yes, choices were made.
There was a plot by Iraq to assasinate Bush the Smarter, but nothing came of it. Clinton did fire off some cruise missiles and GHWB thanked him for his response.
We can’t go to war everytime a country gets whacky about the prez, current or former, or we would be at war constantly.
Will not happen. I predict a voilant revolt against our gov.Of course, we know that it was a provocative column, not a realistic opinion.
Saddam cannot be restored to power. But it might be a decent idea to give him amnesty. Expecially since some of his heinous acts were committed with America’s leaders complicity. People have a funny sentiment: “He’s an SOB, but he’s OUR SOB.” Perhaps extending an olive branch might be wiser than executing him and creating a martyr.
I think that we should force Saddam to watch reruns of GWB speeches 24/7.
After a day or two, he’ll be begging for the noose.
I don’t really think Saddam, especially after the death of his sons, is going to buddy up to the US.
Gentle people,
WWL was certainly about oil. All about oil. Prior to the end of the 19th century the British Empire decided to go from coal to oil as their primary source of fuel for their navy. Shortly thereafter Germany also started switching to oil for their navy and industry.
There are several good books on the subject, “A Century Of War” is one of the best for anyone that wants to get a little smarter on the Mideast and their effect on war the last one hundred years.
Read the book and then tell me that Viet Nam wasn’t about oil!
Hank
I believe Germany was prodded into going to war because of the pain that “War Reparations” was having on their economy. You can only squeeze so much juice out of an onion. If we were to put a “war reparations” charge against Iraq and their oil, should this war ever end,they would declare war on us.
Let the new Iraq Democracy ‘elect’ their own next strong arm man.
So Hilter invaded Poland because of the vast oil reserves located there?
Oil, that sweet nectar that keeps the vehicles sold at SCHOLFIELD AUTO PLAZA running down the torn up Wichita roadways. The same auto dealers who underwrite the Beagle. And thus is revealed the insidious truth. Randy Scholfield started the Iraq war to render his position at the Beagle unassailable.
Dear Dingus,
Yes. In 1939, Germany and Russia invaded Poland. They devided Poland with Russia getting the Polish oil fields. One of the reasons that the pact between Russia and Germany fell apart.
Hank
And Hitler got more ports on the North Sea, from which he could target oil freighters headed for his Island enemies.
Sorry, could not hammer this one into a Randy quip.
Except to say this: Hitler loved cars and believed that most every problem needed to be solved by government.
It would be amusing were it not so pathetic that Bush’s FUBARed mess in Iraq is so bad that putting Saddam back can even be discussed. I haven’t heard a better suggestion from the BushBots yet.
Whatever happened to Ahmed Chalabi?
Hank Price your thinking is flawed.
World WarI was about any number of things. Oil was not one of them.
You cite that England and Germany required fuel oil for their navies. But their navies e?isted for their military aspirations. You are missing a step in causality.
This would be like saying my yard being mowed was about my need for fuel for the mower.
The same is the case for World War II. Japan and Hitler had expansionist plans. They reqired the materials of war to accomplish those plans. Thus their efforts to obtain these materials were incidentally neccessary to their true objective. They were a means to an end not a an end in themselves.
The same is not true of Iraq where the resource oil is the strategic objective for economic as opposed to offense/defense necessities.
Fatal logic flaw. Your future is cancelled.
“We can’t go to war everytime a country gets whacky about the prez, current or former, or we would be at war constantly.”
I am sorry, but I think trying to kill a U.S. president is more than “wacky”. It was the closest thing we have to “casus belli.”
Borg — You rock!
Resistance to reich-wing logic is futile, but keep it up anyway.
You can’t change their minds, but at least you can irritate them for our amusement.
Carry on . . .
Dear borg,
I recommend that you do a little research and get back with us later. I gave you a good resource that explained my reasons for saying that all of the wars in the past century were for oil.
Of course Germany and Japan were expansionist regimes. Oil was at the heart of their agression. Britain’s and the USA’s attempts to lock up the supplies of oil from the turn of the century on were the reasons that Germany went to war.
You are not arguing with me my friend. You are arguing with the facts of history.
