Democrats Introduce Pro Islamic Resolution

Hi,

I am guessing (based on Google) that you are the person who published a letter in the LA Times this past day.

I don’t think in the military, if something bad happened on your watch, you could say, “Well, gee, somebody else had my watch 9 months ago, it’s their fault.”

With respect,

Kim Iannone

Comment by Kim Iannone — July 23, 2007 @ 2:42 pm | Edit This

Kim,
I can guess by your signature that your letter was published simultaneously. As far as something happening on someone’s watch, consider all of the terrorist attacks on our soil and against Americans overseas on Bubba’s watch. It’s not just the terrorist act itself, it’s what a President does or does not do in response. While people were fixated on his perjury and Monica’s mouth-to-crotch recuscitation, he and ‘algore’ used the Oval Office as a conduit for treason (Chinagate), illegally obtaining personal files (FBIgate), and engaging in some highly questionable firing practices (Travelgate). All this and eviscerating the military and national security to boot. What happened on his watch set the stage for 9/11. You are aware that Army SF had bin Ladin in the crosshairs and Bubba said “no”, aren’t you?
And this statement of yours is a sidesplitter:

“Muslim terrorists couldn’t care less about our “liberty” or our “democracy”; they believe that all non-Muslims are headed to hell anyway. They fight us because we foreigners have, for centuries, been invaders and occupiers of their countries. We have created countries at will (Iraq), propped up “our” dictators and taken their oil. Imagine that King Bush ruled us as a Saudi proxy and that the Saudis controlled our economy. Imagine that there were Saudi military bases across the U.S. and that the Saudis used these bases to attack other countries. Patriotic Americans would also take up arms against the foreign invaders. Neoconservatives support U.S. domination of other countries not to benefit the peoples of those countries, not to protect “us” from the “enemy,” but to ensure and extend the power of the American petroleum-military-industrial oligarchy. We are the invaders. We are the imperialists. We are the bad guys.”

Really? And who pray tell were the bad guys on 9/11? The perfunctory “it’s all about oil”, blah, blah, blah…is hackneyed BS. If we wanted to take all the oil, and indeed had done so, we’d only be paying 3 cents a pop instead of 3 bucks. We weren’t in Iraq prior to 9/11 attacks, and in case you forgot, sources of al Qadea are throughout the Middle East. We went into this war for a multitude of reasons.
I’ve said this before and it bears repeating:

Let me make this simple:
The invasion of Afghanistan was prompted by its use as the major operating base for al Qaeda.
The invasion of Iraq was instigated by 12 years of nose thumbing on the part of a WMD-wielding terrorist-supporting megalomaniac. U.N. Resolution 1441 gave Hussein an ultimatum and us the specific authority to force compliance, by any necessary means. That included military force. I was an Intelligence Analyst and cannot discuss classified material, but there are plenty of open source publications available for your perusal. In case you didn’t know, we found a substantial amount of hidden WMD along with documents and recordings in which Saddam Hussein emphatically stated his intention to continue WMD development and deception.

Cutting off war funding will send al Qaeda and other terrorist groups the message that the elected officials of the United States don’t have the guts to stand up to Islamofascist tyrants who want to transform the whole planet into a Caliphate.
Afghanistan is never mentioned in anti-war commentaries. For the life of me, I can’t figure that out. It’s probably because our success in pounding the Taliban and al Qaeda into the sand in Kandahar doesn’t make for good press.

And what about our invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan don’t you get? Where do you think we should fight back? Hell, they’re just two of the countries I would have leveled on 12 September 2001. We were attacked by Islamic thugs supported not only by Iraq and Afghanistan but throughout the Middle East and they are two good places to start retaliation.

Had I been in power, I would have made William Tecumseh Sherman look like a Boy Scout. Four countries would have been carpet-bombed into asphalt parking lots: Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Syria. That is how you fight a war. But I was a Soldier, not a diplomat.

President Bush has repeatedly stated that the war against Islamofascism will not be easy; it will not come without sacrifice. The problem is a great number of people like nice, neat, little sound bite wars. Well, wouldn’t we all? In reality, war is a brutal, often necessary endeavor.
No matter how badly some people salivate over the possibility of a “civil war” in Iraq, it ain’t happening. Most of the agitators are coming in from Syria and Iran, with the bulk of the violence taking place in specific areas around Baghdad. The rest of the 26 million Iraqis are too busy getting on with their lives to jump on the “civil war” bandwagon.

This is what the GWOT in Iraq and Afghanistan has accomplished:
Elimination of at least two of the ME terrorist operating bases and establishing influence and the spread of freedom right smack dab in the middle of an Islamofascist region. Iraq and Afghanistan are making great progress. For the first time in their existence, they have an opportunity to enjoy the freedoms we take for granted; they vote, run for office, run independent businesses, and speak through a free press. They are being prepared for the day when our mission is complete and theirs begins. They now have a representative Parliament and a military that is being trained to provide for the defense of an independent Iraq. You don’t hear about the good things, because, as the saying goes,” if it bleeds, it leads.”

