Holy Neocon: Many of Syria’s chemical weapons came from Iraq!

July 20, 2012

(Carl) With all the Left did dragging the neocons’ names through the mud in the aftermath of the Iraq war, claiming Saddam didn’t have weapons of mass destruction, it now turns out that he did have them. He just hid them in Syria. Just like the neocons said all along (Hat Tip: Sunlight).

In 2006, former Iraqi general Georges Sada, second in command of the Iraqi Air Force who served under Saddam Hussein before he defected, wrote a comprehensive book, “Saddam’s Secrets.”
It details how the Iraqi Revolutionary Guard moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria in advance of the U.S.-led action to eliminate Hussein’s WMD threat.
As Sada told the New York Sun, two Iraqi Airways Boeings were converted to cargo planes by removing the seats, and special Republican Guard units loaded the planes with chemical weapons materials.
There were 56 flights disguised as a relief effort after a 2002 Syrian dam collapse.
There were also truck convoys into Syria. Sada’s comments came more than a month after Israel’s top general during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Moshe Yaalon, told the Sun that Saddam “transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria.”
Both Israeli and U.S. intelligence observed large truck convoys leaving Iraq and entering Syria in the weeks and months before Operation Iraqi Freedom, John Shaw, former deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, told a private conference of former weapons inspectors and intelligence experts held in Arlington, Va., in 2006.
According to Shaw, ex-Russian intelligence chief Yevgeni Primakov, a KGB general with long-standing ties to Saddam, went to Iraq in December 2002 and stayed until just before the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003.
Anticipating the invasion, his job was to supervise the removal of such weapons and erase as much evidence of Russian involvement as possible.

Well, Shazam! Who’d a thunk it?

funny the way it comes out when the Muslim Brotherhood get their asses kicked in by Assad. It would of never come out otherwise


Saddam saw Israel behind all his problems

October 26, 2011
(h/t Israel Matzav) The United States has released a small number of documents taken from an Iraqi archive during the 2003 invasion. The documents reveal that Saddam Hussein could not believe that Iran was as strong as it turned out to be, and thought that he was being attacked by Israel.

(NYTimes) Mr. Hussein so grievously underestimated Iran’s military that he wrongly assumed Iran’s initial airstrikes in the war had actually been carried out by Israeli warplanes. He personally selected the rockets to use on one attack against an Iranian city, and he boasted that Iraq had a chemical weapons arsenal that “exterminates by the thousands.” He felt threatened enough by the rise of fundamentalist Islamic groups that he discussed his desire to “trick” the public, into thinking that his government, too, endorsed Islamic values.
From a historical perspective, Mr. Hussein’s decision to take on Iran and his reaction to the Iran-contra affair are two of the most intriguing areas in the papers.
Mr. Hussein set the stage for war with Iran by repudiating a 1975 agreement that had settled a disputed over the Shatt al Arab, the strategic waterway along their border. According to Amatzia Baram, an Israeli expert on Iraq who has studied the archive, the pivotal decision appears have been made in a meeting on Sept. 16, 1980, when Mr. Hussein took the optimistic view that the Iranians, fearing the Iraqi forces massed near the border, would give in without much of a fight.
A top secret report from the Iraqi General Military Intelligence Directorate supported Mr. Hussein’s assessment. “It is clear that, at present, Iran has no power to launch wide offensive operations against Iraq or to defend on a large scale,” the report noted. It also predicted “more deterioration of the general situation of Iran’s fighting capability.”
But the war, which ultimately lasted eight years and resulted in hundreds of thousands of casualties, turned out to be far more difficult than Mr. Hussein had expected. Soon after it began, Iranian aircraft bombed a series of targets, including Iraqi oil refineries and the Osirak nuclear plant south of Baghdad. The feat so surprised the Iraqis that they assumed the attack could not have emanated from Iran.
“This is Israel,” Mr. Hussein exclaimed in an Oct. 1, 1980, meeting. He then complained that Iraqi officials had not followed his suggestion to bury the nuclear facility under the Hamrin Mountains north of Baghdad, before approving a plan to fortify the complex with millions of sandbags. But those sandbags proved to be of little use when Israeli warplanes actually did strike the site, in June 1981.
Later, Mr. Hussein said he was not surprised that Israel felt threatened by Iraq, which he asserted would defeat Iran and emerge with a military that was stronger than ever. “Once Iraq walks out victorious, there will not be any Israel,” he said in a 1982 conversation. “Technically, they are right in all of their attempts to harm Iraq.”

The notion that Israel and the West had joined forces to undermine his government persisted well after the Iran-Iraq war ended. In 1990, Mr. Hussein himself intervened to ensure the execution of Farzad Bazoft, an Iranian-born journalist working for The Observer, a British newspaper. Mr. Bazoft was investigating a mysterious explosion at a military complex south of Baghdad when he was arrested and charged with spying for Israel. The Bazoft case drew worldwide attention, and the British government appealed for clemency. Mr. Hussein was unmoved. Told that it would take a month for the Iraqi legal process to be completed, he took charge of the matter.
“A whole month?” he exclaimed. “I say we execute him in Ramadan, and this will be the punishment for Margaret Thatcher.”
Mr. Bazoft was hanged on March 15, 1990, six months after his arrest and shortly before Ramadan began. In response, Britain recalled its ambassador. Less than five months later, Iraqi forces invaded Kuwait.

I suspect that if we got the same types of documents from other Arab countries, we would find that they too suspect Israel as being the root of all their problems. The paranoia is a primary characteristic.
Read the whole thing


Gaddafi’s sons ‘held by rebels’: Celebrations in Tripoli

May 19, 2011

Three of Colonel Gaddafi’s sons were last night reported to be in the hands of Libyan rebels as rumours spread that the tyrant himself had fled the capital.
There were reports that Gaddafi had fled to a bunker outside Tripoli, while the British representative of the rebels told Sky News he believed the dictator may even have gone to Algeria.
Independent Libyan television claimed the tyrant had ‘run away like a coward’, while the news channel Al-Jazeera reported the African Union may be offering Gaddafi exile in Angola or Zimbabwe.

