Iraqi Blogs - The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Fri November 21st, 2003 14:29 MSTSomeone else (Lilek) finally noticed that Salam Pax is an ungrateful wretch. Useful Fools pointed out Salam’s lousy attitude some time ago and found this response from Salam:
After the last article I wrote in the Guardian I was wondering whether I should stop whining. the problem is that people want to read that things are getting better and we are happy, but things are getting better in such a slow pace that it is almost imperceptible, and with the one step we move forward on one front we move back 3 steps on other fronts. People need to know that their kids and loved ones are here for a good reason and this is what they want to hear. Otherwise they send me emails saying that I am being part of the problem. They send me emails telling me that I should help the Americans capture the terrorists and Baathists, as if they walk around in the streets wearing signs. Maybe we Iraqis did expect too much from the American invasion, we did hope there is going to be an easy way
…
I am a crybaby and a whiner as some like to describe me
….
Unfortunately, Salam’s maturity didn’t last long. Salam is now so full of his fame that he rarely posts, and his writing has returned to his previous immature and harmful attitudes. He is still a baby in his late ’20s.
The good news is that there are now several thoughtful bloggers in Iraq. People whose vision is less self centered and more clear than Salam Pax’s; people who appreciate freedom and understand the difficulties of achieving it; people who are actively helping. I recommend these Iraqi bloggers:
- Zeyad, a dentist, of Healing Iraq has a mature and balanced blog. Uncharacteristically, on November 18 he emotionally expressed his feelings towards the hateful members of the former regime, and later apologized for doing so. I didn’t think his apology was necessary at all. This self-identified rant in worth reading if you are interested in how angry some Iraqis are. Healing Iraq is always a good read.
Zeyad was first linked to by Salam Pax, who has since humorously stated his unhappiness with Zeyad’s attitudes! That in itself is a recommendation for Healing Iraq! - “A.Y.S.”, another dentist, has an outstanding blog at Iraq At A Glance. He provides news, history and deeply thought out commentary. His has the potential to be the best Iraqi blogger. Compare his articles to the immaturity of Salam Pax’s whines and you will be favorably impressed.
- Mohammed, Ali and Omar, all medical professionals, encouraged by Zayed, have started the promising Iraq The Model.
- Alaa runs a less formal blog, The Mesopotamian, that adds yet another viewpoint from Iraq. Alaa’s blog is more conversational than many, and has a friendly, chatty atmosphere.
- Baghda runs a bilingual blog, Baghdadee, with original writings, material from other Iraqis, and news sources. It is a sort of “Iraqipundit,” providing an interesting selection of current events information from both inside and outside the country.
- Sam, posting Hammorabi, has an eclectic blog. I just discovered this one and it looks good [UPDATED 11/25/03].
- Ishtar, blogging from Basra as Ishtar talking, has written some excellent posts with great descriptions of her experiences and interestinhg observations of people. She is in Basra and was one of the earliest Iraqi bloggers. Unfortunately, she has not blogged for a couple of months.
- Nabil, a 16 year old Baghdad blogger, writes nabil’s blog, which gives one a look at the life of an Iraqi school kid. I wish my Spanish at that age was one tenth as good as his English! [Thanks to Menchi for the tip]
Finally, there is another early Baghdad blogger, “Riverbend” of Baghdad Burning. She reports every anti-American rumor and attitude that she hears, and never has a good word for the occupiers, some of whom gave their lives freeing her and are still risking their lives protecting her. She detests the interim government and the Americans. In fact, she gives the strong impression that she would be much happier if Saddam still ruled.
One suspects that Riverbend was one of few who prospered under Saddam, while he was killing and starving others. She never mentions the horrible behavior of Saddam’s government. She appears to support the “resistance” or at least excuses their attacks (while condemning terrorism against civilians, apparently having convinced herself against all logic that “the resistance” and the terrorists are different people).
I recommend reading her blog to see how badly informed, hate filled and illogical some Iraqis can be. An example of both her attitude towards the people of the formerly oppressed and poverty stricken Shia district, and her cynicism towards Americans, is easily observed in this paragraph:
Most of the gangs, at least the ones in Baghdad, originate from slums on the outskirts of the city. ‘Al-Sadir City’ is a huge, notorious slum with a population of around 1.5 million. The whole place is terrifying. If you lose a car or a person, you will most likely find them there. Every alley is controlled by a different gang and weapons are sold in the streets… they’ll even try out that machinegun you have your eye on, if you pay enough. Americans don’t bother raiding the houses in areas like that… raids are exclusively for decent people who can’t shoot back or attack. Raids are for the poor people in Ramadi, Ba’aquba and Mosul.
By this she slurs the poor Shiites of Al-Sadir City (formerly Saddam City), people who are not “decent” in her eyes, and who were that Baghdadis persecuted the most under Saddam.
Another example, which I “fisked” a couple of months ago, is here.
Finally, a correspondent (Katherine K.) who grew up in communist Poland made this very insightful comment:
The reason I distrusted Salam is that I saw so much of it in my home country
after the Communism fell - people whose conditions objectively improved, but
who were unhappy because they lost their privileges and other, formerly less
privileged people became better off.I think that any form of tyranny is truly soul crushing - people lose their
dignity and initiative, and the only thing that gets highly developed is the
ability to circumvent the laws, because tyrannical laws make life
unbearable, or not outright impossible for individuals. But that is another
terrible legacy, because if you were conditioned all your life to outfox
laws and authorities, you will try to continue to do so even when the
situation changes and laws are those of liberal democracy (liberal in a
classical sense, that is). In fact, freedom often brings increase in
lawlessness, because makes it easier for the laws to be broken. That is why
all this criminal activity that passes for business goes on in Russia and
former Communist countries.
We Americans, British, Poles and other allies should not demand gratitude from the people of Iraq. We didn’t invade them just to save them from Saddam, although that is a satisfying and humane result and was one of the factors in the decision making. We invaded them to defend ourselves and civilization from modern terrorism and its consequences. We certainly should feel free to criticize some Iraqis just as they feel free to criticize us.
Good post. Salam Pax is quite immature (and Riverbend’s propaganda is beyond belief).
Here’s the lesson some people in Baghdad must remember, if you don’t want the U.S. Army on your corner killing the neighborhood loonies, don’t sit around playing “Go along to get along.”
An excellent roundup of Iraqi blogs–I learned a lot form it. The response from the Polish correspondent is also worth considering. I have spent time in the Czech Republic (after the Velvet Revolution) and in Russia (before, during and after perestroika) and it makes sense to me.
Err… ted… what were you replying to?