By the way: one of the most important campaigns of this war is being waged as we speak. It’s called “Operation Arrowhead Ripper”. The United States Army and Iraqi troops are gaining significant ground and kicking al Qaeda’s ass in places like Baqubah. I guess in your view, that’s not as important as voting to cut off our funding and sniveling about all the reasons you think we shouldn’t have picked one of the terrorist/WMD havens as a target for retaliation.

Another ploy by critics is to assign the “Vietnam” mantra to every war it disagrees with. No matter how badly they want it to be another “Vietnam” it isn’t happening, and their historical amnesia kicks in every time this war is debated.

Here’s an easy scenario:
In spite of ominous indicators and turmoil that was contained on someone else’s turf, we remained complacent.
An enemy sends planes to bomb and crash into U.S. territory. The attack kills roughly 3000 Americans.
War is declared and retaliation begins against the perpetrators and their allies.
Sound familiar?
It happened 7 December 1941.

There’s your comparison.

You didn’t expect the bad guys to be very happy at the fact that we brought the war they started, back to them, did you? Of course they’re going to be pissed. Of course they’re going to fight back, not just with weapons but through media exploitation. 9/11 was the Pearl Harbor of the 21st Century and all the critics are capable of is spouting nonsense and being al Qaeda apologists.
In case you still don’t get it, they want to kill us. They made that pretty clear on 11 September 2001.
If you don’t understand that, maybe they didn’t hit close enough to your own back yard.
We’re what stands between your freedom and Sharia Law. Would a little gratitude be too much to expect?
You sure have a warped view on what constitutes “bad guys”.
SFC MAC
Comment by sfcmac — July 23, 2007 @ 5:06 pm | Edit This

Hello Everyone,

First, I’d like to point out that I ended my two sentence comment by saying “With respect”. I am going to stay on the subject of the 9/11 and its connection to the Afghan and Iraq Wars. I will not wander into name-calling, nor stereotyping, nor other subjects.

Second, after World War I and the fall of the Ottoman Empire, to take just the example of Saudi Arabia, the British set up the Saudi family to rule the Arabian peninsula, and the Americans founded the Arab-American Oil Company, aka ARAMCO. The Saudis have always been dictators and we have supported them. Radical Islamist Saudis hate their rulers. They hate us for supporting those rulers. They believe that we are infidels — non-believers — who desecrate their “Land of the Two Holy Cities.” All you have to do is read what Bin Ladin has said, watch what he has said. Fifteen of the nineteen men who killed us on 9/11 were Saudi.

Third, none of the bad guys on 9/11 were Iraqi. Bush himself finally said that he knew of no connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein. There were no weapons of mass destruction, nor a WMD program, no yellow cake from Niger, no eminent Iraqi threat to the United States, no mobile biochemical war labs, no biochemical weapons depots “to the north, the south, the east and the west” of Bagdad. Bin Ladin called for Hussein’s assassination. Hussein ran a very tight dictatorship. The CIA and US military intelligence agencies never reported that Iraq was involved in any terrorist attack against the United States.

Fourth, Bin Ladin was the baddest of the bad. US intelligence had put him within a 16-square mile area in the Tora Bora Mountains. How did the world’s best, most powerful military let him escape? Or perhaps the question should be, why? And with the mission unaccomplished in Afghanistan (or, perhaps, eastern Pakistan), why did we turn to Iraq?

Fifth, before we invaded, Iraq was not an “Islamo-fascist” state. Iraq under Hussein was a secular state, run by a pseudo-Socialist party, the Baath. Hussein saw the Muslim clergy as competitors and rivals for power. He suppressed them and tightly controlled them. Bin Ladin called for Hussein’s assassination. Yet another reason why the “war on terror” as a “war against “Islamo-fascists” doesn’t make sense.

With respect,

Kim Iannone

Comment by Kim Iannone — October 4, 2007 @ 11:03 pm | Edit This

Hello again,

One more thing: I don’t believe that most people in the Arab world are monsters who deserve to be killed. Most of them are like most of us — truck drivers, teachers, bowling alley clerks, insurance sales people, etc. You are talking about mass murder. Most of the people you would kill would be innocent.

With respect,

Kim

Comment by Kim Iannone — October 4, 2007 @ 11:13 pm | Edit This

Kim:
Corrections to your version of history:
Stating the obvious about the British colonization of Iraq and Saudi Arabia does not change the fact that they quickly morphed into the extremist element they are now. They were headed that way, anyway. The culture has never been exactly progressive; having been stuck in a 7th Century writing and mindset. Saudi leaders ironically, have not been completely immune from elements that are even more radical than they. They’re just the lesser of the two evils.