Hank
WW1 – Britain and France coveted oil under the control of Ottoman. Germany did as well but to a lesser extent. So, when Serbia triggered the war and britain/France came in on their side against Austria-Hungary and Germany the Ottomans had an interest. Add to that the fact that Serbia and Russia were enemies to Ottoman and the alliances were complete.
WW2 – Japan trying to secure Asian resources; Germany captured Bulgarian (? or Romanian?) fields. Germany also used Fischer-Tropsch to indirectly liquify coal.
Don’t know that Korea was oil; however I do wonder if China wanted to secure NK’s uranium resources.
VietNam – US had an economic interest in oil resources in the South China Sea.
And you think a two bit plot to assasinate a former president is sufficient cause to spend 100’s of billion dollars and waste 2,900 lives of American men and women?
That is a good enough reason to go to war?
Saddam never even came close to killing Bush the Smarter. He never even got into Kuwait to even have a shot at GHWB – not even close. It, like WMD, was just a figment of his demented imagination.
For this, we should waste 2,900 American lives?
I can see how the WWs were related to oil, but I can’t make the connection with the Korean or Viet Nam wars.It seems a real stretch!Any elaboration?
gster – VN was one of those nebulous allegations about US oil companies wanting access to the S China Sea. There is a current dispute between VN and China over much of that.
Ben- I remember that China and VN werearguing about some island group and oil, but I don’t recall anything about US oil interests.Out participation in VN was due to SEATO treaty commitments and the infamous Gulf of Tonkin incident. IMHO.
The last line in the article: “I know why restoring a brutal tyrant to power is a bad idea. Somebody explain to me why it’s worse than all the others.”
Sad question … but interesting …
gster – I don’t think we had any SEATO commitments to S VietNam. As for Tonkin; that is just like WMDs.
Ben- The US was a member of SEATO, and was therefore obligated to come to the defense of a fellow member should they be invaded.South Viet NAm wa a member, and was most definately invaded, hence our obligation.Most people haven’t heard of SEATO, nor these obligations.
Everyone ignore that liberal troll WSClark…he loves it when taxes are sky-high, more people are on welfare, and gas prices keeping rising. He loves others being miserable!
“And you think a two bit plot to assasinate a former president is sufficient cause to spend 100’s of billion dollars and waste 2,900 lives of American men and women?
“That is a good enough reason to go to war?”
Didn’t say that; I think I said it was the “closest thing” we had to a “casus belli” [justification for war].
And, I would also reiterate that an assassination plot is not a small thing, not a mere irriation. That is my opinion, only. I am comfortable with the fact that you disagree.
In my defense, I tend to be an “anti-murder” type of fellow, even when it involves a Bush.
I would submit that a plot to assasinate a president, former or otherwise, is an act of war.
I’d rather pay $10.00 for a gallon of gas than be a “we support the troops, but not the war” cut and runner.
“Everyone ignore that liberal troll WSClark…he loves it when taxes are sky-high, more people are on welfare, and gas prices keeping rising. He loves others being miserable!”
Well, welcome back, Mr. Steinle!!
Really, “Roscoe”?
Well, you could start by paying your share of war costs. 1.6 billion / week divided by 300 million Americans = roughly 300 dollars a year times every dependent in your family.
So a family of five would owe 1500 dollars a year.
Since we’ve been in Iraq almost four years, your share would be 1200 for yourself or 6000 if you have a family of five.
You’ve got a couple of extra grand lying around don’t you Roscoe?
I mean, you don’t want and cut and run over a few thousand dollars do you?
Hank, when he’s caught out in an obvious idioticy, he says more to cover . . . no wonder he supports Bush.
The first country that Nazi Germany annexed was Austria. Hank claims “Hitler did it for the oil.”
The next country if memory serves was Czechoslovakia — again, “for the oil,” right Hank.
Hitler really wanted a military victory instead of abject capitulation, and he got it in Poland. No doubt to confiscate their vast OIL RESERVES according to Hank.
Man, just admit you’re wrong. It doesn’t make you look the way you look by doggedly holding a position that doesn’t make good nonsense.
no wmd’s ?? do your research…don’t just read this newspaper!
Ah Capn,
Do the research. The infamous League of Nations after WWI existed mainly for The allies to sew up the oil production in the Mideast.