This is a post about Iraqi blogs. I assume you are referring to Gen. Franks’ doubts that was one reference on here. If so, you may want to go to this posting on this blog which discusses this issue.
Oh, and to respond to you, conservatives know that human nature doesn’t change. And one part of human nature is the fact that people, if sufficiently threatened, will demand action.
The first purpose of government is to protect its citizens. A government which cannot do so loses its legitimacy. This is a higher principal than adherence to the Constitution! The Constitution is the best way we know to construct such a government that balances rights and safety, but don’t kid yourself about there not being a balance. There are few absolutes in this area.
Personally, I don’t expect destruction of the constitution as a response to a major WMD attack. I do expect, and wrote in the reference above, that we will lose our privacy in many ways, most of which I do *not* consider important, and which are *not* in the Constitution, but are assumed by many who need to read it more closely (including some in the Supreme Court).
You know, I was always under the impression the laws of the constitution were not relative to scared political leaders and frightened citizens. They were inalienable. Please, I implore many of you to look that up. If anything, they would defend the people of the United States from the whims of outsiders who would do us harm. This is scary that so many people who consider themselves ‘conservatives” are the first to admit that laws are contingent to moods and time. Times have changed, and I just can’t come to grips that so many conservatives have just become nihilist in the face of terror.
Ted, the rights enumerated in the Constitution are good ideas, but they’re not going to protect anyone from anything- they’re ideas described by ink on paper, and they’re not inalienable.
What protects us is the decency of the people we choose as leaders, and the willingness of American citizens to stand up for what they believe in. Liberals who think this might join the ACLU, conservatives of like mind the NRA, but the principle is the same regardless of where they are in the political spectrum.
People willing to risk their lives, their fortunes, and their honor for what they believe in are what protect our rights, not some inksmears on an old piece of vellum. And if nobody is willing to stand up for a right, it’s certainly not inalienable.
“Ted” posted a second comment which was an offensive personal attack on me. That comment, like his first one, had nothing to do with the subject of Iraqi blogs. Because of the offensiveness of his comment, AND the fact that it is on the wrong page, I have deleted Ted’s comments.
If Ted wishes to comment on the subject of the proper interpretation of the constitution and its place in the modern world of terrorism, there are several appropriate postings on this blog to which he could comment. Probably the most appropriate is this one. I would also ask that Ted be less offensive, but I won’t delete a comment based on its offensiveness alone, if it contains a substantive argument or adds information.
Very nice post, and I am truly enjoying Healing Iraq and The Mesopotamian blogs.
Salam has been posting a lot more since he started getting some competition!
PLEASE NO MORE COMMENTS ON THE CONSTITUTION. THEY ARE OFF TOPIC. If you wish to discuss terrorism and the constitution, please go to this post to do it.
I allowed myself to be suckered by “Ted” - a blogroach - into commenting on the subject.
But now I will delete any responses on that topic unless they are to a more relevant article.
THANK YOU.
John
I think most Iraqis, no the world, realizes we never went there for Iraqi freedom and liberation. That reason is just as true as WMDs, Al-Quada, nuclear programs, and all of the other creative “truths” we used to get there. In the end the only reason we went there was to control oil. Saddam had not been on the American payroll for a decade and we need a new stooge running that country that obeys us. The only people who do not realize this are Americans.
It seems to be the case that some would rather nag and bitch about other citizens in other countries not being grateful about being handed something they themselves did not give nor do they even seem to understand.
We seem to lecture Salam about something that is inherently his. Or are inalienable rights contingent on lonely bLoggers getting their nationalistic egos stroked?
I don’t think the Iraqis are impressed with American blowhards, whether they are soldiers or bLoggers. The Iraqi’s are going to turn on us like Vietnamese farmers.
Your comments are truly unbelievable!! Iraqis should be GRATEFUL to Americans? Ha?! Are you drunk? Grateful for what? The U.S. has lead an illegal war carried out with lies to invade and occupy a forgein country and then has changed its mind and told the world that it did so “for Iraq’s freedom” Pleeeesse. What a bunch of horse vomit! Are you that dense that you still believe in your goverment even after it has been forced to admit its lies (you obviously have not kept up with the fine print in the newspapers, have you?)
The U.S. goverment/military invaded Iraq to steal from it, period! Stop whining about how Iraqis should be grateful to the Americans. Stop whining about the death of U.S. soldiers, whatever happens to them is well deserved! Would you not shoot an armed thief if he enters your house? I thought so, so that’s what happening to the American soldiers, deal with it!
Bill and Ted,
If we wanted the oil, all we had to do was deal with Saddam, who would have given us a better price for it than any elected and democratic government of Iraq could.
The reason we went into Iraq and liberated it from Saddam is not just because we want to prevent terrorism on our shores. There are plenty of ways of doing that. We think that the Iraqi people would get up off their butts and take control of their own country, turn it around, and work with us to create a democratic state. We think that people is people the world over and people want to be free to run their own lives. We thought doing it this way would work.
If we are wrong, well, I am reminded that Carthage never again bothered Rome after the Romans destroyed the city, slaughtered everyone in it, and salted the earth. There is more than one way to skin a cat. We tried one, and if it does not work, we always have Plan B
Jessica, a quick question for you: How many Iraqis have been tortured, raped and murdered by their government since Saddam Hussein’s regime was toppled back in April.
Take your shoes off if you need to count that high.
Mr. Moore, you forgot one, my favourite blogger. His name is Nabil, and he is 16 years old. His English isn’t that good, but it inspires me (also 16) to learn Arabic.
http://nabilsblog.blogspot.com/
Bill & Ted… well, Ted, thanks for at least posting on topic (yes, I know it’s the same Ted as before… I have the IP address).
It is amazing how often people bring out the old “it’s all about the oiiiilllllll!” What do you guys do, go to sessions where you practice saying that, instead of logically examining the facts readily available? Saudi Arabia itself maintains enough reserve oil capacity, and a low enough cost of production, to offset any advantage we would gain by stealing Iraq’s oil. Iraqi oil *was* stolen, but it was by Saddam and his cronies, who used the “Oil for Food” program as an “Oil for Palaces” program.
I know there’s an idiotarian on the other end of the line when I hear the trite “it’s all about the oil” line! If that’s the case, why didn’t we take Iraq in 1991? We had an oil-man as president then, too? Hmmm? Why haven’t we conquered Saudi Arabia, which has much greater oil production capabilities than Iraq, and a much smaller army? Why didn’t we just hold on to Kuwait and steal their oil after the Gulf War?
“All About the Oil” is the argument of the ignorant.
