|
Since the day the first American soldier stepped across the Kuwait-Iraq border in March 2003, everyone who supported the removal of Saddam Hussein from power has been under a relentless attack from the Left. Led by the "mainstream" media, the attack began on the very first day, at the very first CENTCOM briefing, and has continued like a relentless mosquito whining to this day. Despite the fact that every intelligence service in the world agreed, members of the US government agreed, the United Nations agreed and Iraqi officials admitted that Iraq had created weapons of mass destruction and never provided any proof that they had been destroyed, the Left has been using "where's the WMDs?" as an attack against President Bush. Every time a plausible reason for not stumbling across warehouses full of gleaming ICBMs and vats of glowing green gunk marked "DANGER! WMD" right away was offered, the Left ignored it. They refuse to consider, even today, that Saddam may have hidden, moved or destroyed his arsenal, though it became clear months before the war in Iraq began that the Coalition was serious about forcing Saddam to comply with all those violated UN resolutions (including the 1991 cease-fire with the US). When those on the Left ask where Saddam's WMDs are, they don't actually want to know... they just want an excuse to bash Bush and claim that he "lied". Every time evidence of illegal weapons (like the ricin in north Iraq) or dual-use material (like the so-called "pesticide" in south Iraq) was discovered, the Left brushed it off. Even Dr. David Kay's reports of Iraq's undisclosed WMD research (including Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever) could not penetrate their intransigence. They demanded that President Bush quickly produce huge stockpiles of WMDs or be branded a liar. Note that the kind of stockpile the Left demanded as evidence of Saddam's non-compliance would have been impossible to hide even from the bumbling Hans Blix. As Paul Leventhal testified before the Senate in March 2000, "he was in charge when the IAEA totally missed Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program before the Gulf War and accepted unsubstantiated Iraqi disarmament claims after the war." The Left ignored Hans Blix's background. The Left ignored every piece of evidence that Saddam had ever had WMDs. The Left has ignored everything that justified the Iraq war so far, because a just war doesn't fit their predetermined position. (You know the position: Bush is evil, he's controlled by Halliburton, aliens and/or Israel, Iraq was all about oil, world imperialism and/or personal revenge, etc.) Well, this may prove a little harder for them to ignore. An al-Qaeda cell linked to Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi (currently hiding out in Iraq), recently planned to set off simultaneous chemical weapon attacks in Jordan which might have killed up to 20,000 people. It might have been the worst terrorist attack ever, had it not been foiled by Jordanian officials before the plot could be carried out. One of the attack points was to have been the US embassy in Amman; the rest were public and government buildings. Where did these would-be bombers come from? Where did they get their chemical weapons, which included a poison gas (probably VX nerve agent, according to intelligence expert John Loftus)? According to Jordan... from our old friend, Syria. But how did Syria get chemical weapons? During the last few months leading up to the Iraq war, some of Saddam's arsenal of WMDs was apparently being shipped across the Syrian border for safe-keeping. The Israelis believed that the bulk of it kept going, to be buried in Lebanon's Beka'a Valley, under Hezbollah control.