Armed to the teeth and baying for Gaddafi's blood: Rebels head towards the gates of Tripoli yesterday. They claimed the dictator had reached 'zero hour' for his reign of terror

Armed to the teeth and baying for Gaddafi’s blood: Rebels head towards the gates of Tripoli yesterday. They claimed the dictator had reached ‘zero hour’ for his reign of terror
Thousands of people gathered in central Benghazi last night following the news from Tripoli

Thousands of people gathered in central Benghazi last night following the news from Tripoli
Celebration: A man on the roof of a building in Benghazi fires a flare into the air as other fireworks go off around him

Celebration: A man on the roof of a building in Benghazi fires a flare into the air as other fireworks go off around him
Riding to victory:A group of Libyan rebels smile and make peace signs as they progress into Tripoli yesterday

Riding to victory: A group of Libyan rebels smile and make peace signs as they progress into Tripoli yesterday
Last stand: Gaddafi's son Saif Al-Islam in a televised address. Last night he was said to have been captured by rebel forces

Last stand: Gaddafi’s son Saif Al-Islam in a televised address. Last night he was said to have been captured by rebel forces

The head of Libya’s National Transitional Council, the rebels’ governing body, said they had arrested Saif al-Islam and Al-Saadi, two of the tyrant’s sons. A third, Muhammad, was reported to have handed  himself in.

Mustafa Abdel Jalil told Al-Jazeera: ‘He (Saif) is being kept in a secure place under close guard until he is handed over to the judiciary.’
And he insisted Saif would not be harmed, telling French newspaper Le Monde: ‘We gave instructions that he is well treated, in order to be judged.’

Jubilant: This group of Libyan civilians were on the streets of Maia celebrating the rebels advancement

Jubilant: This group of Libyan civilians were on the streets of Maia celebrating the rebels advancement
Freedom: A young man carries the flag of the Libyan republic along the streets of Maia

Freedom: A young man carries the flag of the Libyan republic along the streets of Maia

Saif al-Islam Gaddafi once had a very close relationship with the West and was considered by many to represent a more democratic future for Libya. But since the uprising began he has become closely allied to his father. The International Criminal Court has a warrant out for his arrest on war crimes charges.

Crucial moments in the struggle to bring freedom to Libya

Gaddafi’s oldest son, Muhammad, ran the company which operated all mobile phones and satellites in the country, as well as being head of the Libyan Olympic Committee.
Al-Saadi, took a far more hands-on role in his father’s regime, as commander of Libya’s Special Forces. He has been accused of ordering the army to fire on unarmed protesters in Benghazi at the start of the uprising.
As wild celebrations erupted across Libya to mark Gaddafi’s apparent departure, there were reports that the dictator, who has been in power for 42 murderous years, was actually moving around a series of bomb-proof bunkers and tunnels beneath the capital.

The battle for Tripoli

The battle for Tripoli
Compound: Two men survey damage at the Gaddafi residence in Tripoli following an air strike. There are reports the home has secret tunnels the tyrant may use to escape

they said he was boring on T.V., but he went out with a sizzle… Daddy Qaddaffi with Nasser in 1969 Gaddafi looked to Gamal Abdel Nasser as a role model and based his government on Nasser’s Egypt. He was fiercely anti-Western, and told Western officials that he would expel their companies from Libya’s oil fields unless they shared more revenue. In his statement, he threatened to do so only if Nasser told him to, indicating strong ties to Nasser. Because of his demands, oil companies changed their payments from 50-50 to 79-21 percent in favor of the government. In December 1969, Egyptian intelligence stopped a planned coup on Gaddafi from high-ranking members of his leadership. Many of the dissenters were uneasy about his growing relationship to Egypt. After the failed coup Gaddafi made any political dissent illegal and gave power only to his family and closest associates.

Compound: Two men survey damage at the Gaddafi residence in Tripoli following an air strike. There are reports the home has secret tunnels the tyrant may use to escape

And even as he was supposed to have taken refuge within the complex – which is reputed to be able to withstand a nuclear attack – the dictator broadcast a message as his troops prepared to mount a last stand.
Gaddafi’s official spokesman had previously lashed out against Britain, France and the U.S. – the three countries leading the campaign to oust the dictator – as he warned of a ‘ghastly disaster’ if rebel forces took Tripoli. Earlier in the day, sources inside the embattled city said pro-Gaddafi forces had put snipers on the rooftops of buildings around Bab al-Aziziyah, Gaddafi’s secret compound, and on the top of a nearby water tower.
His bunker complex is the stuff of Libyan folklore. Tunnels are said to connect vast, cavernous rooms capable of housing tanks, aircraft and weapons. He also has sleeping quarters in different parts of the complex. An insight into his desire to seek refuge underground emerged when rebel forces seized control of Benghazi, the country’s second city, in March.
They discovered a series of tunnels and rooms built more than 100 yards below the earth.
But the Tripoli complex is far grander, and some defectors claim there are even tunnels running for hundreds of miles from Gaddafi’s bunker to the south of the country – a possible escape route.
At the start of the uprising, Gaddafi ordered a children’s playground to be built around the secret entrances to the bunker, hoping this would deter targeted Nato airstrikes.
And Nato sources warned the shifting battle lines and the movement of the fighting into built-up areas in Tripoli had made it more difficult to engage airstrikes without endangering civilians.

Revenge!

Colonel Gaddafi suffered a massive personal setback when one of his sons was allegedly killed in a suicide air mission on his barracks.

Khamis, 27, who runs the feared Khamis Brigade that has been prominent in its role of attacking rebel-held areas, is said to have died on Saturday night. A Libyan air force pilot crashed his jet into the Bab al-Aziziya compound in Tripoli in a kamikaze attack, Algerian TV reported following an unsubstantiated claim by an anti-Gaddafi media organisation. Khamis is alleged to have died of burns in hospital. The regime denied the reports. It was claimed he died in the same compound hit by RAF cruise missiles hit by coalition forces last night. More… via eye-on-the-world.blogspot.com and via therealtimer.com 

Muamar is married to Sofija Farkas from Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina, who is his second wife.  Gaddafi has eight biological children, seven of them sons. He has also adopted two children, Hanna and Milad.

Muhammad al-Gaddafi, was born to a wife  now in disfavour, but runs the  Libyan Olympic Committee. Muhammed, the only child from Gaddafi’s first marriage, is a computer scientist who has headed the country’s Olympic committee and the state-run General Post and Telecommunications Company.


Al-Saadi opted for forgo politics in favor of his true passion — soccer — and in 2003, even briefly joined Perugia, a team that was then in the top tier of Italy’s soccer league.

The third eldest, Saadi Gaddafi, is married to the daughter of a military commander. Saadi runs the Libyan Football Federation and signed for various professional teams including Italian Serie A team U.C. Sampdoria, although without appearing in first team games.

Saif al-Islam Muammar Al-Gaddafi: London School of Economics Resignation The next eldest son, by his second wife Safia, is Saif al-Islam Muammar Al-Gaddafi, who was born in 1972  and is an architect. He runs a charity (GIFCA) which has been involved in negotiating freedom for hostages taken by Islamic militants, especially in the Philippines. In 2006, after sharply criticizing his father’s regime, Saif Al-Islam briefly left Libya, reportedly to take on a position in banking outside of the country. He returned to Libya soon after, launching an environment-friendly initiative to teach children how they can help clean up parts of Libya. He is involved in compensation negotiations with Italy and the United States.