As far as inalienable rights… we are not infringing on Salam’s. Saddam did. If you think criticism is infringing on inalienable rights, you don’t have a clue about rights.
As far as how Iraqi’s think, try reading the blogs I linked to. You might learn something.
To refute a few more common misconceptions in your post…
We never controlled Saddam. We gave him some aid in his war against the Iranians, just as we gave the Iranians some aid against him. Both were bad guys, so this made sense.
Regarding Vietnamese farmers, please argue that issue, if you must, at this new posting, after reading the facts presented there about what really happened in Vietnam.
BarCodeKing, a quick question for you: How many Iraqis have been tortured, raped and murdered by other Iraqis since Saddam Hussein’s regime was toppled back in April?
Menchi… thanks for the pointer. I will investigate and update my listing!
Salvage… your placing of blame for the security situation on US forces is poorly reasoned.
There is a fair amount of security, but Iraq certainly isn’t pacified. There are three reasons for this: Former regime thugs are attacking occupying forces AND other Iraqi’s, in an attempt to re-institute their brutal regime; Saddam released all of the criminals (rapists, robbers, murderers, not political prisoners) from his prisons before the war; terrorists are moving into Iraq to defeat the US.
Blaming this on the coalition is absurd. You can’t get caught in a crossfire unless there are two sides shooting! And since the coalition forces are careful about civilian casualties, while the Saddamites and terrorists want to maximize those casualties, it’s pretty obvious who is at fault for most of the remaining civilian casualties.
As far as your assertion that people who live there have a better point of view than those who do not, it is self contradictory. After all, THEY disagree with each other strongly. So who is right? My bloggers or your bloggers? Obviously they can’t all be right.
Furthermore, although they are experiencing the situation first hand, that does not mean they have a broad understanding of the situation unless they have good information sources. Ask any soldier about the war he is fighting in, and typically he will know little other than his own personal experiences, which are not sufficient to draw broad conclusions! The time in my life when I was *least* informed about current events was while I was in the military during the Vietnam War!
So those of us who are interested in truth seek numerous sources. I linked to many who are Iraqi’s and gave my own opinion of them. My blog home page also links to a number of soldiers who are currently in country, along with lots of people who are not there but who have something to contribute.
As far as your questions as to how many Iraqis have been tortured, raped and murdered by other Iraqi’s since the fall of Saddam… too many, but a lot fewer than was routine under Saddam. And most who have suffered did so at the hands of the terrorists, the former regime remnants and the tens of thousands of violent criminals released by Saddam.
Why don’t you ask: “How many have been tortured, raped and murdered by the government?” As you know, the difference between now and under Saddam during that period is enormous.
From your question, one can easily conclude that you think the Iraqi people were better off under Saddam. Good look finding many, other than some in the Sunni triangle, who would agree with you! It is, quite frankly, and idiotic assertion.
I think that “Bill and Ted,” are, in large part, correct.
One of the problems with many of the liberal interventionists and Wilsonian statists is that they try to over-simplify extremely complex situations. Situations within foreign countries are often very complex and intricate, and it can be very, very difficult for those who do not have the appropriate background to be able to comprehend what is going on. There are often many varying points of view among the people of a foreign country or area - and there are also varying vantage points from which to approach and think about a situation. Those of us who do not have the necessary background, a first-hand knowledge of the situation, or else a thorough and comprehensive knowledge and understanding of the circumstances and issues surrounding it, often are not able to form valid viewpoints on what an appropriate policy should be. This type of misunderstanding is one of the major flaws in the utopian interventionist viewpoint, and it has impacted our nation, our brave servicemen, and our people, in the past, in connection with foreign interventions. And apparently, that is continuing to happen today.
While it is true that some of the administration’s advisors have some decree of Wilsonianism (although I wouldn’t call them statists - most are “neocons” who are relatively nonstatist), they are far more sophisticated than you imply. I read a lot of their writings, and they know of the complexities of Iraq (and the middle east in general), and they know that Democratization is not guaranteed.
However, Wilsonians were only a small part of the overall decision process. Iraq and Afghanistan were invaded as part of a long term war of self defense. We were attacked as part of a complex war against the West and against modernity. We were attacked because to drive us out of the middle east. We were attacked because we were perceived as too decadent and spineless to respond effectively with the destruction of the terrorists and their sponsor states.
The ultimate problem is a world where tiny groups of fanatics (who at the moment happen to be Islamic fundamtentalists of two stripes - the Iranian [statisist radical Shia] and the radical Wahhabi) team up in alliances of convenience with hostile powers which have or intend to have weapons of mass destruction. We are in a new age, where 9th century fanatics can acquire 21st century weaponry, and easily smuggle it into our country and kill thousands to millions of people by the actions of only a small number of people. We are in an age where 9th century fanatics cannot themselves be deterred from acts of mass terror, regardless of what weapons they use, because of their willingness to commit suicide to achieve their ends.
There is no way to defend against these threats except by pre-emption and deterrence. Pre-emption involves directly attacking the terrorists militarily, financially and through the use of police and covert action; and importantly it involes removing the means to acquire the most destructive WMD’s and deterrence fails if we do not conclusively demonstrate our willingness and ability to destroy regimes which conspire with the terrorists. That Iraq was had the ability to reconstruct its chemical weapons program within six months is clear. That they were actively developing the even more dangerous biological weapons has been shown by David Kay’s research, where he found 13 biological weapons labs inside of Iraki Mukhabarat regional headquarters. That they intended to acuire nuclear weapons, probably through purpose, is clear from history.
Iraq has waged war against the US since 1990, when they invaded our allies Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. They committed an act of war in trying to kill former president Bush. They committed acts of war every time they fired on our aircraft in the no-fly zones, which they had agreed to in the truce in 1991. They had a history of the creation and use of weapons of mass destruction, including the use of chemical weapons, the testing of biological and radiological weapons, and the attempt to acquire nuclear weapons. They supported acts of terror against our ally, Israel. They conspired with Al Qaeda (as has now been shown conclusively ( here is a summary of some of the intelligence).
You seem to think that the Battle of Iraq was a result of utopianism. There were at least the following reasons, with the first the most important: destroying a regime which was likely to covertly supply WMD’s to Al Qaeda; showing the ability and willingness of the US to destroy governments which represent a threat to us and who commit acts of war against us; establishing a friendly country (with US military bases or basing possibilities) in the middle of the hostile middle east; establishing a democracy in an Arab country in order to start civilizing the area in order to remove the poverty, repression and propaganda which are used to create hatred of the US and to recruit or encourage terrorists; freeing the people of Iraq from a despotic dictatorship (that’s the only idealistic reason in the whole mix).