Secondly, The 9/11 hijackers had training from al Qadea, with funding, logistics, and support from countries including Iran, Sudan, and Afghanistan. Hussein (aside from provoking us by thumbing his nose at U.N. Resolution 1441 for 12 years) gave thousands of dollars to families of suicide bombers, and gave shelter to Musab al-Zarqawi (remember him?) when he escaped from Afghanistan after being wounded.

YES, my dear, WMDs WERE DISCOVERED. You must have have been in a deep coma when these were found:

1) 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium
In a joint Energy and Defense Department operation, 1.77 metric tons of low-enriched uranium and approximately 1000 highly radioactive sources were secured from Iraq’s former nuclear research facility, packaged and then airlifted on June 23, the press statement said.
“This operation was a major achievement for the Bush Administration’s goal to keep potentially dangerous nuclear materials out of the hands of terrorists,” Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said in the statement. “It also puts this material out of reach for countries that may seek to develop their own nuclear weapons.”

Source: http://www.energy.gov/news/1388.htm

2) 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons agents
U.S. troops raiding a warehouse in the northern city of Mosul uncovered a suspected chemical weapons factory containing 1,500 gallons of chemicals believed destined for attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces and civilians, military officials said Saturday.

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530.html

3) 17 chemical warheads containing cyclosarin (a nerve agent five times more deadly than sarin gas) “Laboratory tests showed the presence in them of cyclosarin, a very toxic gas, five times stronger than sarin and five times more durable,” Bieniek told Poland’s TVN24 at the force’s Camp Babylon headquarters. “If these warheads, which were still usable, were used on a military base like Camp Babylon, they would have caused unforeseeable damage.”

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124576,00.html
http://www.bizzyblog.com/PolishChemMunitions070204.html

4) Over 1,000 radioactive materials in powdered form meant for dispersal over populated areas: “Along with 1.77 tons of enriched uranium, about 1,000 “highly radioactive sources” were also removed. The material was taken from a former nuclear research facility on 23 June, after being packaged by 20 experts from the US Energy Department’s secret laboratories.”

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3872201.stm

5) Roadside bombs loaded with mustard and “conventional” sarin gas, assembled in binary chemical projectiles for maximum potency

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html

And this bombshell:

“Tapes Reveal Hussein’s plans”: An excerpt: “There also exists a quote from the dictator himself, who ordered the tapings to keep a record of his inner-sanctum discussions, that Mr. Tierney (Bill Tierney, a former Army warrant officer and Arabic speaker who was translating for the FBI tapes unearthed in Iraq after the invasion) thinks shows Saddam planned to use a proxy to attack the United States.” “Terrorism is coming … with the Americans,” Saddam said. “With the Americans, two years ago, not a long while ago, with the English I believe, there was a campaign … with one of them, that in the future there would be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction.”

Source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060313-123146-7380r.htm

Geez, and to think “Chemical Ali” slaughtered thousands of Kurds with “non-existent” WMDs.

Hussein met with al Qadea operatives, provided training camps, and gave support to Zarqawi, who is right along side him in hell.

Third: You can thnk Bubba Clinton for letting Bin Laden escape. Army SF personnel had the bastard in their crosshairs, and Bubba said no. The world’s most powerful military would like to have done alot of things, but you civilians (who incidentally are the nation’s leaders) keep tying our hands.

Here’s a run down:

Clinton:

1. Did not follow-up on the attempted bombing of Aden marines in Yemen.

2. Shut the CIA out of the 1993 WTC bombing investigation, hamstringing their effort to capture bin Laden.

3. Had Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a key bin Laden lieutenant, slip through their fingers in Qatar.

4. Did not militarily react to the al Qaeda bombing in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

5. Did not accept the Sudanese offer to turn bin Laden.

6. Did not follow-up on another offer from Sudan through a private back channel.

7. Objected to Northern Alliance efforts to assassinate bin Laden in Afghanistan.

8. Decided against using special forces to take down bin Laden in Afghanistan.

9. Did not take an opportunity to take into custody two al Qaeda operatives involved in the East African embassy bombings. In another little scoop, I am able to show that Sudan arrested these two terrorists and offered them to the FBI. The Clinton administration declined to pick them up and they were later allowed to return to Pakistan.

10. Ordered an ineffectual, token missile strike against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory.

11. Clumsily tipped off Pakistani officials sympathetic to bin Laden before a planned missile strike against bin Laden on August 20, 1998. Bin Laden left the camp with only minutes to spare.

12-14. Three times, Clinton hesitated or deferred in ordering missile strikes against bin Laden in 1999 and 2000.

