More Iraq-WMD-Terrorism links for the lefties to deny

I don't know what is more useless - the article, or the misdirection about WMD.

Let's look at this piece by piece - even assuming everything the prosectuters say is true and that the videotaped confession is genuine and not forced.

A) He met with Zarqawi in Baghdad. Does this mean Zarqawi lived in Baghdad? Does this mean Zarqawi dined at Saddam's palaces in baghdad? Of course not. Heck - they might have met on a golf course near Baghdad - maybe terrorists like a quick 18 while plotting death and destruction. Or maybe they met at Starbucks.

What is clear is that the equation 'terrorists met in Baghdad' + "Saddam Hussain lived in Baghdad' = "Saddam Hussain and terrorists skipped down the road holding hands, gazing lovingly into each others' eyes, pledging fealty to destroy the great satan" - well, this equation is absurd.

Unless of course, the meeting was in a sideroom at "Terrorcon 2000" at the Baghdad Hilton where Saddam was keynote speaker. Then maybe you might have a point.

B) Weapons of Mass Destruction? Huh? Where? Zarqawi gave him explosives and $50,000. How many freakin WMD can you buy with that? I'm thinking of that Chris Rock 'how much for one rib' schtick - '$200,000 for a canister of Sarin???!!! How much for one molecule?!'

Then the guy buys 'chemical substances' in downtown shops. Hell, I didn't know there were "Make your own drum of mustard gas" kits in downtown shops.

Sounds to me like the guy bought some fertilizers and industrial chemicals and was tooling around in his garage with a copy of the Anarchist Cookbook.

That does not a Weapon Of Mass Destruction make.

Weapons of Mass Destruction are things like warheards full of properly milled anthrax spores. Artillery shells ready to pop open and spread mustard gas around. Large cylinders of Sarin.

Kooks in their garages can do some damage - don't get me wrong - I'm particularly thinking here of the sarin attack on a japanese subway - but that in no way constitutes "MASS" destruction.

So - what we get from this link is no tie to Saddam Hussain, and no WMD.

And idiots leaping small buildings to come to illogical conclusions.

At least that's my take.

 

I don't think so. Khurmal is only 15 km north of Halabjah (spelled Xurmal and Helebje on this map), and the are clearly below the 36th parallel.

The no fly zone didn't extend below the 36th parallel


But as I said, they WERE in the Kurdish controlled areas, outside of Saddam's control.

 

Are you serious? This dead horse has been beaten harder than Whitney Houston.

David Kay said that the reason Saddam didn't have WMD in 2003 was because (a) sanctions, and (b) Operation Desert Fox.

Until inspectors returned to Iraq in December 2002, there was no way for Clinton, or anyone else, to know for sure how successful Desert Fox had been.

However, some people had a pretty good idea. Snooze Alarm Rice and Colin Powell both said that Saddam wasn't a threat. The Downing Street Memo placed Iraq below North Korea and Libya on the WMD threat scale.

If your point is that Bill Clinton supports the Iraq invasion, then you're correct. I believe he is wrong on the subject, and George Herbert Walker Bush was right. Clinton even said that Saddam kicked out weapons inspectors in 1998, when it was Clinton who ordered them out in preparation for the December bombings. Bush tells similar lies these days about the 2002 inspectors.

 

Because he had top security force and intelligence agencies in the world? Are you saying he had better tracking of terrorists in his country than we did? Because we weren't following several of the 9/11 terrorists. I think you vastly over-rate his intelligence capabilities. As someone else mentioned, if they had their meeting in the left wing of Saddam's palace, then maybe you have a case. Otherwise ...

 

Absolutely. Saddam had a total stranglehold on the northern border. Airtight, I tells ya.

 

Right. Because he personally approved the entry of every single person who wanted to go to Iraq.

 

He was a sole, genius boogieman, Barb; don't you get it? If we don't monsterize and individualize our enemies, we can't sic Sgt. Christ on 'em good n' proper! So WHAT if we miss our own role in a Saddam, or a Suharto or a Pinochet...or a McVeigh...our conception of the world is utterly individual and personality-driven, thus, all crime, anll malfeasance, is individual and personality-driven! There ARE mad geniuses out there, and they are diabolical (remember Noriega? GENIUS! DIABOLICAL GENIUS!), and they all hate us, all the time.