I think you are the one who is oversimplifying!
Oh, and the fact that there are many points of view in Iraq was hardly a secret before the war, and is hardly a secret now.
To me, the only serious question is whether we should have attacked a different country from Iraq first - perhaps Iran or North Korea or both.
So what exactly are you disagreeing with? You imagination that some sort of utopian idealism led to the situation in Iraq?
In what way is are “Bill” and “Ted” right? They are quite clearly from a different ideological world than you do.
I enjoy Alaa’s blog. He is cool.
Riverbend is frankly annoying. Like you said she reports every rumor in the book. Nothing she talks about has she ever experienced herself.
I enjoy reading the blogs you suggested.
Mr. Moore,
Thank you for your response to my comment. I am actually somewhat relieved to read it, because you focus on the severity of the threat that Iraq posed to us - to our nation, and to the safety and security of our people. There is a certain “Jesse Jackson”-type, ‘bleeding heart’ argument that liberals and statists use to justify intervention abroad when it does not serve our “national interest,” and that is one of the things that caused a great deal of frustration among our military community, during the Clinton/Gore administration. I am very pleased to see that you are among the principled conservative war supporters who had a good sense of our national security interests and priorities.
Regarding your comment response, however - I have final exams coming up very soon, and I have a ton of work that is overdue as well. I am going to only briefly respond here, and then I may not be able to post here any more for some time.
My comment above referred not only to the Iraq situation, but also to other areas in which there has been military intervention, or proposed military intervention, by our government leaders in the past. Bill Clinton and many of the neoliberal/neoconservative interventionists have a political viewpoint that is based not upon foreign policy realism, but rather upon a naive idealism. Idealists have a utopian vision - it looks good on paper, and would indeed be grand if it was fulfilled, but it usually doesn’t work when applied to real life.
The Wilsonian idealism and neoliberal/neoconservative political and economic policies are opposed by conservatives, ‘republicans,’ libertarians, constitutionalists, and many others. And during the latter part of his presidential campaign, George W. Bush also expressed firm opposition to these policies. Many of the neoliberals and neoconservatives were upset at this. The Clinton/Gore/Albright-type people referred to his views at “isolationist,” and the neoconservatives did the same. Many of the neoconservatives and liberals had supported R.I.N.O. John McCain for the GOP nomination (and some liberals more recently suggested that he would be the best choice for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004).
This article by the leaders of the American Conservative Union (the oldest major national conservative organization in America) gives a good description of some of the things that I am saying:
A POST COLD WAR CONSERVATIVE FOREIGN POLICY
October 25, 2000
(By the way, some people would argue that things have changed due to 9/11 - and they are right, things have changed. However, the values of constitutional conservatism and republican liberty upon which our great nation was founded were intended to endure for the duration of our Republic - and to carry us through hard times, and well as good times.)
This now-famous ACU memo to conservative leaders and activists from just last May also goes over these topics:
Revitalizing Conservatism
With regard to the recent Iraq war, I have been making the point, for over a year now, that this war is totally inconsistent with the values of American conservatism. The neoliberal and neoconservative political philosophy that has been pushing for this type of war for awhile now is contradictory to the principles of constitutionalism and republican liberty, and contrary to the vision of our Founding Fathers. The type of foreign policy that the recent Iraq war is a part of is based upon a flawed vision of idealism - it is Wilsonian in nature. This utopian vision is fundamentally leftist in nature, and there is no reason for conservatives to support it.
With regard to the issue of “pre-emption,” I came across some good pieces on this issue not too long ago. The doctrine of pre-emption is actually a complex matter of political philosophy.
Supporting pre-emptive war is actually a liberal, Democratic, pro-state position. It violates traditional conservative and Republican ideals regarding self-defense and state & human action.
This article by Prof. Tibor Machan (who is not a liberal) explains why liberals should support pre-emptive war.
I already linked above to a great speech by conservative Congressman John Duncan, Jr. (R-TN), which deals with this issue. U.S. Congressman John Hostettler (R-IN), another staunch conservative, gave this speech around the time of the unconstitutional House vote approving an oddly-worded bill which was supposed to authorize the use of force against Iraq.
Above, I linked to a professor - who is not a liberal - who explained why liberals should support pre-emptive war. But Michael Totten, who is a liberal, has been making the same point.
Popular conservative blogger Anna Bunny (a strong supporter of the Iraq war) recently posted this excellent entry in which she correctly acknowledges: “Pre-emption is Democratic foreign policy.” She features in that entry one of Mr. Totten’s blog posts, which demonstrates this.
Sorry if I have included too many links in this comment… I do that oftentimes. Those writers have explained this point better than I could.
As for your assertions about Iraq, and the need for the war, I have written about some of those issues before. The issue of “links” to al-Qaeda is something that I’ve written a lot about, and another blogger recently did an entry addressing some of my points. It is a friendly debate, though, and I may respond some time in the future, when I have the time (and energy!).
In my third most recent blog entry (it’s the one below the two Thanksgiving posts), I linked to my past writings on the issue of Iraq’s “links” to al-Qaeda.
I point there to some of my past blog entries and comment posts, including a guest blog entry at another conservative’s website.
I also recently did a guest blog entry at that site on the issue of the assassination attempt on former President George Herbert Walker Bush. It is here. (I did that post relatively quickly, and so it probably could be improved. It has links to some information and viewpoints though. I am not saying that those views are correct, or incorrect, but just leaving open the possibility that they might be.)
By the way, in an October blog entry, I mentioned former President Bush (41), and indicate that he, along with some members of his former administration, were advising his son against rushing to war. The former president took a more conservative approach to foreign policy than his son has now ended up taking, and was more of a realist.
Anyway, as I said above, this is just a “brief” (well, it was supposed to be brief) overview of my viewpoints on the issues previously-discussed. I have to start cramming and ‘caffeining’ very soon, so I may not be able to respond here - at least, not any time soon. But thank you for your insightful response to my comment - your comments at the discussions at your site seem to be very thoughtful and well-written.
Also, your blog posts are quite good, and your site is well-designed. Keep up the good work.
Aakash,
Thanks for your very informative comments. Unfortunately, I don’t have time to address all of it.
The long existing possibility of terroristsacquiring WMD’s from rogue states, and the definitive proof on 9-11 of their (long disputed) intent to use WMDs should change our policies drastically. I have argued that most have not realized how dramatically different our current era is from any previously experienced by mankind, and how that should force all of us to examine even our deepest ideological beliefs (the post referenced above discusses the impact on privacy that I expect).