15. When they finally launched and armed the Predator spy drone plane, which captured amazing live video images of bin Laden, the Clinton administration no longer had military assets in place to strike the archterrorist.

16. Did not order a retaliatory strike on bin Laden for the murderous attack on the USS Cole.

Gee, ya think he had enough chances????

And don’t get me started on Joesph Wilson and his CIA wife. (Your Niger reference) She hadn’t been covert since 1992. She was a desk jockey. She was the one who manipulated Joe’s way into that little trip. Both of them are established Bush-bashing professionals. And YES, Iraq DID go shopping for uranium in Niger:

Christopher Hitchens summarizes:

In the late 1980s, the Iraqi representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency—Iraq’s senior public envoy for nuclear matters, in effect—was a man named Wissam al-Zahawie. After the Kuwait war in 1991, when Rolf Ekeus arrived in Baghdad to begin the inspection and disarmament work of UNSCOM, he was greeted by Zahawie, who told him in a bitter manner that “now that you have come to take away our assets,” the two men could no longer be friends. (They had known each other in earlier incarnations at the United Nations in New York.)

At a later 1995 U.N. special session on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Zahawie was the Iraqi delegate and spoke heatedly about the urgent need to counterbalance Israel’s nuclear capacity. At the time, most democratic countries did not have full diplomatic relations with Saddam’s regime, and there were few fully accredited Iraqi ambassadors overseas, Iraq’s interests often being represented by the genocidal Islamist government of Sudan (incidentally, yet another example of collusion between “secular” Baathists and the fundamentalists who were sheltering Osama Bin Laden). There was one exception—an Iraqi “window” into the world of open diplomacy—namely the mutual recognition between the Baathist regime and the Vatican. To this very important and sensitive post in Rome, Zahawie was appointed in 1997, holding the job of Saddam’s ambassador to the Holy See until 2000. Those who knew him at that time remember a man much given to anti-Jewish tirades, with a standing ticket for Wagner performances at Bayreuth. (Actually, as a fan of Das Rheingold and Götterdämmerung in particular, I find I can live with this. Hitler secretly preferred sickly kitsch like Franz Lehar.)

In February 1999, Zahawie left his Vatican office for a few days and paid an official visit to Niger, a country known for absolutely nothing except its vast deposits of uranium ore. It was from Niger that Iraq had originally acquired uranium in 1981, as confirmed in the Duelfer Report. In order to take the Joseph Wilson view of this Baathist ambassadorial initiative, you have to be able to believe that Saddam Hussein’s long-term main man on nuclear issues was in Niger to talk about something other than the obvious. Italian intelligence (which first noticed the Zahawie trip from Rome) found it difficult to take this view and alerted French intelligence (which has better contacts in West Africa and a stronger interest in nuclear questions). In due time, the French tipped off the British, who in their cousinly way conveyed the suggestive information to Washington. As everyone now knows, the disclosure appeared in watered-down and secondhand form in the president’s State of the Union address in January 2003.

http://www.slate.com/id/2139609/

Lastly: Hussein modeled himself after his idol Joesph Stalin. Totalitarian/fascist/secular/whatever doesn’t begin to describe it.

As far as “all Arabs not being monsters” and “innocents being killed”….We didn’t mess around with Hiroshima, Nagasaki, or Dresden, now did we? We were as brutal as necessary to fight an enemy hellbent for world domination. Sound familiar? And just where in the hell are the so-called “moderate muslims”? I haven’t seen any lately. Have you ever read the koran? It’s one of the most bellicose, misogynist, anti-non muslim screeds, ever. Wanna know where the terrorists get their ideas? Read it.
RESPECTFULLY,
SFC MAC
Comment by sfcmac — October 5, 2007 @ 10:53 am | Edit This

Hi Cheryl,

I just scanned your long response. You and I strongly disagree about many things, but I appreciate your passion about what you believe. There are many people whose deepest experience with American democracy is watching “American Idol”.

I appreciate the links. It’s always useful to see the information sources that people use to form and support their opinions. I tried the first link: http://www.usembassy-dhaka.org/state/StatePD/pre1jul08_04.html. I get a “Server not found” error. I will try to track this down when I can devote more time to it.

I will response to your last paragraph. Though I have been to Hiroshima several dozen times as I lived in Fukuyami-si, about two hours northeast by Shinkansen, I would like to keep our discussion focussed on the Arab-Western clash. World War II, the Japanese-American struggle, the dropping of The Bomb and the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo are other subjects.

Yes, I have read the Koran. Like any religious text — such as the Bible, from which the Koran takes much of its material — the Koran is complex and subject to all kinds of interpretations.