Mutassim with Hillary Clinton: Gaddafi’s fourth son, Mutassim Gaddafi, was a Lieutenant Colonel in the Libyan army. National Security Adviser Mutassim Gaddafi is believed to have actively tried to cultivate relations with Washington. Still, Mutassim seems even more embedded in Libya’s state-security firmament than Saif, and commands their father’s elite presidential guard. He now serves as Libya’s National Security Advisor, in which capacity he oversees the nation’s National Security Council. His name مُعْتَصِمٌ بِٱللهِ muʿtaṣimu-n (bi l-lāhi) can be latinized as Mutassim, Moatessem or Moatessem-Billah. Saif Al-Islam and Moatessem-Billah are both seen as possible successors to their father.

\Nicknamed North Africa’s “Claudia Schiffer” due to her glamorous image, Aisha is a former Goodwill ambassador and frequent tabloid target and was once rumored to have had an affair with Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. She has since slammed NATO airstrikes, and rallied a crowd early Friday from a balcony at her father’s compound that was hit by U.S. warplanes 25 years ago.

The fifth eldest, Hannibal Gaddafi, once worked for General National Maritime Transport Company, a company that specializes in Libyan oil exports. He is most notable for being involved in a series of violent incidents throughout Europe. In 2001, Hannibal attacked three Italian policemen with a fire extinguisher; in September 2004, he was briefly detained in Paris after driving a Porsche at 90 mph in the wrong direction and through red lights down the Champs-Élysées while intoxicated; and in 2005, Hannibal in Paris allegedly beat model and then girlfriend Alin Skaf, who later filed an assault suit against him. He was fined and given a four month suspended prison sentence after this incident. …In_December_2009 police were called to Claridges Hotel in London after staff heard a scream from Hannibal’s room. Aline Skaf, now his wife, was found to have suffered facial injuries including a broken nose, but charges were not pressed after she maintained she had sustained the injuries in a fall. On 15 July 2008, Hannibal and his wife were held for two days and charged with assaulting two of their staff in Geneva, Switzerland and then released on bail on 17 July. The government of Libya subsequently put a boycott on Swiss imports, reduced flights between Libya and Switzerland, stopped issuing visas to Swiss citizens, recalled diplomats from Bern, and forced all Swiss companies such as ABB and Nestlé to close offices. General National Maritime Transport Company, which owns a large refinery in Switzerland, also halted oil shipments to Switzerland. Two Swiss businessmen who were in Libya at the time have, ever since, been denied permission to leave the country, and even held hostage for some time. (see Switzerland-Libya conflict). At the 35th G8 summit in July 2009, Gaddafi called Switzerland a “world mafia” and called for the country to be split between France, Germany and Italy.
Gaddafi’s two youngest sons are Saif Al Arab and Khamis, who is a police officer in Libya. Gaddafi’s only daughter is Ayesha al-Gaddafi, a lawyer who had joined the defense teams of executed former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and Iraqi journalist Muntadhar al-Zaidi. She married a cousin of her father in 2006. His adopted daughter, Hanna, was killed in the April 1986 United States bombing of Libya. At a “concert for peace”, held on 15 April 2006 in Tripoli to mark the 20th anniversary of the bombing raid, U.S. singer Lionel Richie told the audience: “Hanna will be honoured tonight because of the fact that you’ve attached peace to her name.” His adopted son, Milad Abuztaia Al-Gaddafi is also his nephew. Milad is credited with saving Gaddafi’s life during the April 1986 bombing of the Gaddafi compound. Gaddafi’s brother-in-law Abdullah Senussi‎, who is married to his wife’s sister, is believed to be his head of military intelligence.                                                                                                                  The family’s main residence is on the Bab al-Azizia military barracks, located in the southern suburbs of Tripoli. In January 2002, Gaddafi purchased a 7.5% share of Italian football club Juventus for USD 21 million, through Lafico (“Libyan Arab Foreign Investment Company”). This followed a long-standing association with the Italian industrialist Gianni Agnelli and car manufacturer Fiat.

Gaddafi’s Favorite Ukrainian Nurse:  I GO HOME NOW…

Oh, by the way, Gaddafi tried to rape a female reporter

Gaddafi holds an honorary degree from Megatrend University in Belgrade conferred on him by former Yugoslav President Zoran Lilić. Muammar Gaddafi fears flying over water, prefers staying on the ground floor and almost never travels without his trusted Ukrainian nurse Galyna Kolotnytska, a “voluptuous blonde,” according to a US document released by WikiLeaks late 2010. Galyna’s daughter has denied the suggestion that the relationship is anything but professional. via babalfaqeer.blogspot.com and Daily Mail and image via fukung.net

 spelling… Best bet is Qadhafi. His son uses the same arrangement of spelling as the U.S. Department of State. The White House has it all wrong.


Iraqi Christians put to the sword

November 13, 2010
Remembrance ceremony: a woman lighting a candle for the scores of Iraqi Christians left dead and wounded after the siege at Our Lady of Salvation Church in Baghdad
Remembrance ceremony: a woman lighting a
candle for the scores of Iraqi Christians left dead and wounded
after the siege at Our Lady of Salvation Church in Baghdad
 
Photo: AP

Worship in Iraq is now more dangerous than under Saddam’s dictatorship as Islamists bomb churches in a campaign of ethnic cleansing. Adrian Blomfield reports.

Unless told what to look for, the casual visitor to the once glamorous Baghdad thoroughfare that hugs the east bank of the Tigris would almost certainly pass them by. The Stars of David carved into the stonework of the low-slung buildings that line the alleyways of Abu Nuwas Street are little more than a curiosity these days – a memento of a civilisation lost to the pages of history.
Judaism has a connection to Iraq that no other faith can match. The patriarch Abraham may well have been born there; the prophet Jonah reluctantly returned to foretell the destruction of Nineveh. Centuries later, the Bible tells us that the exiled Jewish people sat down by Babylon’s rivers and wept for their homeland. Yet Jewish links to Iraq are far from ancient history.
In the 1920s, there were reckoned to have been 130,000 Jews in Baghdad, 40 per cent of the population. Today, after decades of persecution before and immediately after the creation of the state of Israel, there are no more than eight.