Before 9-11, too many (not including myself) believed that terrorism was a small threat because the political goals of terrorists would be damaged by large scale attacks. That thesis (along with a general disregard for American self defense) led the Clinton administration to treat terrorist events as disconnected criminal actions rather than acts of war. They held to that thesis even though it was clear that the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center was intended to kill tens of thousands, and included a chemical weapon (cyanide which was destroyed by the explosion). Also refuting the thesis was the behavior of the Aum Shinri cult in Japan, which attempted mass murder with nerve agents and Anthrax.
Fiction authors did a better job than the entire Clinton administration, with Islamic terrorists succeeding in a decapitation attack via airliner-into-building in a Clancy novel, and in another novel (whose author I don’t remember, but I was reading it on 9-11) by attacking nuclear fuel cooling ponds with aircraft.
The destruction of that myth, the development of small but highly deadly WMD technology, and the rise of stateless, suicidal terrorist cults like Al Qaeda all combine to threaten the population of the world, and especially the first world, in a new and extremely dangerous way. We must now look at the world in a very different light!
The stability approach, which resulted in the post-1991 middle east was one of the factors that directly led to 9-11. It is now apparent that radical Islam (which has flared in various different forms over the centuries) provides willing foot soldiers who can inflict great damage on us, and who can do so with anonymous support from enemies such as Iraq (which was not a military threat, but was led by a person quite willing to destroy us if he could get away with us). It enables extremely deadly asymmetrical warfare, with an enemy like Iran secretly providing deadly weapons to the terrorists, and inflicting vast damage on us without any thread leading back to them. How do we deter when we don’t know who to retaliate against? Especially when the likely suspects are nuclear armed?
Saudi Arabia and Egypt, two of our “stability” partners, created Al Qaeda through the social dynamic of their methods of rule, which combine repression with redirection of resentment towards the west and the “infidel,” and in the case of Saudi Arabia, the active spread of an extreme and violent Islamic sect throughout the world.
Iraq, Iran and North Korea all represented potential sources of WMD’s, especially nuclear, to terrorists.
That Iraq had no WMDs for us to find is not really meaningful in this context. Iraq saw that the UN embargo was falling apart, and without 9-11 would probably have waited for it to do so, after which it would quickly produce bio and chem weapons, and restart its nuclear program.
After 9-11, they apparently realized that WMDs would not stop an American military. Also, there is evidence that France and Russia convinced Saddam that we would bomb for months before a land attack, and that the land attack would be prevented by diplomacy. Hence Iraq apparently disposed of its chemical weaponry (easily recreated), probably by shipping it to Syria. It retained its biological weapons labs (in Secret Police headquarters builidings) and its chemical weapons production capability (in pesticide factories). Its biological feed stock may still be hidden in Iraq, and in any case can all be kept in a single refrigerator. We know from statements by Iraq scientists that the regime was planning on hiding its feedstock, since it asked some of them to put it in their home refrigerators! Its dealings with North Korea prove that Iraq intended to acquire long range missile capability to deliver WMDs whenever it reconstituted the programs. It already had most of the expertise necessary to make nuclear weapons, lacking only the raw material. As was shown by the one buried centrifuge so far recovered, and its attempts to buy Uranium in Africa (NOT from Niger, btw), Iraq was maintaining the capability to restart a much more covert nuclear program. It already had done all of the preliminary research and engineering, so it could have gone nuclear fairly quickly.
It is not clear whether Iraq was the best target, or whether we should have gone directly after Iran and/or North Korea. Certainly Iraq was the easiest target, and its strategic location is important.
We are still faced with the reality of nuclear breakout by Korea and imminent nuclear breakout by Iran, and there is mounting evidence that Iran is actively supporting (and no doubt partially controlling) Al Qaeda.
It is clear that a necessary defense against Al Qaeda is pre-emption and the denial of both safe operating bases, and access to chemical and nuclear WMDs. In that sense, I think Iraq was meant to deter Iran and North Korea, although so far, that has failed. Additional efforts against those countries will probably be necessary. It may be possible to help topple the regime in Iran (heck, we’ve done it twice before), but in any case that is a hard problem.
BTW, in contradiction to one of your sources, Iran does not have an elected government in any meaningful sense. The elected officials are overriden by the Ayatollahs and have no independent power of significance. Iran has an elected government only in the same sense that the USSR did.
I see no strong defense against biological weapons from terrorists, as the weapons are too easy to create, and getting easier every day - especially when they can be delivered by suicide agents. The best that we can do is to keep terrorists from having stable bases in which to prepare those agents, and setting a strong policy of retaliation for any country aiding them when the strike does occur (which may be any time).
The rush to nuclear weapons by Iran is most likely intended to create a deterrent against our deterrent, so that Iran can continue to attack us through Al Qaeda and other means. I am certainly hoping that the administration has appropriate plans for Iran!
Ironically, the Wilsonian outlook may be more relevant than in the past. It is in our interest to have nations where people are prosperous and not suicidally angry, and the Battle of Iraq and its sequelae is an experiment in creating such a nation. Hopefully it will work. Certainly a large number of Iraqis want it, which is a good sign, but certainly no guarantee.
In this case, nation building is a self-interested move by the US, not an exercise in bleeding heart foreign policy. A success there will destabilize the more dangerous Islamic regimes in a manner that we should be able to benefit from, and will certainly remove one country from the list of terrorist sanctuaries.
Finally, let me comment that a cold, rational national interest analysis doesn’t have room for whether a policy is “conservative”, “neo-con” or “liberal.” It is purely a utilitarian exercise. If a policy long associated with liberals is appropriate in some circumstance, then it should be used. What ideology (like Conservativism) does for us is provide a guide - a way of condensing large amounts of analysis and argumentation and consensus into a shorthand evaluation tool. It should not turn into a straight-jacket.
From what I have read of neocon thinking (and I get The Weekly Standard), their arguments in favor of the Battle of Iraq were national interest arguments. Their arguments regarding the Balkans were less convincing, but if they were totally Wilsonian they would be crying for us to intervene in sub-Saharan Africa and other hell-holes, which they are not.
To me, there are several other difficulties in this current war (World War IV, AKA “The War On Terrorism”). There are too many in the world who are in more interested in short term profit - France and Russia being leading examples. There are too many who will attempt to appease - especially as they have rapidly growing Muslim populations (much of “old” Europe). And there are too many, all over the world, who are in denial - they cannot accept the fact that the world has grown more dangerous than ever before, and that they are the targets. Finally, there are too many people among our former allies who have acquired an illogical hatred towards America.
