Chemical Weapons in Iraq
It's being reported that a suspected chemical weapons plant has been found in Mosul.
Of course, the story goes to great pains to point out that the plant has been constituted since the downfall of Saddam Hussein. Even so, the fact that the bad guys have the knowledge -- and the ingredients -- to make this stuff doesn't exactly suggest that the US was wrong to worry about what could happen in Iraq, even under the "watchful" eye of U.N. diplomatics (not counting, of course, those who were actually being bribed -- like this one and this one, for starters).
Update: Over at Daily Kos, they seem to believe that, "Where no chemical warfare threat existed before, it now does." They have a lot of confidence in a bunch of insurgents if they think they could create the weapons out of thin air and/or get them into Iraq in a little over two years -- with no prior knowledge or ability or allies to help them.
What the KosKids aren't getting: The chemical warfare threat wasn't generated by the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. It exists (and has existed) as long as there are regimes with scientists who have the interest and capacity to create it (like Saddam's) for the Islamofascist moonbats. The answer? Well, presumably, according to Kos -- it was that the U.S. should just ignore, bribe, pacify or appease Saddam, and hope that he'd "do the right thing."
Apparently, in KosWorld, it's better to leave Saddam in power (believing that the WMD were there -- as everyone, even France and CNN, did) than to invade Iraq. Then, of course, there would never have been any chemical weapons threat at all. The guys who have created the factory would, instead, would just have spent their time harmlessly torturing Iraqi civilians. Yeah, that's the ticket. Right.
Of course, the story goes to great pains to point out that the plant has been constituted since the downfall of Saddam Hussein. Even so, the fact that the bad guys have the knowledge -- and the ingredients -- to make this stuff doesn't exactly suggest that the US was wrong to worry about what could happen in Iraq, even under the "watchful" eye of U.N. diplomatics (not counting, of course, those who were actually being bribed -- like this one and this one, for starters).
Update: Over at Daily Kos, they seem to believe that, "Where no chemical warfare threat existed before, it now does." They have a lot of confidence in a bunch of insurgents if they think they could create the weapons out of thin air and/or get them into Iraq in a little over two years -- with no prior knowledge or ability or allies to help them.
What the KosKids aren't getting: The chemical warfare threat wasn't generated by the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. It exists (and has existed) as long as there are regimes with scientists who have the interest and capacity to create it (like Saddam's) for the Islamofascist moonbats. The answer? Well, presumably, according to Kos -- it was that the U.S. should just ignore, bribe, pacify or appease Saddam, and hope that he'd "do the right thing."
Apparently, in KosWorld, it's better to leave Saddam in power (believing that the WMD were there -- as everyone, even France and CNN, did) than to invade Iraq. Then, of course, there would never have been any chemical weapons threat at all. The guys who have created the factory would, instead, would just have spent their time harmlessly torturing Iraqi civilians. Yeah, that's the ticket. Right.
posted by Carol Platt Liebau at 1:42 PM
15 Comments:
Is there no raging wingnut canard you won't bring out?
The Iraq Survey Group searched for WMD in Iraq and found none. Even the true believers like David Kay admit there were no WMD in Iraq. (President Bush even searched the Oval Office and didn't find any WMD.) The Duelfer report makes it clear that Sadam Hussein's regime had no significant chemical capability nor were they seeking any.
As for the "ignore, bribe, pacify" part of the post, consider that sometimes international controls actually do work. Iraq is a fine case in point. At the time we invaded Iraq had NO, ZIP, ZILCH, NADA WMDs nor did they have any WMD related programs.
The President has sent almost 2000 young Americans to their death chasing this chimera. Please don't further compound this tragedy by trying to pretend otherwise.
Matt - denial is your strong suit logic apparently is not. These chemical weapons just may have been missed or maybe not the report never says they were from the Pre-liberation days. These come from your so-called freedom fighters pals aka Al Queada. You can now go back to being a useful idiot to the Islamo-fascists of the world.
Perhaps he should read the piece in "Iraq the Model". It gives a very good reason why we are there.
It won't do any good, you understand, but it will be exposure at least.
david
What the KosKids aren't getting: The chemical warfare threat wasn't generated by the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. It exists (and has existed) as long as there are regimes with scientists who have the interest and capacity to create it (like Saddam's) for the Islamofascist moonbats.
Without the means, there is no threat. Period. Saddam did not have the means, thanks to the UN. Your definition or what contitutes a threat is broad enough to justify a war with practically any sovereign state.
The answer? Well, presumably, according to Kos -- it was that the U.S. should just ignore, bribe, pacify or appease Saddam, and hope that he'd "do the right thing."
Perhaps the answer would have been to continue to deny him the means. You don't need a war for that.