For example, in the first Sura, “The Cow”, Christians and Jews are referred to as “People of the Book” meaning The Bible; Muslims are told to respect them. Joseph and Jesus are both mentioned and revered. In other Suras, there are statements that a Muslim on the way to prayer should not touch a non-Muslim, should wash if they do, etc. I’m sure, if you know your Bible, that you know of seemingly contradictory passages.

I agree with you that much of the Koran is “bellicose, misogynist, anti-non muslim”. But then, I can find parts of the Old and New Testaments that are comparably non-tolerant.

Yes, I do know of moderate Muslims. I lived in Al Ain, in the United Arab Emirates, from January 1993 to June 1994. I worked at the National University. I had daily discussions with many people. Most people simply wanted a good life. At the time, most Emiratis and other Arabs had good feelings about Americans. I know and have known other Arabs — Muslims, Christians, Druze — all throughout my life, in many countries, including here.

I wish I had more time. I have to walk my 10-year old to school.

With respect,

Kim
Comment by Kim Ianone — October 5, 2007 @ 2:25 pm | Edit This

Kim,
Okay, several things:
My comparison to WWII is very relevant to this argument. We were attacked by fanatical enemies and their supporters. We retaliated and didn’t pull any punches. My point is that we should have responded the same as we did in WWII. Get not only the perpetrators but their supporters as well. That makes sense, doesn’t it?
Secondly, I do “know my Bible” being a former Baptist-turned agnostic. I know all about the contradictions. I also know about the comparisons between the Koran and the Bible, the two predominate prophets (Christ and Mohammad) and the stark differences. The Koran outdoes the Biblical fire and brimstone by 100 fold. The Bible’s misogyny for instance, (”women should remain silent in the church, not usurp power over men”, etc) is limited and BTW, Christ never ascribed to that philosophy, although the apostle Paul did. By comparison, Mohammad has an entire chapter on beating wives. How nice.

From the Koran:

XVI.8: It may be that your Lord will have mercy on you, and if you (again return to disobedience) we too will return (to punishment), and We have made hell a prison for the unbelievers.

II.161: Surely those who disbelieve and die while they are disbelievers, these it is on whom is the curse of Allah and the angels and men all.

IX. 5-6: Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you may find them.

IV.76: Those who believe fight in the cause of God.

IV.74: Let those who fight in the cause of God who barter the life of this world for that which is to come; for whoever fights on God’s path, whether he is killed or triumphs, We will give him a handsome reward.

VIII.39-42: Say to the Infidels: if they desist from their unbelief, what is now past shall be forgiven; but if they return to it, they have already before them the doom of the ancients! Fight then against them till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it God’s.

4.56: (As for) those who disbelieve in Our communications, We shall make them enter fire; so oft as their skins are thoroughly burned, We will change them for other skins, that they may taste the chastisement; surely Allah is Mighty, Wise.

5.51: O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

And one of the many verses concerning women:

Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband’s) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all),” (4:34).

Now pray tell, what got lost in translation? How can you ‘misinterpret’ something so cut and dry?
The Ottoman wannabes brought their war right into the 21st century. There was certainly no pretense as to the religious context of the 9/11 attacks. According to Atta and company, it was the will of Allah. There were no reports of 19 Catholics, Episcopalians, Baptists, Methodists, or hell, even snake-handling Pentecostals from Appalachia flying planes into American buildings. The ones who struck America had lots of support across the ME.
I was an Intelligence Analyst (tactical and strategic) and an Iraq War vet twice over. I’ve been to Kuwait, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. I’ve had contact with them, and it only re-inforces the facts. Worshipping peacefully instead of blowing things and people up in the name of Allah is not optional for a devout muslim. The Koran spells things out pretty clear, doesn’t it? Will the real ‘moderate muslims’ please stand up…or maybe help in the fight against extremists? I won’t hold my breath.
respectfully,
SFC MAC

Hi Cheryl,

I found various reports regarding the “discovery” of the 1.77 tons of uranium. The counter to this:

“That 1.77 tons of enriched uranium had been under IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] seal since 1991. It was last visited by IAEA inspectors in February 2003″.” You can easily find various links giving the other side to this story.

In other words, 12 years before the start of the second Iraq War, Father Bush and the world knew about this material. That same atomic research institute, long deactivated, was visited by IAEA inspectors in February 2003 — hardly a month before we invaded. That material was not weaponized. There was no Hussein program to weaponize it. When the material was removed in 2004, it was intact, had not been diverted, etc. If it was so dangerous, why did the US wait a year to remove it?

Was it a good idea to remove it? Sure. Does it constitute evidence of the WMDs that Bush et al. used as partial justification for the war? No.