Iraqi Christians might not be able to boast such a heritage – though even if there is no way of proving their belief that the apostle Thomas brought the faith to Iraq in the first century AD, theirs is still one of the oldest Christian communities on earth. Yet after a series of attacks in the past month by Islamist extremists – whose creed is the parvenu of the monotheistic religions in the country – fears are mounting that Christianity in Iraq is doomed to follow Judaism into oblivion. At the end of last month, in the most ferocious attack on the community yet, Islamist extremists linked to al-Qaeda burst into Baghdad’s Our Lady of Salvation Church during evening mass and took the congregation hostage. The gunmen began executing clergymen and worshippers before tossing a grenade into a safe-room where 60 parishioners had huddled to hide. As Iraqi forces stormed the church, the assassins surrounded themselves with children and detonated explosives secreted in suicide vests. By the time it was over, 52 Christians were dead. Blood smeared the walls of the church, body parts and scraps of seared flesh littered the pews. A policeman standing guard outside the church afterwards summed up the scene: “Blood, flesh and bones. You can’t bear the smell.” A group calling itself the Islamic State of Iraq, a self-acknowledged front for al-Qaeda, claimed responsibility and issued a chilling warning, telling Christians it would “open upon them the doors of destruction and rivers of blood”. Delivering on their promise, 11 car bombs aimed at Christian shops and homes in Baghdad exploded on Wednesday, killing another five members of the minority. The US and British invasion of Iraq rid the country of Saddam Hussein and instituted a bloodily delivered democracy of sorts after decades of oppressive totalitarianism. And yesterday, eight months of political deadlock since elections in March were broken with a deal to form a new government. Nouri al-Maliki, a Shia, remains as prime minister, while Iyad Allawi, leader of the main Sunni faction al-Iraqiya, will lead a new council for national strategy. The agreement may be taken by outsiders as a welcome sign of stability that ought to reassure Iraqi Christians, but it is a painful truth that they led a safer and more dignified existence under Saddam’s brutal rule. However, in a sign of the coalition’s fragility, the Iraqiya bloc last night walked out in protest before a vote on the presidency. Earlier this week, Athanasius Dawood, the exiled archbishop of the Syriac Orthodox Church, one of the smaller Christian communities, gave a warning that the minority was facing extinction at the hands of a campaign of “pre-meditated ethnic cleansing”. He said that the only hope of salvation for Iraq’s Christians was if countries such as Britain gave them blanket political asylum. Although most of the extremists attacking them are thought to be Sunni Arab, Christians are as fearful of the Shia-dominated government and the kind of rule they believe it will one day institute. Tellingly, Archbishop Dawood laid much of the blame for the Christians’ plight on Mr Maliki’s administration, calling it “weak, biased, if not extremist”. Statistics vary wildly, but according to the US State Department, there are between 550,000 and 800,000 Christians left in Iraq, compared with 1.4 million in 1987 when a census was taken. Those numbers may be an over-estimation, but it is generally agreed that the number has halved since Saddam’s fall as members of the faith flee the pogroms. Iraqi Christians say they are in graver danger now than at any time in their history. As gruesome as last month’s attack on the Our Lady of Salvation Church was, they have been living in terror since the first bombings of their places of worship in 2004. In the northern city of Mosul, Christians have been routinely kidnapped and executed because of their faith. In the past two years, Islamist gunmen have frequently stopped young men and women on the street and asked for their identity cards. If they bore a Christian-sounding name, they were often shot dead where they stood. To have any chance of survival, churches in Mosul have been forced to pay protection money to gangsters linked to al-Qaeda. Any doubts about the Islamists’ ultimate intentions were laid to rest when a group calling itself the Secret Islamic Army delivered a letter to homes in the Christian enclaves of Dura, a district of Baghdad. “To the Christian, we would like to inform you of the decision of the legal court of the Secret Islamic Army to notify you that this is your last and final threat,” the letter read. “If you do not leave your home, your blood will be spilled. You and your family will be killed.” With its chilling echoes of similar missives delivered to Tutsis during the Rwandan genocide, it is little wonder that Iraqi Christians fear extermination. Some have fought back. Churches in parts of Kurdistan have formed militias to protect their congregations. “The only solution left for our people is to bear arms,” Father Ayman Danna of the Church of St George in Bartella was quoted as saying. “We either live or die.” But the Church Guard, as the militia is known, has the benefit of being funded by a rich Christian in the Kurdish regional government. Christians elsewhere can find no such powerful patronage. Iraq’s Christians learnt the hard way that to survive they had to pledge unquestioning fealty to successive, Sunni-dominated governments. When British troops pulled out of Iraq in 1933, members of the Assyrian Church, now one of the smallest of Iraq’s 12 Christian communities, began to agitate for independence. The army and Kurdish irregulars retaliated by massacring 3,000 of them. Ever since, Christians have known that their loyalty had to be beyond reproach, and under Saddam, they were largely left in peace to practise their faith. Saddam espoused Ba’athism, an ideology founded by a Syrian Christian that promoted secularism while acknowledging the importance of Islam in Arabic culture. Christians were only represented at secondary levels in the army and government, with the notable exception of Tariq Aziz – born Michael Yuhanna – Saddam’s former deputy prime minister. Despite the repression of the Saddam years, Christians believed that was preferable to a government dominated by the Shia majority whose leaders had close links with Iran. Those fears were given added impetus in 1991 when, at the encouragement of the United States in the aftermath of the Gulf war, the Shia rose up in revolt. One of their first acts was to attack and desecrate churches in Basra. Mr Maliki is a particular target of suspicion because he spent eight years in Iran during the 1990s. Tehran was also intimately involved in attempting to end the eight-month political impasse to create a coalition government. With Shia rule set to continue, Iraqi Christians believe that not only will they receive no protection against Sunni extremists, but also that Iranian-style intolerance towards religious minorities will grow more entrenched. A number of Shia leaders with popular backing espouse a greater role for Islamic Sharia in daily life and many also support a return to Dhimmi status for Christians, an old Ottoman construct that limited the rights of minorities in return for protection. That would represent a regression from the Ba’athist constitution of 1970 which acknowledged the “legitimate rights of all minorities” and gave formal recognition to the five main Christian communities. As persecution of Christians grows across the Middle East, and numbers dwindle ever faster, it is a supreme irony for many Iraqi Christians that one of the safest places for their faith in an ever more dangerous region is Ba’athist Syria. As a member of the minority Allawi strain of Shia Islam, Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian president, has recognised the need to protect other vulnerable faiths. As a result, Christian holidays are observed by the whole country and work does not start until 10am on Sundays to allow Christians to go to church. Christians across the border in Iraq can only look wistfully at Syria – for all its imperfections – as a reminder of how things once were.
this is the Islamic government that Obama tolerates in America. It is not a religion


WMDs were in Iraq – Blood for Oil was a lie

February 4, 2010

…REPOSTED FROM LAST WEEK BECAUSE THE DHIMMIS STILL DON’T GET IT:
The president’s critics accuse his administration of falsifying intelligence about Saddam Hussein having the capability of building weapons of mass destruction.This stems from the claim that the president solely relied on intelligence that Saddam was trying to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger to build a nuclear weapons program. These reports later proved to be inaccurate. The media failed to emphasize, however, that Saddam was already in possession of 550 tons of yellowcake uranium, which he was storing at the Tuwaitha nuclear complex south of Baghdad. That uranium was found and secured by coalition troops in 2003 after they liberated Iraq and was finally transported to Canada in July 2008. The president’s critics also blast him for allegedly implementing a new policy of Iraqi regime change when in fact that policy was established in the Iraq Liberation Act, signed by President Clinton in 1998.The Act made it the official policy of the United States to support the removal of Saddam Hussein from power.

