WHO IS LYING ABOUT IRAQ?

SADDAM HUSSEIN'S BIOLOGICAL WMD: "Think how many can be killed by just a tiny bit of anthrax. ...Think about all the other terrorists and other bad actors who could just parade through Baghdad and pick up their stores."

We now know that when President Bush said that he was lying -- and trying to manipulate us into war.

Oh sorry. I got that wrong. Bush didn't say that. President Clinton did. 

It's in this interesting New York Sun piece on Ahmed Chalabi by Laurie Mylroie (who served as a Clinton advisor on Iraq).

WMD DEMOCRATS SEE VIDEO HERE! NOW!

WHO IS LYING ABOUT IRAQ? For a more detailed look at the record, read the distinguished author, Norman Podhoretz, in the December issue of Commentary. He assembles the facts to demonstrate, conclusively, that that the charges being leveled against President Bush regarding the genesis of the war not only are baseless but are themselves a lie. It's here.

Hat tip: Foundation for the Defense of Democracy
and Irwin, WMFU

UPDATE: Our troops in Iraq are encountering fierce opposition at the Syrian border of Iraq....sounds like Syria is itchin' for an ass kickin' or is it Iran?

Iran stands up for Syria under UN pressure

In other news;

Spain probes alleged CIA flights
The airport in Szymany, northeastern Poland, one of the sites identified recently by Human Rights Watch as a potential site of alleged CIA prisons. A judge is investigating allegations the CIA used a Spanish airport as a base for transporting Islamic terrorism suspects, Spanish Interior Minister Jose Antonio Alonso said on Tuesday.

I want an investigation into the sniveling summabitch that leaked this and committed treason.

Comments

[monkyboy]

Noted Republican hot on the trail of WMDs:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

[irishlad317]

Monkeyboy... ever hear the saying: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"? Are you REALLY incapable of understanding that at that point the Ayatollah Khomeini was calling for death to the USA, and had only recently released the hostages? Is it so far fetched to believe that someone in the government wanted to take a risk on supporting Saddam, given that he was fighting Iran? I suppose you don't understand how we can work with the communists in China to help reign in the North Koreans.

Can nothing change? Do you have any idea how assinine it is to say, "Rumsfeld shook hands with Saddam in the early 80's, so the war with Saddam 20 years later is illegitimate"? Forget that in the interim he invaded Kuwait. Forget that he violated the ceasefire and all of the UNSC resolutions regarding compliance with that ceasefire. Forget that in the interim 9/11 occurred. Forget that he supported terrorists. Rumsfeld shook his hand when Reagan was president!!!

Nice drive-by, out of context shot, though... I'm sure the aim was to rile someone up, and you succeeded.

[monkyboy]

He was shaking hands with Saddam knowing full well, and providing assistance to, Saddam's use of chemical weapons against Iran.

I agree Kerry and Clinton should shut their cakeholes about Iraq, they voted for the war.

But the following Democratic Senators voted against the war, and they are free to criticize it:

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

Give 'em hell, Harry...

[elvis]

The (give 'em hell Harry) Truman Doctrine- Reduce one's enemies to quivering blobs of protoplasm.

The (Harry) "Reid [ aka liberals'] doctrine"-
Behave as quivering blobs of protoplasm in front of one's mortal enemies while politicizing the struggle against totalitarianism.

[Cousin Dave]

al-Q specifically cited the U.S. offensive at the Syrian border as their reason for the hotel bombings in Jordan. Looks like we've touched a nerve! If there has been one big tactical mistake in the Iraq war, I think it was in not taking action to secure Iraq's borders early on. Better late than never, though.

[Craig]

I see it's time to bring out the Sledge-o-matic:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

[Conservatus M]

Thanks, Craig.

Liberal denial is a terrible thing to behold.

[Craig]

You're welcome CM. So many moonbats, so little time!

[E2M]

"UPDATE: Our troops in Iraq are encountering fierce opposition at the Syrian border of Iraq....sounds like Syria is itchin' for an ass kickin' or is it Iran?"

Bashir thinks it won't happen. When it does, he's going to be as clueless a Saddam.

[Thomas Carney]

E2M: I'd like to see Bashir Assad taken out, too. His father was a butcher and his son is almost as bad. But I seriously doubt there is enough poop in the US military machine to fight insurgents in Iraq, help the UN hold the fort in Afghanistan, and on top all that, the US mil is STILL doing the Robo Globo Cop crap in the Balkans. Remember when Bubba (I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky) said, "...the troops will not be deployed to the Balkans for more than a year."

Trust me, what I'm hearing from the people in the field is that our people _are_ _stretched_ _to_ _the_ _very_ _limit. There's still a lot of activity of our people in Latin American helping to intercept drug lines.

[E2M]

Thomas: The fault in your thinking is that you think that this would require more, rather than less in resources. The primary purpose of such a move would be to cut off the flow of terrorist personnel and materials from Syria. This would make the job in Iraq easier, not harder.

The bigger problem with going into Syria is what to do afterward? I don't think that anyone expects that we are going to babysit them the way we are doing in Iraq. They have to find some sort of devil to cut a deal with, someone who will protect his own backside by clamping down on the terrorists. It's not clear that such a devil exists.

There are other options, such as keeping them so occupied in the Eastern Syrian desert that they can't get into Iraq. The objective is to cut them off, so we don't need so many people in Iraq. I'm sure that there's a plan to do all of this, and it's just a matter of giving Assad enough rope to hang himself with, and it looks like he's doing a fine job of that.

[lowandslow]

and they are free to criticize it:

Go ahead criticize it, but if you do expect to be asked for viable alternatives. If you don't have any, then you too keep mouth shut.

[Thomas Carney]

E2M: Actually, when resources are stretched to the very limit, there's little more that can be done.

If you think we have enough people to cut off the border between Syria and Iraq, you're smokin' some serious stuff. Cheech and Chong will be calling you to buy some of that weed.

I just talked to my nephew, who spent over a year there.... our people are working their arses and doing miracles... but even then it's not enough. There's just not enough of our people to keep the cauldron from boiling.

If our troops COULD keep the borders under control there, they would have. The reality is, they're too short handed. The proof is in all the insurgency.

[E2M]

Thomas - That's because they're limited in how far they can go. Again, I don't know the best plan, but Syria is not a particularly strong country militarily, and it's not as if the resistance that they would put up would matter. If it helps to do operations further into Syria, so be it.

Again, the bigger issue is what to do after their military assets are taken out in two days of airstrikes. That part would be easy. You need someone in charge who won't deal with the terrorists. AFAIK, no such creature has been identified. That's the key to the whole thing, not that the Syrian military can't be neutralized from the air; it most certainly and easily can.

So it all hinges on things that we don't know; if they have an alternative to Bashir, and how they are playing the diplomatic dance. I don't think that anyone has any ideas of rolling in and occupying Syria, though I can't say that for sure, either. The most likely thing is that they will give Bashir a good spanking, and if he doesn't behave, they'll find an alternative. But they can't just let them continue to supply the terrorists; that's the whole source of the trouble in Iraq.