(quickly tears up notes on US providing Iraq with intel to murder Iranians, and everything Iran-contra...)

HELTER SKELTER..! HELTER SKELTER..!

 

c'mon - I've seen those TV pictures of Iraqi border guards - all fat tanned men with bushy taches. Even if they weren't all Saddam, surely they were related.

 

I can't believe you're accusing me of whipping a dead horse, when I imagine you have posted every day for the last two years on the lies of and the evil-ness of Prez Bush. Now, THAT is a dead horse.He's almost out of office already (or at least won't be doing much of anything until he leaves -- except appointing 2 SC Justices. )

But, getting past that, I didn't have a POINT, just wondering how or if the Dems are trying to justify their war criticism when they stated Saddam had terror ties (at least in 2002 they said so).

And I understand the WMD argument. ... He might have had them in 1998, but by 2003 he definitley did not have them because of sanctions and Desert Fox, and as corraborated by inspectors. correct?

 

You said the guy wouldn't be able to get into Iraq without Saddam noticing. You didn't say anything about Baghdad specifically.

There go those goalposts again.

 

Look at that goalpost fly by!

 

ummmm how is that a dead horse when we have soldiers in iraq? how is that a dead horse when the administration continues to play games with the american public?

 

ian, hard at work on his reply

 

I must be missing something. The post was started on one topic, i.e. was Saddam harboring terrorists before the war. You responded that Zaquari was in the no-fly zone. To quote you, “Wasn't Zarqawi hiding up north, you know in the no-fly zone. You know the area we "protected". So in essence we were protecting him.” In response to that comment, I gave a reporter’s account along with first person testimony as to where the Jihadists were before the Iraq war. You say it proves nothing. Okay. I guess I can’t metaphysically prove anything but to that standard neither can you. So, if that is the standard for rational discussion on this board, then I have one question: So how ya doing? Cause we won’t get anywhere discussing anything more concrete.

 

Because we are there. And Bush is essentially lame-duck right now. So, whip that WMD thing all you want. But it is a dead horse, at least re: George Bush.

The question is, however, how do the Dems make use of the Iraq war to their advantage? They are in a John Kerry-type pickle, I believe, because they can't attack the Reps too harshly because they admitted back in the day that Saddam had ties to terrorism.

So, the Reps say:

"You criticize the war but you said, before the war became "unpopular," that Saddam had terror ties. So you would have rather left him in power so he could further help terrorists who are trying to kill us?"

So my question, NOT AN ATTACK (for the love of God), is, what do the Dems respond when asked that question?

Someone must have thought of an answer by now.... something stronger than Kerry's "I would maybe have invaded, but I wouldn't have screwed it up, somehow" .. or whatever he said.

 

That's how I understand it, as I read the Kay Report, yes.

 

Help from France key in covert operations

SacDizel!

 

They can't defend it. They (not all, but many Democrats) jumped on the post-9/11 jingoistic chest-beating bandwagon out of typical political wave-surfing, and now have to live with that albatross hanging around their necks. For those politicians, they have to say 'I was misled by the manipulated evidence presented by the administration", which in many cases is no doubt accurate, though they certainly did little to question that evidence, or they have to fess up to the fact that they put their judgment on hold in favor of wrapping themselves in the flag for political purposes (a statement I cannot imagine any of them having the intestinal fortitude to make).

But just because many democratic politicians repeated the dubious claims of the administration does not mean one can paint with a broad brush and say "all" democrats said such things, including all non-politicians. That would be revisionist history, because there were many, many voices that denied that Saddam posed any threat, or had any material terrorist contacts (including Condi Rice and Colin Powell, for that matter).

 

Wait, I thought it was WMD? Now it's "ties to terrorism." If I didn't know better, I'd say you didn't want to be convinced.

When Bush tried to come up with Saddam's "ties to terrorism," he brought up 9/11. The son of a bitch still does it. If it was important enough to invade, it was important enough to tell the truth about. If you're willing to invade over suicide-bomber subsidies, why aren't we invading Saudi Arabia?

 

I would like this but Saudi Arabia has given help with apprehension (not just once but several times since 911). Just like article above. It is written for whiteman but there is hint of intervention. The Government can operate blindly. This is as it is. Iran and Iraq refuse to give type of help until U. S. A. fully commits.