With respect,

Kim
Comment by Kim Ianone — October 5, 2007 @ 3:14 pm | Edit This

Kim,
That the war in Iraq is justified, is self-evident. What doesn’t constitute the invasion? The fact that Res 1441 spelled out in detail the consequences of Hussein’s continued defiance? The fact that he had WMD and showed a willingness to use them? That he was a viable threat to U.S. forces in the region? Secondly, if you think invading Iraq wasn’t a foregone conclusion, you’re forgetting that he would have most certainly thrown his hat into the ring had we merely focused on just striking Afghanistan, just like Syria and Iran are now. It took awhile for the WMD to be removed because we were a bit busy with initial combat ops, and the EOD, HazMat, and inspectors had to wait until they could be accessed. The WMDs were real and dangerous.
Here’s another interesting viewpoint taken from an interview with an inspector who found some of the WMD:

The Republicans won’t touch this because it would reveal the incompetence of the Bush administration in failing to neutralise the danger of Iraqi WMD. The Democrats won’t touch it because it would show President Bush was right to invade Iraq in the first place. It is an axis of embarrassment.

It’s a very interesting article. Read it in its entirety here:
Link: http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/29092/part_1/i-found-saddams-wmd-bunkers.thtml
I don’t know how many times I can point this out: No matter where we strike, they will cross borders to get there. That is why our initial strike should have been widesweeping.
respectfully,
SFC MAC
PS: Here’s a better link to the one in question:
http://www.energy.gov/news/1388.htm

Hi Cheryl,

Thanks for your response.

I just finished reading the last link you gave me — at energy.gov. The first paragraph sums up the issue we are debating: the use of the word “potentially”.

In other words, as I mentioned before:
1. These materials had not been weaponized or altered for twelve years.
2. The DOE press release does not mention that the materials had been identified, inventoried, and tagged twelve years earlier by the UN. Surely the US knew this, so why was it left out of the release?
3. The DOE release does not mention that this precise dump was visited and re-verified by the IAEA in February 2003. The US knew this too, and did not report it.
4. The DOE release does not explain why, if the dump were so important, US forces didn’t remove the materials for a year after our invasion.

I am not surprised that you have become an agnostic. My Italian dad was preparing to enter the priesthood when Pearl Harbor happened. The next day he went into the Navy. He came back from the war an atheist (not an agnostic). He never talked about the war. For years when I was a kid, he would occasionally wake us all up at night, screaming. I can only surmise, that his experiences were so horrible, that he decided that there could be no God. Being an agnostic is, I think, both more hopeful and open-minded.

Re the Koran, I grant your point. You and I have both lived in the Arab and Muslim world. Some parts of that world have a long way to go. Yet other parts — Iraq for one — were primarily secular countries in which religion was expressly shut out of the government.

My experience over there was not that most people wanted to kill me. I was treated with considerable respect. I lived in the UAE.

I visited Egypt. I was in Egypt the week after a bomb blew up a busload of mostly German tourists in Luxor. When I visited the pyramids at Giza, I was the only tourist. Strange. Many of the Egyptians I met depended on the tourist trade, and they were angry and sad that those Germans had been killed. It meant that they would not make money, and some would go hungry.

I also visited Oman many times. Similarly, people were friendly.

I was in the Middle East, of course, just two years after the first Iraq War. Most people in the Arab world saw that war as justified, because Saddam Hussein had invaded another Arab nation. Most people that I met over there liked Americans, and they liked GHW Bush.

Bush 41 led a coalition of over 100 countries, including every Arab country save Jordan. That invasion was sanctioned by and supported by the UN.

Today, most Arabs don’t like us. Today, most Arabs do not accept the arguments that the US has given for the invasion of Iraq. More than ninety percent of Iraqis want us to leave. I don’t know if you watch, read, or listen to Arab news coverage, but on the Arab side, the presentation of the war is many times worse than what our corporate-controlled media allow us to see here.

As a leaked classified document by a Joint Chiefs analyst last Spring put it (I haven’t got the link, but if you wish I could search for it), the net result of our presence in Iraq is to grow — not reduce — the numbers of those who violently oppose us.

It’s a beautiful day in California. I will try to fix the dishwasher this morning.

With respect (as always),

Kim
Comment by The Kim Iannone — October 10, 2007 @ 4:34 pm | Edit This

Kim,
When you’re done with the dishwasher:
The fact remains that in spite of the repeated denials by the left, WMD were found and destroyed. Some, by the way, were looted before we got to them:

A CIA report released last week by chief U.S. weapons inspector Charles Duelfer showed that some equipment could have been taken during the chaos of the 2003 invasion.

However, IAEA spokesman Mark Gwozdecky said the looting apparently continued after that.

“From our satellite photos, we’ve seen evidence that some of the facilities we used to monitor closely have been dismantled completely,” Gwozdecky said, indicating that it happened over a longer period with more forethought.