Here is Noam Chomsky recently on WMDs. I know he is a liar, but even he does not agree with the idea that there were no WMDs

Chomsky: “This is even sometimes discussed. You can find it in the strategic analysis literature. Take, say, the invasion of Iraq again. We’re told that they didn’t find weapons of mass destruction. Well, that’s not exactly correct. They did find weapons of mass destruction, namely, the ones that had been sent to Saddam by the United States, Britain, and others through the 1980s. A lot of them were still there. They were under control of U.N. inspectors and were being dismantled. But many were still there. When the U.S. invaded, the inspectors were kicked out, and Rumsfeld and Cheney didn’t tell their troops to guard the sites. So the sites were left unguarded, and they were systematically looted. The U.N. inspectors did continue their work by satellite and they identified over 100 sites that were systematically looted, like, not somebody going in and stealing something, but carefully, systematically looted.” via Chomsky info

As someone who did not vote for G.W. Bush, I find it amusing that I have spent half a decade defending his actions. Bush was the Bunny Lebowski of politics. A political *bimbo* who prostituted the concept of “Moderate” Islam for his Saudi friends (just like Obama). We threw out a Ringer for a Ringer. (The Chomsky quote is referenced in the post so you can see the html I am quoting)

keep in mind that Saddam himself wanted the world to know he had WMDs: Saddam knew he was finished and was trying to get history to view him in a more favorable light. The man murdered thousands of his own people and was capable of just about any kind of violence and bloodshed. I don’t believe he feared Iran (over which he had an overwhelming advantage at the outset of their war) and I don’t believe he wanted to cowtow to the United States.
An American leader can declare war simply because there is an attempt of assassination. America can declare war because Iraq was supporting terrorism that killed American citizens. As for the WMDs I find it amusing that people thought they would just show up. did you expect them to give them to us? they found Uranium reserves south of Baghdad.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/22/to-dispel-bush-clouds/


In the coming months, years and decades, history will be the judge of what kind of leader former President Bush was, but those Americans interested in preserving his legacy must take an aggressive approach to dispel the many myths and lies that already exist.
Clearly, the most contested area of Mr. Bush’s presidency will be his foreign policy, namely his decision to send troops to Iraq. For several years, numerous myths have existed about the war, and it is imperative that we correct any falsehoods for the historical record.
These myths have falsely portrayed Mr. Bush as an imperialist president who illegally invaded a foreign country to seize its oil and dominate its people.
via washingtontimes.com

the US got very little crude oil from Iraq when compared to its other suppliers, while in fact France got a much larger percentage of its total oil requirements from Iraq, and so too did Germany.

so there would be the incentive for Europe to be against a war… wouldn’t there be?

If the US defeated Saddam Hussein solely to gain access to Iraqi crude oil, wouldn’t one reasonably think that the governments would have rigged the auctions so that the US could take Iraq’s crude cheaply, effectively and quickly? Exxon Mobil was the only US company that lead a winning bid team in the recent auction, winning the right to develop Iraq’s West Qurna 1. Royal Dutch Shell won the right to operate the Majnoon field. The Majnoon has a production target of 1.8 million bpd, and Royal Dutch Shell’s joint bid gets it 45% of that total. Malaysia’s Petronas joined Royal Dutch Shell and “won” 30%, with the rest kicked down to more and more minor partners none of which were American.

…Even now, we are hardly dependent at all upon Iraqi crude oil, for as of September Iraq ranks behind Algeria, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and of course Canada, and it is barely ahead of “mighty” Ecuador, with Brazil having ranked ahead of Iraq several times in the past six months but having ranked below Iraq in August and September…

via moneyrunner.blogspot.com

The truth however, is that Mr. Bush liberated a country from the cruelty and oppression of a sadistic dictator, returned the oil to the Iraqi people and acted in full compliance with both domestic and international law. In fact, Mr. Bush’s decision to send troops back to Iraq not only complied with international law but fulfilled obligations set by the United Nations.