In these area, I would say that our State Department is not doing well, which is not surprising since it is full of Wilsonians and seems to be more internationalist than nationalist (Gorbachev suffered the same problem, interestingly). Also, the administration is not sufficiently alarmist, and the left wing is far more interested in its usual anti-American, pro-internationalist, hug our enemy sort of non-thinking.
All this being said, bleeding heart arguments are not all bad. For one thing, they have propaganda and political value. Also, if we achieve humanitarian improvements, we may create badly needed allies in a hostile world.
I can’t read George Bush’s mind. But, it would seem to me that he is far more aware of our national interest than Clinton, and may be a better practitioner of it than his father (although that remains to be seen). Furthermore, he has surrounded himself with some pretty tough advisers, people who are not going to drift off into some feel-good neverland in their argumentation (with the possible exception of Powell).
maybe salam pax changed his anti-baathism philosophy after the announcment of his father’s name as one of the corrupted Saddam oil bribes seekers.
go search under (Adnan Janabi).
Hello all. I guess I am blog crashing here. I have just recently stumbled onto the world of blogs and am very interested in many of the very precise and educated conversations taking place.
I’d like to ask some questions of previous posters.
John Moore, you wrote:
Please provide references to back these statements. I have seen no evidence to date that has been found by coalition forces of hidden labs in “Secret Police headquarters”. True, some of small vials have been found in refridgerators of scientists which could be used to reconstitute thier arsenal (I remember back when the administration was still promoting the WMD angle and the whitehouse.gov site had a pathetically triuphant page dedicated to the only WMDs it ever found…. a bucket with about 6 to 10 small vials of biological material. Since then the focus has shifted to the plight of the Iraqi people, a signifigant shift from prewar banter - but this is a sidenote).
You also mentioned:
I could not agree more whole heartedly. It pains me to hear Americans backing off from their pre-war (pre-bloodshed —> specifically American bloodshed) stance of support for the war in Iraq. So many people were swayed by the simple message of a threat to our homeland by the arsenal amassed by Saddam. But now the message has shifted to the freedom of Iraqis and how we are there to help them toward democracy. But with all the fighting in Fallujah and increasing uprisings throughout the country, many Americans are seem to be feeling lost. “We’re there to help them, why are they fighting us? Those ungreatful SOBs.”
I for one was not for the war. But I am all for getting the job done RIGHT. And as you put it Mr. Moore, “Battle of Iraq and its sequelae is an experiment in creating such a nation. Hopefully it will work.” If we abandon these people purely because our soldiers are dying, then the ones who have died have done so in vain, and any nobel efforts they put forth in support of the Iraqi people, will have been in vain. The line must hold. If not for democracy, then at least for the sake of a peaceful future for the Iraqi people.
Mr. Moore, do you happen to have any other threads where you discuss strategies behind our invasion of Iraq. I definitely agree our presence there applies a lot of pressure to that region and can only help us in political negotiations with the dictatorships in Iran and Syria. Additionally, our action shows our willingness to back up UN doctrine with force (even if it means upsetting the international community). I do however think that Iraq also served as a PROOF that a UN imposed inspection regime IS effective in keeping dictators and their dreams of producing WMDs under wraps. The lax enforcement by the UN when Saddam kicked them out exposed a major unwillingness by the UN to back up their resolutions with force, but our exploitation of this by using it as a means to show Saddams defiance and further justify unilateral action against Iraq will most definitely make future leaders cringe at the idea of defying the inspection regimes.
Anywayz, if you have another discussion on this topic I would be most interested to listen in and learn.
Aakash, you wrote
Hook me up with a link to this discussion!! I have yet to see any REAL evidence linking Saddam’s regime and Al Queda.
Okie, hope you guys actually still read these old posts.
clockwork
Welcome to blog space.
You ask me to provide evidence to back the statements. I’m not going to do your homework for you. I would suggest you read the full text of David Kay’s report. It is on the webThat is where you will find the hidden labs and much of this other information.
As far as small vials, keep in mind that a small vial of botulinum bacteria, which was ordered to be stored at a scientist’s house (refrigerator or cabinet I’m not sure), could in two weeks be converted into enough toxin to kill everyone in the world.
Also, as has been discussed on Bill Quick’s excellent Daily Pundit blog, large quantities of organophosphate “pesticides” were found in a camouflaged bunker. Those who found it including some reporters had to be treated for nerve agent poisoning. Nerve agents ranging from pesticides to VX are very closely related and are all organophosphates. It is trivial (as confirmed by a chemist on that blog) to convert the pesticide to nerve agent. This is probably why a number of countries have pesticide plants, when they could buy the material less expensively on the world market.
The dealings with Korea were widely reported, and since then so have the two indegenous long range ballistic missile programs that were active at the time of the invasion. What do YOU think would have been in the warheads of long range missiles? Daisies and Posies? Those weapons are only useful with WMD warheads.
The buried centrifuge, which was a nuclear separation centrifuge was also widely reported and was mentioned by Kay.
The information about attempts to buy Uranium is easily discoverable on the web right now, if one is careful to ignore the Niger false trail (note that Bush NEVER mentioned Niger).
As far as you comments on the shift in focus, I hope you are not inferring dishonesty from that. There is no doubt that the Bush administration (as did the Senate and House intelligence committees and every foreign intelligence agency in the world) expected to find WMD’s. And we did find them, just not in ready to use stockpiles. But there were a number of resaons to take out Iraq, and none of them had to do with immedate uses of WMD’s.
Furthermore, a new report that came to light yesterday about the actions of Saddam’s M-14 in planning to fight a guerilla war (even though Saddam apparently didn’t expect to) show three things:
1) Somebody with a lot of power (M-14) knew that Iraq would be over-run, and hence not only hid weapons all over the country but probably made sure the WMD’s wouldn’t be found. After all, a buring MIG fighter (itself larger than all the bioweapons stocks Saddam ever had) was found buried only by accident - because the wind blew the sand off of it’s tail.
2) The Baathists expected to lose Iraq and plan to get it back by using causing enough American casualties that we will elect a democrat who will cut and run - regardless of whatever language he uses to hide it.
3) M-14 or other agencies had a plan to destroy WMD evidence - a lot of reporters who examined documents in looted ministries *before U.S. investigators got there* noticed selective destruction. Furthermore, to this day M-14 is killing and threatening WMD scientists and other participants. One of Kay’s source scientists was murdered. Others were threatened. There is no way, as long as that is going on, that we can find out the disposition of those weapons (which could all be hidden in a space the size of the hole dug to hide that one MIG). There is one Iraqi blogger who wrote that he saw the Special Republican Guard (who controlled those weapons) several times drive out into the desert with trucks of material during the Blix fiasco.