“We need to answer the question, ‘Where did this material go?’ ”

In a letter to the U.N. Security Council dated October 4, IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei said that while some radioactive equipment taken from Iraq after the war began has shown up in other countries, none of the high-quality, dual-use equipment or materials that is missing has been found.
Source: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/13/iraq.nuclear/

In addition:

The missing explosives from al Qaqaa also raise the possibility that other WMD-related materials met the same fate. The IAEA had seen the al Qaqaa material in January 2003, but by the time U.S. troops showed up on April 10, they had disappeared. The dual-use technologies mentioned in the other IAEA report also had been moved or looted. This suggests that still other WMDs and related technologies might have been given or taken away in the days leading up to the war, or shortly after the Coalition attacks began. It is widely believed, though not conclusively proved, that much of this went to Syria. The Iraq Survey Group interviewed Iraqi agents who claimed to have helped moved the WMD materials. This charge was repeated by David Kay when he left the ISG earlier this year.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/25/wirq25.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/01/25/ixnewstop.html

Piss poor planning yes, but we also had an invasion to carry out and since Turkey would’nt allow us to utilize their territory, access to some of the WMD storage units and attacking from the north was inhibited.
Speaking for myself and other Soldiers, we were pretty glad that alot of the WMD were discovered and destroyed before Hussein or anyone else got a chance to use them. As for the rest, (looted stuff) there’s always the possibility that they could be used in the future.
“Unaltered and not weaponized” in NO WAY changes the fact that the material in storage could have been used and was in direct violation of the Res 1441. The SCUDS that were fired at us had the capability of being armed with one of four types of weaponry: HE, nuke, Chem, Bio.
Our invasion limited their choices. You also need to pay attention to the follow up stories in 2004 about the sites. Again:

The departments of Energy and Defense removed “1.77 metric tons of low-enriched uranium and roughly 1,000 highly radioactive sources from the former Iraq nuclear research facility,” Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said Tuesday.

“This operation was a major achievement for the Bush administration’s goal to keep potentially dangerous nuclear materials out of the hands of terrorists,” Abraham said. “It also puts this material out of reach for countries that may seek to develop their own nuclear weapons.”

The material was gathered from around Iraq and taken to the Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center, 11 miles southeast of Baghdad and the main site for the Iraqi nuclear program before the war.

The United States notified the International Atomic Energy Agency of the planned transfer on June 19, but “requested IAEA to keep the information about the intended transfer confidential for … security reasons,” Mohamed ElBaradei said in a letter released Wednesday by the United Nations.

It was then was flown to the United States on June 23, where it will be held at secure sites, said Brian Wilkes, a spokesman for the National Nuclear Security Administration.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/07/07/iraq.nuclear/

Your trivialization of the word “potential” is a clear indication of your naivete. I own a .380 Browning semi-automatic with the potential to kill. The word ‘potential’ in this case, is the same. Both are potentially dangerous and when prepared, can render harm. The WMD in the wrong hands would have been used to harm and kill alot of U.S. troops. I’m glad Hussein’s potential was cut short, thank you. As far fetched as this sounds, Hussein really did not believe we would follow through with our threat to invade. He had just about enough time to scramble to a bunker.

As I said before, the WMD were not accessable to the coalition during the initial chaos of the invasion, and along with the material discovered subsequent the invasion, was not removed and destroyed until afterward; the invasion taking priority. The bad guys only had time to loot what they could and run. Luckily, there wasn’t time for them to stop long enough to do anything else.
As for the Arabs not liking us now as opposed to the first Gulf War, consider WHO was attacked and WHY. You said it yourself: As long as we’re protecting one muslim state from another, it was acceptable. Ironically, when we were attacked by a muslim state supported by other muslim states they didn’t like the idea of retaliation. Am I supposed to lose sleep over that?

The assertion: “the net result of our presence in Iraq is to grow — not reduce — the numbers of those who violently oppose us”, is hogwash. You cannot possibly be that dense. Our presence in Iraq is–along with our efforts in Afghanistan–to reduce the numbers of Islamofascists; to kill them. C’mon, you didn’t think they’d be happy about us striking them where they live, didja? No enemy likes getting their asses kicked, especially on their own turf. Oh, gawd forbid we fight the Islamofascists across the ME, where they thrive, get funding, training, indoctination, and originated. You cannot possibly be that dense. At the risk of repetition: Where ever we strike, they will cross borders to get there, which is precisely why a widesweeping MOAB mission was imperative. Too bad it wasn’t done.