In October 2002, Congress authorized the president to use whatever military force was necessary to fulfill U.N. resolutions pertaining to Iraq and the Gulf war. This was because after the U.N. authorized a coalition of the willing to use military force against Iraq for its illegal invasion of Kuwait in 1990, the U.N. temporarily suspended the Gulf war in 1991 with a cease-fire agreement that imposed stipulations upon Saddam Hussein.
Saddam violated those cease-fire conditions by failing to give U.N. weapon inspectors unfettered access, which actually prompted military action from President Clinton in 1998 when he launched a massive bombing campaign against Iraq during Operation Desert Fox.
In 2002, the United Nations resolved that Saddam was in “material breach” of the cease-fire agreement and that Iraq faced “serious consequences.” Because the cease-fire did not end but merely suspended the Gulf war, Saddam Hussein’s continued violations of the agreement reactivated the war.
President Bush did not start a new war in 2003 that violated domestic or international law. He merely complied with Congress’ 2002 vote by honoring resolutions passed by the United Nations that reactivated the original Gulf war.
The president’s critics accuse his administration of falsifying intelligence about Saddam Hussein having the capability of building weapons of mass destruction. This stems from the claim that the president solely relied on intelligence that Saddam was trying to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger to build a nuclear weapons program. These reports later proved to be inaccurate.
The media failed to emphasize, however, that Saddam was already in possession of 550 tons of yellowcake uranium, which he was storing at the Tuwaitha nuclear complex south of Baghdad. That uranium was found and secured by coalition troops in 2003 after they liberated Iraq and was finally transported to Canada in July 2008.
The president’s critics also blast him for allegedly implementing a new policy of Iraqi regime change when in fact that policy was established in the Iraq Liberation Act, signed by President Clinton in 1998. The Act made it the official policy of the United States to support the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. President Bush did not implement a new policy of regime change in Iraq. He was acting in the spirit of the policy already established by President Clinton.
The decision to send troops back to Iraq in 2003 was indeed liberation and not an invasion. Investigations by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the U.S. Department of State and the British government have all found evidence that the Iraqi people lived under a regime that systematically employed methods of torture and fear. Dissidents suffered from bizarre, cruel methods of torture including dismemberment, piercing, bone-crushing, cutting, acid baths and imprisonment inside coffin-size cells.
Women accused of prostitution were publicly beheaded without a trial and male soldiers were authorized to rape women to punish their family members for political resistance. Men were often forced to watch soldiers rape their wives, sisters and daughters as a method of punishment when the female victim was innocent.
The removal of Saddam Hussein from power was not an invasion, it was liberation.
One of the most widely spread conspiracy theories about President Bush and the war is the false allegation that he sent troops to Iraq to illegally steal its oil. There is no truth to this allegation. In fact, the new Oil Draft Law under consideration by the Iraqi government proposes using “production-sharing agreements,” which is the same type of oil distribution system used in Iraq for decades.
Production-sharing agreements allow foreign governments or private corporations to drill for oil and keep a small percentage of profits for their work while giving the majority of profits earned to the host country. The new Oil Draft Law will continue to implement production-sharing agreements, but the Iraqi profits will now go to the new democratic government instead of Saddam. The United States is not stealing any oil from Iraq.
There are many more myths and lies the far left has successfully perpetuated about Mr. Bush and the liberation of Iraq, but this column is not the appropriate forum to dispel them. Because these lies have been so deeply ingrained in the consciousness of the American public, those wishing to restore the president’s reputation must take a pro-active, aggressive approach that exports knowledge to the people.
Merely relying on a passive institute such as a presidential library and waiting for people to learn the truth on their own will not be sufficient in this unique case. Most people who visit the new George W. Bush presidential library will most likely already be sympathetic to him and there must be a more aggressive approach used to inform all Americans.
It is perhaps one of the greatest historical ironies and tragedies that a leader who cares so deeply about human rights and the freedom of oppressed people has been falsely portrayed as an imperialist invader. It is time for those working on the former president’s legacy to adequately communicate his vision of worldwide liberation to the American people. The historical record must be corrected to accurately reflect President Bush’s legacy and for the honor of our country.
Jeffrey Scott Shapiro is the National Organizer of HONOR FREEDOM (www.honorfreedom.com), a nonprofit foundation dedicated to correcting the historical record about President Bush and the war in Iraq.

For those you of that read this and many other rational blogs, you quite familiar with my frustration with the lack of any investigation into the missing WMDs here and here and and as far back as 10/04 here. We know existed (just ask thethousands of families of dead Kurds). We have sufferedWmd_hardware
through the mendacity of Dhimmicarts talking points “NO WMDS” and leftwing memes to the point where the lie has become accepted the accepted “myth” (to the point where it damn near cost Bush the election) – now there is a really frightening thought.

Saddam WMD: The Mother of All Cover Ups

.So it is long overdue and long necessary that Washington step out from the Democrat’s horsewhipping, and fight for the truth particularly now when Iran has all but declared war on the West. It was Syria, Iran’s proxy – it’s organ grinder’s monkey-, that allegedly took possession of the Saddam’s WMD. More Here.

– Nearly a year and a half
after a final report from American weapons inspectors concluded they
could not uncover evidence of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction
in Iraq, the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence has reopened the question…….

Chairman Peter Hoekstra, a Republican from Michigan, is said by his
staff to believe that it is too soon to conclude that Saddam Hussein
either destroyed or never had the stockpiles and programs to produce
biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons that Western intelligence
agencies insisted he had before the war.
In the weeks before and following the launch of Operation Iraqi Freedom, at least 10 facilities believed by American, European, and Israeli intelligence to be for the production and research of chemical and biological weapons were systematically looted by members of Iraq’s Republican Guard, ordered by the regime’s leadership to destroy and hide evidence of the programs, according to current and former intelligence officials from America, Britain and Israel. In interviews with the New York Sun, these officials reflect the position of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld in the months after the war: “

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.”

Mr. Ware yesterday said Mr. Hoekstra is worried that equipment or stocks of biological and chemical weapons could have been transferred to a third country or landed in the hands of terrorists.

Story here

I’ll say

The former undersecretary of
defense for policy, Douglas Feith, said the question of Iraq’s weapons
of mass destruction is still open. “People talk about the former Soviet loose nukes problem. The question is whether this is a loose WMD problem,” also held by the State Department’s chief of Iraq intelligence between 2003 and 2005, Wayne White. In an interview this week, Mr. White, said, “Just as the pre-war WMD intelligence was largely wrong, the conclusion after the war that absolutely nothing was in Iraq could also be wrong.”

Even the mendacious left believes the WMD are somewhere;

Canada’s Globe and Mail, Susan Rice, a former assistant secretary of state under President Clinton who would go on to become a foreign policy adviser to Howard Dean during the 2004 election season, raised the prospect of Saddam’s missing weapons in terms similar to Mr. Feith. “The richest treasure trove of dangerous WMD material since the collapse of the Soviet Union is on the loose and perhaps far easier for al-Qaeda and other terrorists to acquire than it was under the control of their ideological adversary, Saddam Hussein,” she wrote.

The former deputy of the Iraqi air force, General Georges Sada, revealed on
Saturday that that former dictator of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, ordered him
during the first Gulf War to bomb Israeli population centers with chemical weapons. More here.

Why, indeed, did they stop short of Baghdad in ’91?

Who can forget the entire population of Israel wearing gas masks during Saddam’s SCUD missile attack during the 1991 Gulf war testimony to the House

Israel_gas_masks_1991_1

Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, David Kay said “Deliberate dispersal and destruction of material and documentation related to weapons programs began pre-conflict and ran trans-to-post conflict.”

A former colonel for Israeli military intelligence who worked onIraqi issues, Miri Eisin, says of a transfer of weapons to Syria, “I don’t know all of it, but some things went in that route. At the end ofthe day, it would be the type of things they could hide. This wouldstrike out the biological type things, but they could get chemical weapons, possibly residual missile parts.”

