Carol Platt Liebau: A New Twist to Saddam & WMD

Monday, February 20, 2006

A New Twist to Saddam & WMD

Read this piece. It appears that we still have much to learn about the truth regarding Saddam and WMD. Among other important points:

John Shaw, former deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, . . . charged that Saddam's stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction were moved by Russian special forces into Syria and Lebanon. According to Mr. Shaw, former Russian intelligence boss Yevgeny Primakov came to Iraq in December 2002 in order to supervise "cleanup" operations to remove WMD production materials from the country. This operation, carried out by GRU military intelligence and Russian "spetsnaz," or special forces, troops, was designed to make it possible for critics of the war to be able to claim that Iraq had had no WMD.

Interesting how the Democrats played right into their hands.


Blogger Dan M said...

The focus shouldn't be on how the Dems played into their hands. The issue should be why the President allowed Saddam sufficient time for this to happen. Why, with this information coming to light, hasn't he demanded a public explantion of Putin's behavior.

This isn't simply an issue of Democrat irresponsibility and reckless rhetoric. This is an issue of how GW conducted our diplomacy prior to moving on Baghdad, and he bungled it, badly.

We never should have gone to the UN, all it accomplished was activating just about every anti-American activist on the planet, gave birth to an anti-war movement that would only play havoc with our ability to maintain domestic support for our foreign policy, and, after all of the problems, what did we actually emerge from the UN with, 1441, and ultimately no force authorization.

It was a disaster, this President allowed it to happen because he listened to the advice that emerged from the State Department, instead of listening to Rumsfeld and Cheney.

Moreover, that long wait killed our strategy of "phases." If you recall, we were going to take down the terror sponsors "one by one," forming coalitions of the willing if we could, doing it alone if we couldn't. Hell, we barely, BARELY got to phase 2. And now, our policy has come to a dead stop, with our diplomats conducting our affairs as if we were back to September 10th, trying to cajole or win "support" for handling the mullahs in the only manner that stands a chance of success.

It's as if we were governed by Kerry, or Harriet Meirs.

It isn't pretty, this isn't what I voted for, and I'm beginning to wonder do we have a Texan in the White House, of some San Francisco Democrat, somebody from the Upper West Side.

Our enemies in Tehran and Damascus have made the correct read, that our war effort is effectively spent. And that we will do just about anything, and accept the intolerable, just to be able to withdraw our forces from Iraq. The mullahs have bled us in Iraq, GW has allowed it to happen, allows it to continue, and wonders why ordinary Americans are beginning to see the endless bloodshed in Iraq as evidence of failure.

And this was ALL SO AVOIDABLE.

And it all began on 9/11, that evening, when he addressed the nation, and read Karen Hughes famous first words, on the worst night of our lives. And what were those words? "Good Evening." No, Karen, NO Mr. President, it wasn't a "good evening."

The first words out of his mouth that night should have been: "I'm going to need men...." And he would have had a couple million lining up outside recuiting offices the next day. That attitude, followed through with deeds, {such as NOT delivering the TALIBAN an ultimatum, have you ever asked yourself whether it was proper for our governemnt to deliver an ultimatum to a regime that was in on the death of thousands of our neighbors, did FDR tender an ultimatum, or respond with a declaration}, followed through with a temper of mind would have seen a good chunk of this war already won.

Instead we have embarked upon a strategy of speaking nice about our enemies. It's insane.

I'm beginning to concur with Steve Emerson who says that we're going to need to be hit again before this government begins to wage war in a manner that is required.

11:17 AM  
Blogger Bachbone said...

With sadness, I'm about to the point of believing that some congressional members will only "get it" when they are the focus of another attack. I'm reminded of how Mr. Brokaw reacted with more outrage to anthrax packages beign mailed to NBC than, seemingly, to 3000 dying in the World Trade Center destruction. If a congressional office building were hit, that might be enough to get its inhabitants to "feel our pain." After all, our political class lives in a parallel world.

10:31 PM  
Blogger Mr. Twister said...


Iraq is about to be invaded by the United States because they have (apparently) tonnes of chemical and biological weapons. At that moment of history, there is undoubedly heightened surveillance to track any Iraqi shenanigans--the same type of surveillance the United States originally developed to track Soviet troop movements.

In the midst of a build up for war, with attention focused in the country, the Russians send troops in to Iraq and spirit the tonnes of WMD away without anyone noticing. That's right, we have soldiers in harms way, and the Bush administration decided ot was best to let Russian Spetznatz forces waltz into Iraq.

I'm not sure what is more amazing to me--that Carol would attempt to pass off such an obvious pile of poo as a Boston Creme pie or that Dan M and Bachbone would decide to forgo forks as they launched face first into a poo eating contest.

9:30 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home