The first part of this report matches what David Kay learned after spending several months in Iraq searching for the whereabouts of Saddam's arsenal. "We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons," he said. "But we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD programme. Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved." The report was further corroborated by CIA satellite photos showing fleets of trucks moving from Iraq to Syria during February and March 2003. A Syrian journalist named Nizar Nayuf defected to the West in January 2004. He claimed to know of three locations in Syria where Saddam's WMDs were buried in February 2003. US officials have repeatedly warned Syria that their covert support of the terrorists in Iraq will not be tolerated. Syria has consistently worked against the Coalition and against the formation of a new democracy in Iraq. They provided safe haven for former members of Saddam's regime and have probably been hiding Saddam's WMD arsenal all along. If Bashar Assad has allowed terrorists to acquire some of it, things will go very badly for him... and in the very near future. |
| Jamie April 21, 2004 08:38 AM PDT It is reports like those you chronicle that are so frustrating. The media chose which parts of David Kay's report to report about, singling out specific sentences and ignoring others in the same paragraph, to paint the picture that they wanted to paint - i.e., that Kay didn't find any WMD's in Iraq. But I read the report, all of it, including the parts which state that there is evidence that materials were moved during the so-called "rush to war". You know, where the president rushed us to war over an 18 month period, giving SH plenty of time to move, bury, destroy, etc, the WMDs and the documentation! The really bad thing about David Kay, though, is the fact that he keeps opening his mouth and saying things that are contrary to his report. What is it these days with these people - they all seem to have foot in mouth disease. (or diarrhea of the mouth). Han Blix is just an pompous, snobby, opportunistic s.o.b. I get nauseated whenever I see him interviewed. He never intended to find any weapons. He thought that he had a "lifetime" job, but G.W. took it away from him. So he wrote a book about it and trashed the U.S. government. | ||
| JM April 21, 2004 08:50 AM PDT >So he wrote a book about it and >trashed the U.S. government. What, doesn't EVERYONE? | ||
| Jamie G. April 21, 2004 09:55 AM PDT How many Bush-bashing books have come out since the beginning of the year? There's Clarke, Blix, Woodward - who else? So far, that's about one per month. I'm sure that there are others - those are probably just the ones that are talked about the most. But, it seems that its possible that there could be plans to release one anit-Bush book per month up until the elections in November. Besides B. Clinton, who else has a book soon to be published? | ||
| StarkTruth April 21, 2004 11:50 AM PDT >Well, this may prove a little >harder for them to ignore. Wishful thinking. | ||
| Jamie G. April 21, 2004 11:58 AM PDT I'm afraid you are being wishful. They will ignore it just as they ignore everything else. | ||
| JM April 21, 2004 12:12 PM PDT O ye of little faith... that's what everyone thought when I wrote about the oil-for-food scandal on 1 February, and now FOX news is giving it BIG airplay. ABC has finally been forced to mention it. | ||
| Jamie April 21, 2004 01:14 PM PDT Major media will probably cover it for one of two reasons: 1) they think that some big American companies will be exposed during the investigation as having been in SH's pocket (i.e. - companies that can be tied to the current admin.) or 2) they think the investigation will go absolutely NOWHERE and they will enjoy seeing the Dems exploit it as they have the 9/11 Commission. I'm sure that there are lots of insinuations that can be made to tie Bush/Cheney, etc, to the scandal. Sorry, I'm just a cynic. (It really makes me feel good if my cynicism can be proven to be wrong!) | ||
| JM April 21, 2004 01:32 PM PDT But only two "Americans" were listed. Samir Vincent funded Scott Ritter's pro-Saddam movie about how the sanctions were killing kids. The other was Shaker Al-Khafaji, the pro-Saddam chairman of the 17th conference of Iraqi expatriates. | ||
| Jamie G. April 21, 2004 01:57 PM PDT But can't you see how they could suggest that there are others who are being kept a secret..... I really don't see the U.N. investigation going anywhere at all. Its too big, it involves too many people/companies in too many countries with power in the U.N. | ||
| Jamie G. April 21, 2004 04:09 PM PDT By the way, has anyone thought about what could happen with those chemicals just buried out there? Do we know if they were just buried or if they took precautions to prevent deterioration of the containers in which the materials are stored? What would prevent Al Quaida from getting its hands on those WMDs? (which we think has already happened!) What if there are leaks and it got into the water supply of the local people? The dictator that rules Syria doesn't care much about his people does he? (I knew that - he is not a good guy.) This is a real nightmare. Wonder what Kerry would propose? U.N. intervention? U.N. Resolutions? U.N. inspections for 10 or 12 years? | ||