Photo here: During Iraqi Scud attacks against Israel in 1991, school

children were trained in the proper fitting of gas masks, lest any of the missiles actually be tipped with poison weapons.
Related Articles:
Iraq’s WMD Secreted in Syria, Sada Says
Saddam’s WMD Moved to Syria, An Israeli Says


you might find it interesting that now that the blood for oil claim has been proven false, that many nazis on the internet are defaulting to the stance that it was all Israel’s fault. here is a link to a forum that is now blaming Israel instead of the oil companies. http://ff.im/cTjr8

the story changes, but the focused hate and prejudice stays the same. Any progressives that fell for this ruse were Asses

Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction

January 29, 2010

Wmd_hardware

The president’s critics accuse his administration of falsifying intelligence about Saddam Hussein having the capability of building weapons of mass destruction.This stems from the claim that the president solely relied on intelligence that Saddam was trying to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger to build a nuclear weapons program. These reports later proved to be inaccurate. The media failed to emphasize, however, that Saddam was already in possession of 550 tons of yellowcake uranium, which he was storing at the Tuwaitha nuclear complex south of Baghdad. That uranium was found and secured by coalition troops in 2003 after they liberated Iraq and was finally transported to Canada in July 2008. The president’s critics also blast him for allegedly implementing a new policy of Iraqi regime change when in fact that policy was established in the Iraq Liberation Act, signed by President Clinton in 1998.The Act made it the official policy of the United States to support the removal of Saddam Hussein from power.


Here is Noam Chomsky recently on WMDs. I know he is a liar, but even he does not agree with the idea that there were no WMDs
Chomsky: “This is even sometimes discussed. You can find it in the strategic analysis literature. Take, say, the invasion of Iraq again. We’re told that they didn’t find weapons of mass destruction. Well, that’s not exactly correct. They did find weapons of mass destruction, namely, the ones that had been sent to Saddam by the United States, Britain, and others through the 1980s. A lot of them were still there. They were under control of U.N. inspectors and were being dismantled. But many were still there. When the U.S. invaded, the inspectors were kicked out, and Rumsfeld and Cheney didn’t tell their troops to guard the sites. So the sites were left unguarded, and they were systematically looted. The U.N. inspectors did continue their work by satellite and they identified over 100 sites that were systematically looted, like, not somebody going in and stealing something, but carefully, systematically looted.” via Chomsky info

As someone who did not vote for G.W. Bush, I find it amusing that I have spent half a decade defending his actions. Bush was the Bunny Lebowski of politics. A political *bimbo* who prostituted the concept of “Moderate” Islam for his Saudi friends (just like Obama).  We threw out a Ringer for a Ringer(The Chomsky quote is referenced in the post so you can see the html I am quoting)

keep in mind that Saddam himself wanted the world to know he had WMDs: Saddam knew he was finished and was trying to get history to view him in a more favorable light. The man murdered thousands of his own people and was capable of just about any kind of violence and bloodshed. I don’t believe he feared Iran (over which he had an overwhelming advantage at the outset of their war) and I don’t believe he wanted to cowtow to the United States.
An American leader can declare war simply because there is an attempt of assassination. America can declare war because Iraq was supporting terrorism that killed American citizens. As for the WMDs I find it amusing that people thought they would just show up. did you expect them to give them to us? they found Uranium reserves south of Baghdad.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/22/to-dispel-bush-clouds/


In the coming months, years and decades, history will be the judge of what kind of leader former President Bush was, but those Americans interested in preserving his legacy must take an aggressive approach to dispel the many myths and lies that already exist.
Clearly, the most contested area of Mr. Bush’s presidency will be his foreign policy, namely his decision to send troops to Iraq. For several years, numerous myths have existed about the war, and it is imperative that we correct any falsehoods for the historical record.
These myths have falsely portrayed Mr. Bush as an imperialist president who illegally invaded a foreign country to seize its oil and dominate its people.
via washingtontimes.com

the US got very little crude oil from Iraq when compared to its other suppliers, while in fact France got a much larger percentage of its total oil requirements from Iraq, and so too did Germany.

so there would be the incentive for Europe to be against a war… wouldn’t there be?

If the US defeated Saddam Hussein solely to gain access to Iraqi crude oil, wouldn’t one reasonably think that the governments would have rigged the auctions so that the US could take Iraq’s crude cheaply, effectively and quickly? Exxon Mobil was the only US company that lead a winning bid team in the recent auction, winning the right to develop Iraq’s West Qurna 1. Royal Dutch Shell won the right to operate the Majnoon field. The Majnoon has a production target of 1.8 million bpd, and Royal Dutch Shell’s joint bid gets it 45% of that total. Malaysia’s Petronas joined Royal Dutch Shell and “won” 30%, with the rest kicked down to more and more minor partners none of which were American.

…Even now, we are hardly dependent at all upon Iraqi crude oil, for as of September Iraq ranks behind Algeria, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and of course Canada, and it is barely ahead of “mighty” Ecuador, with Brazil having ranked ahead of Iraq several times in the past six months but having ranked below Iraq in August and September…

via moneyrunner.blogspot.com

The truth however, is that Mr. Bush liberated a country from the cruelty and oppression of a sadistic dictator, returned the oil to the Iraqi people and acted in full compliance with both domestic and international law. In fact, Mr. Bush’s decision to send troops back to Iraq not only complied with international law but fulfilled obligations set by the United Nations.