Apparently, in KosWorld, it's better to leave Saddam in power (believing that the WMD were there -- as everyone, even France and CNN, did) than to invade Iraq.
What utter BS. Not even our own intelligence community could come to a consensus concerning the strength of our WMD intelligence. So no, not everyone believed. Keep trotting out that same, old tired lie, though. If its one thing the right is consistent about, its lying.
Over at Daily Kos, they seem to believe that, "Where no chemical warfare threat existed before, it now does."
That's because the Kossacks believe in the priciple of cause and effect.
They have a lot of confidence in a bunch of insurgents if they think they could create the weapons out of thin air and/or get them into Iraq in a little over two years -- with no prior knowledge or ability or allies to help them.
Your expert appraisal of the Iraqi insurgency contains lots of assumptions and hyperbole. Typical. You'd think that if a wingnut could learn ANYTHING from Iraq, it would be about the dangers of acting on assumptions. For instance, its not even known at this time if what has been found is for the manufacture of chemical weapons, or just for the manufacture of pesticides.
Heck, the above statement is nothing more than a variation on Rummy's "dead enders" comment. Even at this late date, where the U.S. is in real danger of failing to achieve ANY of its strategic objectives, you continue with the "dead-enders" type rhetoric.
This is a propaganda piece. Apparently a pretty good one, if judged by Seismic's (a.k.a. "logicboy) reaction.
That's because the Kossacks believe in the priciple of cause and effect
Actually the Kossacks only believe in hurting Bush - and they don't care how many Iraqis have to die in order to acheive this goal. The Kossacks are upset that the existence of WMD in Iraq will help Bush, while the fate of millions of Iraqis is irrelevant to them.
Actually the Kossacks only believe in hurting Bush...
Or maybe they believe in sound foreign policy? Seriously, the Kossacks aren't hurting anyone. Last I checked , Dubya didn't include them in any of the war planning. Dubya is hurting Dubya. Its his war, and its his failure.
...and they don't care how many Iraqis have to die in order to acheive this goal.
Better them than us, right? Isn't that the rationale for the "flypaper strategy" of warfare? And who came up with that bit of generosity?
The Kossacks are upset that the existence of WMD in Iraq will help Bush,
What WMD?
... while the fate of millions of Iraqis is irrelevant to them.
Please. They weren't the ones that misled the American public in order to launch a poorly planned war, then try to shore up flagging support by claiming that every terrorist that blows himself up in a crowded Iraqi market is one less terrorist we have to worry about.
Perhaps the Kossacks DO have the average Iraqi in mind when they hope against all hope that Dubya will come to his senses.
Perhaps the Kossacks DO have the average Iraqi in mind when they hope against all hope that Dubya will come to his senses.
While the Kossacks pine for the good old days of Saddam Hussein and his torture chambers Pres. Bush has already begun to change the equation in the Middle East. He has replaced the mass graves and rape squads with democratic elections. Lets face it not supporting this war is equivalent to supporting Saddam Hussein.
Seismic, Carol's original post we are supposedly responding to deals with chemical weapons. The official results of the CIA search for WMD in Iraq are summarized in the Deulfer report. Iraq had no WMD and no capability to produce WMD at the time of our invasion. You either misstate or ignore this point whenever adan or I bring it up.
Now you are claiming that we went to war to free Iraqis--to do away with mass graves and rape rooms and replace them with democratic elections. Here is the key point, however. When were the American people ever asked to sacrifice hundreds of billions of dollars and closing in on 2000 American lives to spread democracy throughout the Middle East?
The answer is that we were never asked that. We were told that Saddam Hussein had WMD. We were told that Iraq was an imminent threat to our nation. Only later do we find out that these claims were exaggerated by the Bush administration as a useful pretext for war.
Now, senior administration officials are admitting that Iraq is birthing an Islamic Republic and not the democracy that was promised. How in the world can you look at this and claim with a straight face that Bush administration policies have "changed the equation in the Middle East" in any way, shape or form, that will aid the United States?
The answer is that we were never asked that. We were told that Saddam Hussein had WMD. We were told that Iraq was an imminent threat to our nation. Only later do we find out that these claims were exaggerated by the Bush administration as a useful pretext for war.
Actually we were told that we were bringing democracy to the Iraqi people. We were also told a lot of other things (Including the presence of WMD). In the end it appears that Saddam had a lot of dual use technology that would have been converted to WMD once the inspections were over. The fact that we found a chemical plant recently does not mean it was a pre-liberation plant nor was their ever any claim that it was.
What I find most distasteful is the willingness of the antiwar left to abandon the Iraqi people to the tender mercies of Saddam just to score a few points against Bush. Unfortunately this is a typical tactic of the left - the callous expenditure of peoples lives in order to gain political advantage.