3)Saddam’s command and control structure internally had broken down. We know the following:
-Kay reported that the Iraq he inspected was MORE LIKELY to provide weapons to terrorists than had been the suspicion, because of that breakdown (and also because terrorists, the real impetus of this war of which Iraq is only a theater) not only don’t need larged quantities of WMD to succeed at their mission, they also don’t need military quality WMD’s for a number of their possible uses.
-The Iraqi line generals all believed that their adjoining units were armed with ready to use chemical weapons. An order was given to use them. None were there. This indicates a high level of deception within Iraq. We were in contact with some of those generals before the war, so we knew what they knew.
-We had an agent in Saddam’s inner councils. He thought there were WMD’s ready to use.
The president did not need to prove the existence of WMD’s in order to justify invading Iraq. He needed only a strong suspicion that Iraq might provide them to terrorists. The burden of proof was on Iraq (legally and logically) to prove that they did not have the weapons. They failed in two ways:
1) They obstructed the inspectors, in clear violation of a number of U.N. resolutions.
2) We found a number of prohibited (by the UN) systems, we found the ability to produce the most lethal biological toxin known to man (botulinum toxins), and that the regime had forced a scientist to hide the seed strain.
On top of all this, one must consider that since 9-11, the world has changed. It is no longer possible to wait for an attack (I understood this a decade before that, btw, because I understand the technology of WMDs and knew that the old assumption of terrorists avoiding mass casualty attacks was no longer applicable).
And then consider that almost every day, Iraq broke the 1991 truce with acts of war against our no-fly-zone aircraft.
We had many strong reasons to go to war with Iraq. The one most easily saleable (although the others *were* all mentioned a number of times but mostly ignored) was the greatest threat - the real possibility that Iraqi WMD’s could be transferred to terrorists.
Furthermore, the quibbling about WMDs ignores what would have happened had we not invaded. The only reason that Blix got into the country was because we had an invasion force sitting on the border. We could not have maintained that force for long. Furthermore, the Oil For Food Bribes program (which made sure we would never get UN approval through the influence on France and Russia) was resulting (intentionally on Saddam’s part) in suffering of his people, especially children (he built 41 palaces during the time he was refusing to buy adequate medicine for his hospitals), and the result would have been the rapid removal of the sanctions. At that point, Saddam would have been back to his old tricks.
On top of that, he was paying terrorists $25,000 per head to massacre Israelis (he was supporting terror), he was harboring other groups, including an Al Qaeda cell in NE Iraq which was working on the very same biotoxin that Iraq itself was active working with at the time: ricin (oh, I guess I forgot to mention that WMD program which was ongoing when we invaded).
Finally, let me ask you what else Bush could have done in the face of all the evidence he had, the state of war existing between the US and Iraq (at a low level, but daily combat), the threat of terrorist use of WMD as exemplified by 9-11 (which showed their intent to use any means to kill as many of us as they could)? I would argue that the president’s duty was to remove Saddam unless it was possible to prove that the WMD’s were not there, get Saddam to stop shooting and our aircraft and funding terrorists, and know that he wouldn’t make another of his miscalculations (attacking Iran in the 80’s and invading Kuwait in 1990) in a way that would hurt our interests and kill a bunch more people.
See above for my disagreement with you about your “proof” about the value of U.N. inspection regimes. Also let me mention that UN inspectors NEVER found Saddam’s bioweapons program the first time. After 4 years of inspections, one of Saddam’s son-in-laws defected and told of them. Only at that time did we discover the massive program - and that was after FOUR YEARS of inspections. Inspection regimes do not work.
The only thing an inspection regime is good for (and even Hans Blix used to say this) is allowing a cooperative country to prove its innocence. This has been done by the Ukraine and South Africa (which had 8 nuclear weapons), and is being done (without the meddlesome UN) in Libya (and possibly now in the Sudan - that is still a bit hazy).
The most dangeorus terrorist weapons are biological. My daughter works in the area of genetic engineering and in the past has worked with BL-3 pathogens. She and I once did a back-of-the envelope calculation of how hard it would be to set up the sort of lab it would take to produce exceeding deadly bacteria (we were actually looking at a commercial venture that used harmless bacteria, like most genetic engineering, as a step). We estimated 50,000 plus $2,000/month with easily obtainablEe reagents. To do it with lower risk of infection of neighbors or the terrorist, double or triple that. Remember, a terrorist doesn’t need a government stamp of approval on a negative-pressure HEPA filters for HIS lab.
A state is needed to do a good job of testing and providing another part of weaponizing (unless it is a contagious agent), and Iraq had that knowledge.
To this day, the military claims that we have been unable to duplicate the dispersal weaponization of the 2001 Anthrax, and for some unknown reason, virulence weaponization wasn’t done.
There are lots of threads for you. You can use the search funtion on the right of my page.
Also, the blogs that I list on the right are mostly war-blogs and discuss this stuff. You will find that one of the best is USS Clueless, but there are a number of others.
I don’t have time to go into a lot of detail, but I can tell you the evidence of links to Al Qaeda and also give you a reason why there should be no surprise at this. Using google and the blog roll on my main page, you should be able to track this down.
Links:
1)A security service agent in Pakistan whose entire role was liason with Al Qaeda
2)The Al Qaeda operation in NE Iraq working on the same toxin that Iraq was working on, and friendly enough to allow the leader to be treated for injuries in Baghdad (in a totalitarian country, that means a link)
3)The alleged meetings between Mohammed Attah and Iraqi intelligence in the Prague. Although some agencies in the US government vehemently deny this, others don’t.
See this following leaked classified memo for about 50 links.
Ramzi Yousef was an Iraqi who participated in the 1993 WTC bombing (which was Al Qaeda linked and which used a very deadly WMD that was destroyed by the explosion). See this from a group that is mostly anti-war.
As far as old posts, I get email (since this is my blog) whenever a message is posted.
However, I really don’t have time to produce answers of this size normally.
Here are some serious blogs about the war on terror. They are far from a complete and the order is arbitrary, or necessarily even the best list. I’ll put a * by ones of note:
Instapundit* - a switchboard for blogs - a directy of what is currently happening that Glenn has noticed and thinks his readers would find interestinhg.
Andrew Olmstead
Roger Simon* - don’t comment here unless you really know what you are talking about!
Jihad Watch
USS Clueless*
Little Green Footballs - primary focus: Israel
Parapundit*
Sgt. Stryker
Winds of Change*
I would strongly suggest you read a bunch before jumping into the discussions, and some of these folks have no discussion groups.