The western oil cartels were starving a Germany that was trying to compete in the world market place with their industry.
Hitler used all of this politically to solidify his power.
You’re arguing with history my friend, not me.
Hank
“no wmd’s ?? do your research…don’t just read this newspaper!”
Even Bush, Cheney, et al, have had to admit publicly that there were no WMD – and that came from more than “just this newspaper.”
But I would interested in hearing where the WMD are?
BTW – Don’t try that old “shipped to Syria” routine. That has also been disproven.
WMD in Syria
http://www.2la.org/syria/iraq-wmd.php
Hank’s reference, “A Century of War” is a serious academic book, so far as I can tell. Its publisher, Pluto is a leftist organization. (See, Hank’s more open-minded than many of you think.
Amazon sells it. Price $80. Not exactly cheap reading.KU and KSU have copies. WSU does not.
The serious nature of the book can be discerned from the fact that the following university research libraries with top-flight international affairs schools have it:Harvard, Princeton (2 copies), Georgetown, Johns Hopkins.
So does MIT. Columbia. Duke. Cornell (2 copies).
Some public university libraries that have it include Michigan, Texas A&M (top petro engineering school), all nine campuses of the University of California.
The New York Public Library’s research division also has a copy.
I did not perform an exhaustive study, but these are all highly respected institutions that don’t waste money on pop cult acquisitions.
The control of or aquisition of oil is responsible for every major war we were in the past one hundred years.
Hank
Hank reads a book and its automatically true.
Here is an interesting post excerpt of a speech Cheney gave in 1999 (a year before the 2000 election) at the Institute of Petroleum Autum Lunch:
By some estimates there will be an average of two per cent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead along with conservatively a three per cent natural decline in production from existing reserves. That means by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come from? Governments and the national oil companies are obviously controlling about ninety per cent of the assets. Oil remains fundamentally a government business. While many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world’s oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies, even though companies are anxious lor greater access there, progress continues to be slow.
Notice the word “prize”,and its specified “ultimate” location.
The full text of Cheney’s speech is posted at
http://www.studien-von-zeitfragen.net/Zeitfragen/Cheney_on_Oil/cheney_on_oil.html
It’s a Civil War, Stupidby Dan Froomkin
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html
And underlying the civil war, which I feel has been “real” since 2005, is the inability to form a national identity, which, I have read, and read,…, is due to the inability of the parties to come to an agreement over “equitable division” of oil revenues.
“WMD in Syria”
Official American policy does not reflect that WMD have been moved to Syria from Iraq. Logically, if Saddam had had WMD, why wouldn’t he have kept them for use against the invading American forces?
Secondly, if Saddam was in possession of WMD, why didn’t the UN inspector uncover any evidence?
No responsible American or British journalist has reported this story, even Fox News. Sean Hannity has tried this claim, but has not produced any verifiable evidence.
Much like Chabili and Curveball, this story smacks of “wannabe” more than any credible documentation.
WMD in Syria
http://www.menewsline.com/stories/2004/april/04_09_1.html
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/WinnipegSun/News/2004/01/25/324358.html
http://www.nysun.com/article/26514
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/25/wirq25.xml
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36463
Un Inspectors were fired upon while trucks were leaving the sites to be inspected. Why would they do that?
After the trucks were gone, the inspectors were welcomed in.
Why would Saddam ship out WMD rather than use them to protect his regime?
US policy dictates that if WMD are used on US forces, the US is free to deploy WMD against its enemy. I think we have bigger toys than he did.
Also, wouldn’t it be nice if Saddam had all his toys put up to create quite the stir when we couldn’t find them? Seems to have worked that way anyway.
Heh, thanks for coming up with the latest wild-eyed conspiracy theory from the wack-o right.
Have you got your tin foil hat on?
If Saddam had WMD’s, why don’t any of the freed scientists tell us about them?
Where are the chemical traces?
When the CIA found traces of VX in the “asprin factory” that Clinton bombed, you reich-wingers said it was nothing.
Where are the chemicals now?
You ain’t got sh*t. The joke’s in your hand.
Bush lied and lied and lied so he could go in for the oil.
End of story.
Ok
Sol?