In October 2002, Congress authorized the president to use whatever military force was necessary to fulfill U.N. resolutions pertaining to Iraq and the Gulf war. This was because after the U.N. authorized a coalition of the willing to use military force against Iraq for its illegal invasion of Kuwait in 1990, the U.N. temporarily suspended the Gulf war in 1991 with a cease-fire agreement that imposed stipulations upon Saddam Hussein.
Saddam violated those cease-fire conditions by failing to give U.N. weapon inspectors unfettered access, which actually prompted military action from President Clinton in 1998 when he launched a massive bombing campaign against Iraq during Operation Desert Fox.
In 2002, the United Nations resolved that Saddam was in “material breach” of the cease-fire agreement and that Iraq faced “serious consequences.” Because the cease-fire did not end but merely suspended the Gulf war, Saddam Hussein’s continued violations of the agreement reactivated the war.
President Bush did not start a new war in 2003 that violated domestic or international law. He merely complied with Congress’ 2002 vote by honoring resolutions passed by the United Nations that reactivated the original Gulf war.
The president’s critics accuse his administration of falsifying intelligence about Saddam Hussein having the capability of building weapons of mass destruction. This stems from the claim that the president solely relied on intelligence that Saddam was trying to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger to build a nuclear weapons program. These reports later proved to be inaccurate.
The media failed to emphasize, however, that Saddam was already in possession of 550 tons of yellowcake uranium, which he was storing at the Tuwaitha nuclear complex south of Baghdad. That uranium was found and secured by coalition troops in 2003 after they liberated Iraq and was finally transported to Canada in July 2008.
The president’s critics also blast him for allegedly implementing a new policy of Iraqi regime change when in fact that policy was established in the Iraq Liberation Act, signed by President Clinton in 1998. The Act made it the official policy of the United States to support the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. President Bush did not implement a new policy of regime change in Iraq. He was acting in the spirit of the policy already established by President Clinton.
The decision to send troops back to Iraq in 2003 was indeed liberation and not an invasion. Investigations by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the U.S. Department of State and the British government have all found evidence that the Iraqi people lived under a regime that systematically employed methods of torture and fear. Dissidents suffered from bizarre, cruel methods of torture including dismemberment, piercing, bone-crushing, cutting, acid baths and imprisonment inside coffin-size cells.
Women accused of prostitution were publicly beheaded without a trial and male soldiers were authorized to rape women to punish their family members for political resistance. Men were often forced to watch soldiers rape their wives, sisters and daughters as a method of punishment when the female victim was innocent.
The removal of Saddam Hussein from power was not an invasion, it was liberation.
One of the most widely spread conspiracy theories about President Bush and the war is the false allegation that he sent troops to Iraq to illegally steal its oil. There is no truth to this allegation. In fact, the new Oil Draft Law under consideration by the Iraqi government proposes using “production-sharing agreements,” which is the same type of oil distribution system used in Iraq for decades.
Production-sharing agreements allow foreign governments or private corporations to drill for oil and keep a small percentage of profits for their work while giving the majority of profits earned to the host country. The new Oil Draft Law will continue to implement production-sharing agreements, but the Iraqi profits will now go to the new democratic government instead of Saddam. The United States is not stealing any oil from Iraq.
There are many more myths and lies the far left has successfully perpetuated about Mr. Bush and the liberation of Iraq, but this column is not the appropriate forum to dispel them. Because these lies have been so deeply ingrained in the consciousness of the American public, those wishing to restore the president’s reputation must take a pro-active, aggressive approach that exports knowledge to the people.
Merely relying on a passive institute such as a presidential library and waiting for people to learn the truth on their own will not be sufficient in this unique case. Most people who visit the new George W. Bush presidential library will most likely already be sympathetic to him and there must be a more aggressive approach used to inform all Americans.
It is perhaps one of the greatest historical ironies and tragedies that a leader who cares so deeply about human rights and the freedom of oppressed people has been falsely portrayed as an imperialist invader. It is time for those working on the former president’s legacy to adequately communicate his vision of worldwide liberation to the American people. The historical record must be corrected to accurately reflect President Bush’s legacy and for the honor of our country.
Jeffrey Scott Shapiro is the National Organizer of HONOR FREEDOM (www.honorfreedom.com), a nonprofit foundation dedicated to correcting the historical record about President Bush and the war in Iraq.

For those you of that read this and many other rational blogs, you quite familiar with my frustration with the lack of any investigation into the missing WMDs here and here and and as far back as 10/04 here. We know existed (just ask thethousands of families of dead Kurds). We have suffered
through the mendacity of Dhimmicarts talking points “NO WMDS” and leftwing memes to the point where the lie has become accepted the accepted “myth” (to the point where it damn near cost Bush the election) – now there is a really frightening thought.

Saddam WMD: The Mother of All Cover Ups

.So it is long overdue and long necessary that Washington step out from the Democrat’s horsewhipping, and fight for the truth particularly now when Iran has all but declared war on the West. It was Syria, Iran’s proxy – it’s organ grinder’s monkey-, that allegedly took possession of the Saddam’s WMD. More Here.

– Nearly a year and a half
after a final report from American weapons inspectors concluded they
could not uncover evidence of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction
in Iraq, the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence has reopened the question…….

Chairman Peter Hoekstra, a Republican from Michigan, is said by his
staff to believe that it is too soon to conclude that Saddam Hussein
either destroyed or never had the stockpiles and programs to produce
biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons that Western intelligence
agencies insisted he had before the war.
In the weeks before and following the launch of Operation Iraqi Freedom, at least 10 facilities believed by American, European, and Israeli intelligence to be for the production and research of chemical and biological weapons were systematically looted by members of Iraq’s Republican Guard, ordered by the regime’s leadership to destroy and hide evidence of the programs, according to current and former intelligence officials from America, Britain and Israel. In interviews with the New York Sun, these officials reflect the position of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld in the months after the war: “

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.”

Mr. Ware yesterday said Mr. Hoekstra is worried that equipment or stocks of biological and chemical weapons could have been transferred to a third country or landed in the hands of terrorists.

Story here

I’ll say

The former undersecretary of
defense for policy, Douglas Feith, said the question of Iraq’s weapons
of mass destruction is still open. “People talk about the former Soviet loose nukes problem. The question is whether this is a loose WMD problem,” also held by the State Department’s chief of Iraq intelligence between 2003 and 2005, Wayne White. In an interview this week, Mr. White, said, “Just as the pre-war WMD intelligence was largely wrong, the conclusion after the war that absolutely nothing was in Iraq could also be wrong.”

Even the mendacious left believes the WMD are somewhere;

Canada’s Globe and Mail, Susan Rice, a former assistant secretary of state under President Clinton who would go on to become a foreign policy adviser to Howard Dean during the 2004 election season, raised the prospect of Saddam’s missing weapons in terms similar to Mr. Feith. “The richest treasure trove of dangerous WMD material since the collapse of the Soviet Union is on the loose and perhaps far easier for al-Qaeda and other terrorists to acquire than it was under the control of their ideological adversary, Saddam Hussein,” she wrote.

The former deputy of the Iraqi air force, General Georges Sada, revealed on
Saturday that that former dictator of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, ordered him
during the first Gulf War to bomb Israeli population centers with chemical weapons. More here.

Why, indeed, did they stop short of Baghdad in ’91?

Who can forget the entire population of Israel wearing gas masks during Saddam’s SCUD missile attack during the 1991 Gulf war testimony to the House

Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, David Kay said “Deliberate dispersal and destruction of material and documentation related to weapons programs began pre-conflict and ran trans-to-post conflict.”

A former colonel for Israeli military intelligence who worked onIraqi issues, Miri Eisin, says of a transfer of weapons to Syria, “I don’t know all of it, but some things went in that route. At the end ofthe day, it would be the type of things they could hide. This wouldstrike out the biological type things, but they could get chemical weapons, possibly residual missile parts.”

Photo here: During Iraqi Scud attacks against Israel in 1991, school

children were trained in the proper fitting of gas masks, lest any of the missiles actually be tipped with poison weapons.
Related Articles:
Iraq’s WMD Secreted in Syria, Sada Says
Saddam’s WMD Moved to Syria, An Israeli Says


you might find it interesting that now that the blood for oil claim has been proven false, that many nazis on the internet are defaulting to the stance that it was all Israel’s fault. here is a link to a forum that is now blaming Israel instead of the oil companies. http://ff.im/cTjr8


the story changes, but the focused hate and prejudice stays the same. Any progressives that fell for this ruse were Asses