Good luck.
John
Thanks for the very detailed response John!
It’s a lot to tackle, but I think I can handle it.
You wrote:
Additionally you wrote:
First off I would like to establish the basis for an arguement here. Mainly, that the Administration portrayed Iraq as HAVING weapons of mass destruction, not merely that they had the components with which to make them in the future, but that Saddam had them and he wanted to use them against the United States. In order for Iraq to provide weapons to terrorist cells to attack America (again, where are the alleged links between Al Queda and Saddam’s regime), he had to actually have them, not the capability of having them. The actual weapons must exist (and if you are going to say “well, he would then give them the necessary elements so they could make the weapons themselves”, that is possible, but I am sure there are plenty of ways for terrorist groups to purchase these materials on the black market). Regardless, we are not going to go invading every country that has vial of botulism toxin somewhere in thier country, that’s just ludicrious. So the key element is the EXISTENCE of weapons.
Here is an extensive amount of quotes to back up this assertion that the administration alleged there were stockpiles of existing weapons as a justification for war (btw, I appreciate that you want me to look up information myself, but I have been reading and reading and reading articles on the net and elsewhere since well before the war began, so for the sake of saving time I would appreciate it if you backed up your claims with at least links… make my life a LITTLE easier plz. ;-p).
Here are the quotes Bush used to support the claim of existing WMDs in Iraq:
– He has chem and bio… nukes are next.
– ElBaradei of the IAEA states his findings to the Security Council on 27 January 2003 (paras.65 and 71), in regard to the allegedly rebuilt nuclear sites:
“In the first eight weeks of inspections, the IAEA has visited all sites identified by it or by States as significant. No evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear-related activities at those locations has been detected to date during these inspections, although not all of the laboratory results of sample analysis are yet available. Nor have the inspections thus far revealed signs of new nuclear facilities or direct support to any nuclear activity.”
“The IAEA expects to be able, within the next few months, barring exceptional circumstances and provided there is sustained proactive cooperation by Iraq, to provide credible assurance that Iraq has no nuclear weapons programme.”
– basically, Iraq was given a clear bill of health regarding the nuclear sites stated by the President. But, being the thorough and responsible group the team of inspectors are, they were looking to FURTHER inspections to actually sign off completely on that assessment.
– Still waiting for the proof on links with Al Queda. The 2nd statement ties in the chemical weapon threat nicely with alleged training of Al Queda terrorists. This seems to be a key point, so if anyone has evidence to back it up, lay it on me!!!
— More ACTUAL weapons, tons of them (literally). Regarding the rebuilt facilities, the UN AGAIN found no new evidence of this. Here is an amazingly detailed breakdown of the UN inspections of chemical and biological facilities in Iraq before the war. Amazing resource! sidenote:I like the little addition at the end there tieing those atrocities to Sept. 11, even though they aren’t related.
And the list of quotations continues:
– more tons and tons. Here’s the only problem with this statement: Anthrax only has a shelf life of THREE YEARS!
Former Senior UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter explains this in a Sept. 20th, 2002 interview, “There was some concern that Iraq might have produced more anthrax than they declared. But liquid bulk agent of the type that Iraq produced has a maximum shelf life under ideal conditions of three years. After that it germinates and becomes useless sludge. For Iraq to have biological weapons today, they would not only have to reconstitute the manufacturing base to produce biological agent, but they would have to perfect the technology to turn that agent into a weapon, to aerosolize it or turn it into dry powder. They didn’t have that capability in December 1998, and no one has demonstrated that they have that capability today.”
I used this quote because it was the first I found in transcript form. I have seen multiple statements made by Ritter, and you can even watch him make these same cases in color through the wonders of streaming video so gratiously presented to us through recorded lectures at MIT. Scott Ritter’s lecture is here. WATCH THIS VIDEO!!! It’s VERY revealing.
– the dangers of our age are the threat of chemical and biological WMDs allegedly stockpiled there……. in case you missed that. ;p
– Again, we see linking of terror networks and Iraq. My only question is, what does this statement propose to the American people? It’s a scary fact, one vial, one canister, once crate could come into the US. The only problem with this is that the source for such material isn’t just limited to Iraq. As I said earlier, are we gonna march troops into any country that has even a vial of WMD material? If so, I better enlist now and put my son-or-daughter-to-be on that list as well. sidenote: Again we see entangling of Sept. 11th and Saddam in the same sentence.
– On on Jan. 9th, Feb. 14th and March 7th, 2003, the IAEA provided the UN with it’s findings regarding the aluminium tubes. It’s final conclusion regarding these aluminum tubes, on Mar. 7th was as follows: “the IAEA team has concluded that Iraq’s efforts to import these aluminium tubes were not likely to have been related to the manufacture of centrifuges and, moreover, that it was highly unlikely that Iraq could have achieved the considerable re-design needed to use them in a revived centrifuge programme.”
Actually, even prior to both the Oct. 7th Cincinnati speech and the SOTU Address, President Bush made the same assertions to the UN ONE DAY AFTER THE FIRST ANIVERSERY OF THE SEPT. 11th. ATTACKS.
From these first allegations on Sept 12, 2002 up until the war began, he made his case for war on - as I am PROVING through quotation here - Iraq’s alleged stockpiles of WMDs and alleged capability to create additional WMDs from rebuilt facilities… both of which were then subsequently disproved by the UN inspectors prior to the beginning of the war on March 19th, 2003. Here - as illustrated by my side notes - is the origin of all the Sept. 11 connections with Iraq. On the first anniversery of that horrible day, the President, playing off of fear of future attack, alleged connections between the al Queda network that committed the attrocities on 9/11, and Saddam Hussien’s regime in Iraq, in order to galvanize the country behind a war not truly related to the war on terrorism.
Additionally, with regards to the uranium, it appears that by Jan. 9, 2003, we had not provided the IAEA any information to help them track down the alleged sources of yellowcake uranium (although this statement falls before the Bush claims in the SOTU speech about imported yellowcake from Africa, it was after inspections and the search for WMDs had begun - this of course would include any materials related to a nuclear program):
“There have been recurrent reports of Iraqi efforts to import uranium after 1991. The Iraqi authorities deny any such efforts. The matter continues to be pursued by the IAEA. It would be useful to receive from States any specific information they may have in that regard.”
Now you mentioned, with respect to the Uranium claims made by Pres. Bush:
This is true, he was not specific to WHERE in Africa uranium was allegedly imported from, but I have read of no locations other than Niger used as support for this claim. Well apparently, even by March 7, 2003, the IAEA hadn’t either:
“Based on thorough a