Saddam had weapons but he let his country be invaded, conquered and occupied and himself to be deposed, imprisoned and executed? All to save the weapons?
That’s like Hank arguing that securing the tools of war is the primary reason for war.
Sol go sit with Hank.
I find it curious, to say the least, that, if this information was credible, that the Bush administration has not used this “documentation” to bolster support for their war of choice. Given their previous attempts to make claims regarding WMD, you would think that they would be “all over this story.”
Quite the converse is true, however, in that Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Tenent and Rumsfeld have made public admissions that there were no WMD.
Futhermore, the US did use WMD against Iraq, given cruise missiles and MOAB.
It is interesting that some of the “stories” claim that Iraq transported WMD via ambulances, others via commercial jets and others claim that the WMD are in secret tunnels.
Saddam did creat quite a stir when no WMD’s were found – buthe is still going to hang. I guess his last words will be “gotcha.”
The point remains, why hasn’t the Bush administration used this “documentation” for their own benefit?
Just how was Saddam going to deploy those WMDs on the U.S.? Giant slingshots?
Cruise Missiles can be converted to WMD with the correct warhead. A MOAB may just barely count as a WMD. VX and other NBC agents?
The UN has been utterly ineffective in any of its pursuits. So how do you purpose searching Syria with out starting yet another Mid East front?
Saddam was purchasing rocket motors and technology.
“Saddam was purchasing rocket motors and technology.”
And?
I could purchase rocket motors and technology if I had the money. That doesn’t mean I’d know how to use them.
“If Saddam had WMD’s, why don’t any of the freed scientists tell us about them?”
Sounds like he had folks that could figure it out.
Repost…..
The point remains, why hasn’t the Bush administration used this “documentation” for their own benefit?
Wouldn’t that then commit us to doing some serious investigation into Syria? The only way to establish the facts would be to go into Syria and find out for sure.
So you are supporting adding Syria to the current list of Mid East nations we are mired in?
“So you are supporting adding Syria to the current list of Mid East nations we are mired in?”
I never suggested invading Syria, just as I never supported invading Iraq.
From the “stories” I have read, the methoda of transporting the WMD range from medical vehicles to airplanes to secret tunnels to convoys of military trucks.
The WMD range from 500 metric tons of VX, to cruise missiles to dirty bombs to god knows what else.
The reasons that the “story” has not been exposed also wander all over the map.
The “sources” backing up the allegations also wander all over the map, from Irsraeli’s to Syrians to Iraqi “scientists” to al Qaeda to Lebanese to “covert” CIA operatives.
Given the lives and treasure that Bush has lost in Iraq, I think it most plausible that he would use any “reason” at all to justify the invasion.
We have had satellite surveillance in the Middle east for decades – don’t you think that our intel would have picked up on the mass movement of WMD?
I think we might have noticed, pre-war, that “something” was going on….
And what happened when the UN inspectors were rolling up on a facility and were fired upon. When trucks were leaving the back of the building in the opposite direction? What do you think they were doing? Trying to hide the Bac-O-Bits in their salads.
If you think that Saddam wasn’t doing crap he wasn’t supposed to nor had weapons he wasn’t supposed to then pat your Mom on the back. She tells one hell of a bed time story.
The evidence includes satellite photographs of Iraqi convoys believed to be bringing missiles and WMD into Syria as well as assertions from Iraqi officials that ousted leader Saddam Hussein ordered such a transfer.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36844
Actually, Sol, it makes perfect sense if Saddam was engaged in a charade of having WMDs while not so possessing.
Repost…..
The point remains, why hasn’t the Bush administration used this “documentation” for their own benefit?
So where is the actual “proof” of your claim and why hasn’t the Bush administration used this “evidence?”
Virtually the entire world has come to the conclusion that Saddam did not have WMD – even Blair and Howard have admitted, along with the Bush Admin, that there were no WMD – so why the insistance on this conspiracy theory?
BTW – Bush must be telling the same “bedtime” story.
Sounds like a middle eastern take-off on the shell game.
You’re right. Saddam is really a good guy after all. That “stuff” he sprayed on the Kurds was deodorant. Who knew?
“You’re right. Saddam is really a good guy after all. That “stuff” he sprayed on the Kurds was deodorant. Who knew?”