What I find most distasteful is the willingness of the antiwar left to abandon the Iraqi people to the tender mercies of Saddam just to score a few points against Bush. Unfortunately this is a typical tactic of the left - the callous expenditure of peoples lives in order to gain political advantage
Short and sweet, seismic, your holier-than-thou attitude fails here. There are any number of evil regimes in the world. Some of them have leaders who are worse than Saddam Hussein. Some of them are our putative allies, and others we just ignore.
Under your argument, unless we go around taking out every single repugnant regime across the whole world, we are supporting the callous expenditure of human life. Please tell me you aren't advocating this course of action.
We should pick and choose our battles - meaning that we should look to get rid of "evil regimes" whenever necessary. Whenever necessary does not mean whenever possible (and in that sense you are right in that we should not seek to invade every evil regime) but only when it is in our national interest. Nor should we limit ourselves in this endeavor soley to military means but also to diplomatic and economic.
On the other hand it is naive to assume that the Saddam's of this world can be merely sanctioned out of existence. It is also morally reprehensible (as in the case of the UN oil for food scandal) to deal with such regimes or to look the other way when such dealings are exposed.
I will drop my holier than thou atitude when the antiwar left admits that their proscription for Iraq would have been to leave that place as a hellhole in order to score a few partisan points against the president.
Seismic, thank you for making my point exactly. If we only should overthrow evil regimes when "it is in our national interest," you are admitting that you lend no more weight to the moral issue than the leftists you are castigating. You also open up the question of whether or not overthrowing Saddam Hussein was in our national interest. Prior to the invasion of Iraq people of good will could surely disagree on this question for non-partisan reasons.
Currently, as far as our national interest is concerned, the Iraq excursion has been an almost unmitigated disaster. We toppled Saddam (hooray) at the cost of billions of dollars and the lives of over 1800 (and counting) American patriots. We have turned Iraq into a breeding ground for terrorists. We have taken the most powerful military in the world and put them in a situation where they cannot even defend the highway to the airport. Military enlistments are down and retention rates in the mid-ranks are dropping. All of this to birth an Islamic theocracy with close ties to Iran.
There are plenty of reasons to oppose this war of choice. There are plenty of reasons to question the judgement of the man who chose this war. One can oppose this war and ask those questions for reasons other than political advantage.
"it is in our national interest,"
Wrong - in our "national interest" means that we should:
1- Not seek a military confrontation with say a Russia or a China. It is not in our interest to get into a major conflict.
2 - Keep megalmaniac dictators with a history of military aggression from destabilizing a vital region of the world. Yes - the US and the rest of the world is still very dependant on Mid East oil. Until this changes the ENTIRE world has an interest in a stable Middle East.
3 - Democracies generally make peaceful neighbors that dictatorships.
4 - Send a message to the terrorist nations of the world. By ovethrowing Saddam not only were we doing a morally positive act we were sending a message to the rest of the region - a message which is already being picked up by Libya, Lebanon and Egypt.
In the end we should always be promoting democracy - and the antiwar left should be ashamed of themselves for opposing such efforts.
3 - Democracies generally make peaceful neighbors that dictatorships.
<snark>Do you catch even a glimpse of the irony of this statement as it applies to the current situation? The United States unilaterally attacked Iraq to dispose of WMDs that did not exist. Oh well, you were just making a general statement.</snark>
In the end we should always be promoting democracy - and the antiwar left should be ashamed of themselves for opposing such efforts.
From our past two comments, it's clear that we disagree on what best promotes the interests of the United States. I personally feel that turning Iraq into a sharia Islamic theocracy with close ties to Iran does not serve the best interests of our country, the Middle East, or the world. You obviously feel otherwise.
So be it. I leave the last word to you as I go back to being--how did you put it--oh yeah, a useful idiot for the Islamo-fascists of the world.
Do you catch even a glimpse of the irony of this statement as it applies to the current situation? The United States unilaterally attacked Iraq to dispose of WMDs that did not exist. Oh well, you were just making a general statement.
The only people that would consider the liberation of Iraq a unjust invasion would be: Saddam Hussein, his fellow Batthists and the antiwar left (and their useful idiot friends). For the vast majority of Iraqis the overthrow of Saddam was a gift from heaven.
Could sanctions have Saddam under control? For a time maybe but given that he had already thrown out the UN inspectors it would only be a matter when not if his WMD programs would be restarted. Then we would have faced a far bigger problem than what we have now - as would the Iraqi and his his Mid East neighbors. Instead Saddam is in a cage where he belongs.
Post a Comment
<< Home