| d_Brit April 21, 2004 11:48 PM PDT Hopefully Bush won't act against Syria until after the election. The dems are going to scream bloody hell over this and the media will use it to "prove" that he's out of control. | ||
| JM April 21, 2004 11:59 PM PDT >Hopefully Bush won't act against >Syria until after the election. If we don't do something about terrorists with WMDs, the election won't matter. They will strike here again, and 9/11 will look like a picnic. I think Bush would happily throw away the election in order to prevent that. | ||
| JM April 22, 2004 07:16 AM PDT Here's something of an update: the terrorists were caught with VX, which Syria has never produced. Testing will determine whether it came from Iraq. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/4/20/234509.shtml | ||
| Jamie G. April 22, 2004 08:40 AM PDT I wonder how many people have finally realized that Bush isn't taking the actions that he is taking because of any poll numbers or to gain favor. There are too many foolish people who think GW started this war as a means to ge re-elected, as if sending our sons and daughters to war is something we like and want to do! People need to wake up and smell the terrorists - He is doing what HAS to be done! | ||
| Jamie G> April 22, 2004 12:48 PM PDT Peggy Noonan has a great article today on OpinionJournal.com. I just want to know - how did she know what I was thinking? Very insightful woman. Jamie from Ala | 04.22.04 - 1:47 pm | | ||
| Mark Adams April 22, 2004 04:38 PM PDT You know, something about this story sounded familiar. Oh, that's it, I read it last year when Debka originally published it. Maybe they ought to share some of their "most exclusive sources" with everyone so we can get off the back of the "mainstream media" who has had no way to corroborate this story one way or the other. | ||
| JM April 22, 2004 04:53 PM PDT When Debka speaks of their "intelligence sources," everyone knows they mean Mossad... and that Mossad can't or won't give the info through official channels. The CIA report about the truck convoys surfaced in May 2003. The mainstream media was totally uninterested in anything except attacking President Bush for being true to his word that Saddam would finally be made to comply or else. | ||
| Al April 26, 2004 12:05 AM PDT "But only two "Americans" were listed. " But one of those, the Iraqi expat, was the one that organized Congressman Jim McDermott's trip to Baghdad. And made contributions to his campaign. He's from a district with an authentic Lenin statue, so this is pretty much a normal day at work for him. This investigation needs to shine the light on the cockroaches. | ||
| d_Brit April 27, 2004 02:40 PM PDT The war on terror will need to go on even after Syria is dealt with, IF Bush is President. If he attacked Syria now, Kerry is, for sure, our next president. | ||
| JM April 27, 2004 03:10 PM PDT Here's an interesting update -- excerpts from an interview with the head of Israel's military about Saddam's WMDs. "Iraq may have transferred the weapons to Syria or buried them in desert sands, said Lieutenant General Moshe Yaalon, speaking a month after a parliamentary investigation criticised Israeli intelligence gathering on Iraq. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/26/1082831497269.html | ||
| Jan May 2, 2004 12:56 AM PDT Fun to see someone else listens to Loftus's report, wabc radio. He always makes me feel better! | ||
| Erik S May 2, 2004 07:27 AM PDT Hans Blix actually has a pretty interesting resume, that I havent seen much in international media. He started as a leader of the Swedish liberal party youth organisation, he was forreign minister in a government led by the Liberal party, and as you all know, he was head of the IAEA for well over a decade. During that time, he totally missed Iraqs nuclear program, something he since then admitted "yes, they really fooled us". Oh, and when the UN wanted a head for the weapons inspections, he was the26th choice on their list... So he was *really* qualified... What's more interesting, in April last year, he took part of a seminar in Sweden, where he went on the record saying that he believed the US would now have a better chance of finding the WMDs than he had. He also stated that the Iraqis themselfes told him they didn't want to give up "Weapons of Self defence" as they called it. So, a year ago, just out of the job, he was sure there were WMDs there that hadn't been found yet. His story started changing as time passed, and in september was the first interview where he said he never really thought there were any. Now, this is over six months after he had any first hand knowledge... But he is a Liberal politician, and he has a book to sell, and sales will probably be better by claiming there never was any at all... But his main view now is "yeah, I've been fooled by Iraq for over 15years, but now I really know what I'm are talking about, really" | ||
| Leave a Comment: |