Work on your debate techniques – I never said Saddam was a “good guy.” I said that he did not have WMD.
And yes, we know he sprayed poison gas on the Kurds – the Kurds that were aligned against him with the Iranians during the Iraq/Iran war – the gas that he used was supplied to him by the Reagan Administration.
And that much is documented.
Would said gas be deemed a weapon of mass destruction?
Debate techniques. Hmmm. Game. Set. Match. He gassed the Kurds with a weapon of mass destruction. Saddam had WMD.
GOOD ONE VAUGHN!
Ya know sol? Dictators with an iron grip on a country tend to be not very informed folks. They are folks who get told what they want to hear because if you tell them otherwise you get tortured and killed. Hell Saddam may have thought he actually had those weapons.
sol you are really stretching credibility here. Syria just had a pretty nasty bout with Israel.
So NOW we are supposed to believe that Saddam sacrificed everything to save his weapons by sending them to Syria who ALSO did not use them? Come on!
“Would said gas be deemed a weapon of mass destruction?”
He had poison gas – supplied by the US – prior to the First Gulf War.
There is no proof or reasonable conclusion that says he had WMD after 1991.
“Terrorism is coming … with the Americans,” Saddam said. “With the Americans, two years ago, not a long while ago, with the English I believe, there was a campaign … with one of them, that in the future there would be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060313-123146-7380r.htm
“Debate techniques. Hmmm. Game. Set. Match. He gassed the Kurds with a weapon of mass destruction. Saddam had WMD.”
He gassed the Kurds in 1988! October 22, 1988!
Three years PRIOR to the First Gulf War. If he was such a “bad man” then, why didn’t the US condemn him at that point?
Oh, yeah, he was our ALLY in 1988.
Bush The Wise stopped in Kuwait because he knew what would happen if we toppled Saddam. Bush The uh… Not So Wise didn’t heed that advice.
I heard that the British are working on using armour on their sailing warships and possibly equiping them with ten inch cannons.
Do you think we should invade England?
Wait! That was in 1750. Sorry!
The US has been in and out of bed with more countries and shitty people than I care to think about. Since time immemorium politics has made strange bedfellows.
Is the US always right in our ties to countries? No. Should we have invaded Iraq? No. Was Saddam doing and possessing things he shouldn’t have. Absolutely.
“Was Saddam doing and possessing things he shouldn’t have. Absolutely.”
No proof, absolutely none.
Saddam was a two bit megalomaniac, most likely delusional, dictator that was a best a paper tiger.
We have wasted 2,900 American lives and countless billions to oust a phoney Emperor that was more of a threat to a bottle of wine than he was to the US.
Saddam might have been a threat if he took shooting lessons from Dick Cheney using that shotgun he always posed with.
The world is full of bad leaders – we have one ruling a country 90 miles South of the US. It is not our place in the world to intervene in the affairs of every country that we dislike.
“Should we have invaded Iraq? No.”
“”Was Saddam doing and possessing things he shouldn’t have. Absolutely.”"
No proof……….
Why would Saddam forego the opportunity to have sanctions lifted just to give the illusion he had WMD?
Nor is that all: Rich Lowry of National Review has shown that the entire Clinton administration leadership – as well as the United Nations and the French and German governments – believed in the existence of Iraqi WMD.If no WMD exist, the real mystery is not how the Bush administration made the same mistake everyone else did; the mystery is why Saddam created the false impression that he had them. Why did he put himself into the bizarre position of simultaneously pretending to build WMD and pretending to hide his nonexistent weapons?
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1271
As I have noted before, Saddam kicked the UN inspectors out of Iraq in the ’90’s, therefore giving the Clinton administration reason to believe that he had restarted his WMD program. When the inspectors were allowed back into Iraq, they were able to confirm that no such program existed.
In March of 2003, the inspectors, led by Hans Blix, were forced to leave Iraq due to the pending American invasion. Had they been able to complete their work, no invasion would have been required.
Saddam only had a WMD program in the foggy mist that swirls around in his head.
KAY: Well, let me give you my experience. Even when you conduct a genuine surprise inspection, unless you surround the site, you find the Iraqis moving material and documents out the back gate. So, in a week, you have time to move everything out.
ZAHN: So, you’re talking about a major game of hide-and-seek here.
KAY: Look, we’ve had this major game going on since 1991. I don’t like the term “hide-and-seek.” That’s a harmless game of children. This game has involved shots fired at inspectors, major portions of a WMD program — nuclear, chemical, biological — being moved and frustrating the will of the Security Council.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0210/02/ltm.01.html
Why the fa?ßade if there was not a WMD program?
Perception is reality: if they make you believe that these WMDs exist, don’t they in-effect exist for you, irregardless of the reason for the deception?And aren’t you likely to react according to this “reality”?
SolDevVB,
One very logical and obvious possibilty: playing a bluff with hostile neighbors.
Rich Lowry? Hahahahahahahaha…
gstr,So with that statement, you still bash Bush for exactly what you just said. The world pretty much believed before the war….
No, actually Bush is self-bashing, my help is not required!I always thought that after Desert Storm, the US would be the last country Saddam would want to mess with, and the WMD posturing was more to intimidate his neighbors, rather than us. IMO.
The facade of WMD, what little facade there was, was so that Saddam could give the Iraqi people the impression that he was still the all powerful dictator that he claimed he was……
…. just as Bush is again today trying to blame al Qaeda for the situation in Iraq.
He is trying to create the image that he is the only one standing between the people and a hostile outside world.
That covers both Bush and Saddam.
http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/pdf/Iraq/kaytestimony.pdf
David Kay in Senate Testimony: “Let me begin by saying we were wrong.”
John Warner (Bush(TM) conservative hack): But couldn’t they still be hidden?
Kay: “I believe that the effort that has been directed to this point has been sufficiently intense that it is highly unlikely that there were large stockpiles of deployed militarized chemical and biological weapons there.”
SEN. LEVIN (Democratic Senator): “Do you have any evidence that they had any stockpiles,large or small, in 2002?”
MR. KAY: “Simply have no evidence, Senator.”
SEN. LEVIN: “You have not uncovered any evidence of small stockpiles?”
MR. KAY: “We have not uncovered any small stockpiles, that’s correct.”
SEN. LEVIN: “Have you uncovered any evidence that they had small stockpiles in 2002?”
MR. KAY: “We have not discovered evidence of stockpiles.”
When the President’s two handpicked men Charles Duelfer and David Kay say after two or three years of looking that Saddam didn’t have WMD’s at the time of the invasion, at some point, you have to conclude that Saddam didn’t have WMD’s at the time of the invasion.
I suppose some of you Bush dead-enders can continue to ignore reality as you have in the past.
But thank God, the American people aren’t buying that crap anymore . . .
Hank–
Are you referencing Ferguson’s book “A Century of War.”
Okay, that explains it then.
Reviewer: “Keep in mind that Ferguson is Tory to his roots, and despite ties to Harvard and Stanford universities, he views the world from the banks of the Thames. So to him, the capital and center of the West is London.
“As he did in earlier volumes, especially in “The Pity of War,” and “The Cash Nexus,” Ferguson takes pleasure in debunking the rock-solid premises of modern historians. And this debunking is often controversial and sometimes politically incorrect . . .
“A sampling of his premises:
* The Holocaust, as horrific and inexcusable as it was, was one of a series of racial wars perpetrated throughout the world. He cites as being racially motivated Stalin’s purges, Mao’s civil war, the Armenian genocide at the hands of the Turks and the Japanese mass murder of its mainland neighbors.
* Hitler’s decision to attack the Soviets was an attack on “Jewish Bolshevism,” a threat to the Third Reich.
* Ferguson continues to develop his theme from his earlier “The Pity of War” that the British entry into World War I was a mistake of the greatest magnitude. This was not a war of good versus evil. It was a natural fallout of the disintegration of the Habsburg, Romanov, Hohenzollern and Ottoman empires.
* Appeasement didn’t lead to war. World War II began in 1937 with Japan’s invasion of China. War, he claims, led to attempts at appeasement.
“Some other Ferguson observations, accompanied by massive bodies of fact, are that Russian, British and U.S. atrocities were on a par with Germany’s and Japan’s, especially in the indiscriminate fire bombings of civilian cities. Yet, the ultimate bomb, as atrocious as it might appear 60 years later, was no more than the natural development of the science of industrialized warfare, and in fact might be seen as “poetic justice,” an achievement of Jewish scientists, refugees from the Nazis.
By the way, it doesn’t sound like he thought WWI was “about oil.”
Oops . . . ignore those last two posts. It wasn’t Ferguson’s book Hank was referring to — it was F. William Engdahl (economist and journalist–not historian).
What Hank neglected to mention was that Engdahl is a vociferous opponent of US hegemony for control of oil.
http://www.energybulletin.net/13780.html
And Rumsfilled’s ties to Tamiflu and the trumped up scare about “bird flu”:
Is Avian Flu another Pentagon Hoax?
F. William Engdahl
October 30, 2005
No sooner are indictments being handed down to Scooter Libby, the Chief of Staff of the Vice President of the United States for lies and coverup of information used deliberately to suppress the fact the Bush Administration had no ’smoking gun’ to prove Saddam Hussein was building a nuclear arsenal, but a new scandal is surfacing every bit as outrageous and ultimately, likely also criminal.
Against all scientific prudence and normal public health procedure, the world population is being whipped up into a fear frenzy by irresponsible public health officials from the US Administration to WHO to the United States Centers for Disease Control. They all warn about the imminent danger that a malicious viral strain might spread from infected birds, primarily in Vietnam and other Asian centers, to contaminate the entire human species in pandemic proportions. Often the flu pandemic of 1918 which is said to have killed 18 million worldwide, is cited as an example of what ‘might’ lie in store for us.
And also this from his website:
Iraq and Washington’s ’seeds of democracy’
By F. William Engdahl, 5 June 2005(Previously published in Current Concerns)
‘The reason we are in Iraq is to plant the seeds of democracy so they flourish there and spread to the entire region of authoritarianism.’ – George W. Bush
When George W. Bush spoke of planting the ’seeds of democracy’ few realized he might have had in mind Monsanto seeds.
Following the US occupation of Iraq in March 2003, the economic and political life of that country changed radically. Iraq is under the complete economic control of the occupying power, the United States.
*****
This outspoken critic of Bush (TM) sounds like a leftist, Hank.
Dear Capn,
You might want to read his book. I read it a few years ago and as a result I ended up reading probably another 20 books on related subjects. I am a voracious reader.
Yes Capn, I’m afraid that he might lean a little to the left. He does, however, bring facts and a very good understanding of history to his works. Unlike most liberals today he talks about real issues and he is able to do it without sophmoric name calling.
Congratulations on your research, read his book, we’ll talk.
Hank
WHAM!
Good one Capn!
One rather amusing aspect of all these claims that Saddam transported his WMDs to his sworn enemy rather than using them is that we have not found sufficient contamination at sites where they would have been. Decontaminating such sites is tremendously difficult, time consuming, and expensive. Ask your local scientists who has worked professionally with such chemicals.
Face it BushBots, your boy came up dry in his search. Didn’t you see his cutesy little skit looking for them under desks etc on the tube? The whole thing was a joke. A BAD JOKE.
Just like MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
Hank–I’m impressed that you don’t only read authors that support your world view. That separates you from the vast majority of conservatives, I’m guessing.
The Eagle quit running little old Molly Ivins because of the rage of the wing-nuts, but the continue to run one of the most virulent CONs in Cal Thomas twice a week.
On the other hand, maybe he’s just cheap. A chimp could write his columns.
******
Ben H. — thanks for weighing in on the WMD’s. You can’t have chemical weapons without chemicals. And chemicals leave traces. As a chemist, you know that.
But basic science has never been BushCo’s strong suit, obviously . . .
Cap’n…
Neither has basic English. As for Math… ROFL
Actually, after watching the evening news, it occurs to me that putting Saddam back in charge of Iraq in it’s present condition might just be better justice than hanging the bastard! And it wouldn’t do much good for the insurgents either!
My prediction: the endgame will be Iran and Syria basically take over. That will place the US is a weaker position than before as the Syria-Iraq-Iran alliance dominate the region from the Mediterranean to Pakistan. Saddam used to function as a counterweight to the Syria-Iran alliance. Not any more.