As for Arab news coverage as opposed to what you call ” our corporate controlled media”, that has got to be one of the most clueless statements I’ve read. Put Al Jazzera side by side with the NBC/ABC/CBS/CNN/MSNBC news conglomerate, and there’s very little difference.
Only Fox News dares to show the successes. Good news from the GWOT equals bad news for the MSM. The Arabs, by default, are never going to present their news in any other way. The U.S. MSM took a sharp left turn in the 60’s and never looked back. Same with the Democrats. I’ve said this before: The fact the Bin Laden mentions Reid, Pelosi, Hillary, et al, in his videos is no accident.
When I was there, the Arabs were ‘freindly’ by necessity. I wouldn’t trust any of them as far as I can throw them…collectively. As a wise infidel once said:

“The Western mind-set—that if we respect them, they’re going to respect us, that if we indulge and appease and condone and so on, the problem will go away—is delusional. The problem is not going to go away. Confront it, or it’s only going to get bigger.”
—Ayaan Hirsi Ali

As for my agnosticism, I became an agnostic years ago…long before my first deployment to war.
respectfully,
SFC MAC

Hi Cheryl,

I think that you have to concede my point regarding the 1.7 tons. Found and tagged 12 years ago, inspected again by the IAEA one month before we invaded, not touched by us until one year later.

Hi Kim, (my comments are bolded)
Yes, because of the invasion, and subsequent chaos. What difference though, does it make? You have to concede that they existed, and were (finally) confiscated.

Re your second link in our first go-round, I read it just now. Here is a quote:

“Boylan said the suspected lab was new, dating from some time after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.”

In other words, also not developed under Saddam Hussein, and, therefore, not a fact justifying our invasion.

In other words, there were still efforts on the part of renegades to continue development. All the more reason to invade and bring that to a halt.

Your point regarding the security concerns of our troops is well-taken. But all of the improvised bombs — all of them — have been conventional. Many tons of conventional munitions were stolen after the invasion, because we did not secure the dumps, in particular one huge dump, the name of which I’ve forgotten.

True, but that’s because conventional means are the most expeditious. If/when they get a chance, that may change.
BTW: Roadside bombs were found loaded with mustard and “conventional” sarin gas, assembled in binary chemical projectiles for maximum potency. (source) (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html)

Re Arab media, I argue that there is a huge difference. They show all of the civilian dead. They interview the families. They are living the war. Here, last year Ted Koppel on ABC’s Nightline just read the names of our dead, and he was fired shortly thereafter. There, the war is front page news, every day. Here, at least in the LA Times which I read daily (and where I first read your letter), there are many days when the war doesn’t appear until page 5 or 7. Our news media don’t even cover our dead and wounded when they return. Isn’t it illegal now to show the planes coming in at Dover?

And in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, the (American) newspapers showed millions of people killed. Civilian and military. Burned bodies from flame throwers. Bodies torn apart from bombs. Dead people in destroyed towns from house-to-house fighting….and your point is? People die in war. That is a fact. Should that deter us from fighting? Did it deter our enemies then or now? I don’t mind a roll call of our honored dead. The problem is that in the MSM, it’s done in a context far from showing respect. It’s an anti-war statement, which makes Ayman al-Zawahiri real happy. I read the names of the dead and casualties in my monthly VFW and American Legion magazines. I also keep in touch with Soldiers at places like Ft. Campbell, one of my last duty stations. They honor and respect the fallen; not so the MSM. As for the Dover planes, I can see why the Pentagon censored the photos. Idiots like Cindy Sheehan, Code Pink, and A.N.S.W.E.R., would make an anti-war circus out of it. Thankfully, there are organizations like Move America Forward and Vets for Freedom who counter them. Some Americans have lost their will to fight for our freedom and survival, and to support those who do what it takes to maintain it. Those fallen troops died for a noble cause: making sure that the Arab-Islamofascists you excuse don’t get that world-wide Caliphate they want. How anyone with a shred of courage and common sense can oppose that, is beyond belief.
The Arabs are living the war THEY started. We are living the war we must finish. Huge difference.

For many Americans, the war is just not important. It is something they occasionally see, for a few seconds, on tv, unless they are touched personally. They watch “American Idol,” worry about their bowling league or their myspace posts, discuss Britney Spear’s latest mistakes. Americans spend more time watching and discussing sports.

Many Americans don’t really care that all kinds of people are killing and being killed over there. This is why our returning soldiers have been treated so badly, why the VA has been underfunded, why the VA did not have and still does not have a credible program to treat the psychological problems of returning vets, why the Walter Reed scandal was possible.

I agree, most Americans should care as if their lives depend on it, because it does. I’ve caught glimpses of the “reporting” on the MSM (as much as I can stomach) and it’s nothing but bad news. Good news does not get its due. Do yourself a favor and go to the following websites: http://www.michaelyon-online.com/ and http://www.longwarjournal.org/. Michael Yon and Bill Roggio are two former Soldiers-turned-journalists who are attatched to Army units and blog dispatches from Iraq and Afghanistan. They report everything, especially the order of battle and successfull campaigns ignored by the media. Operation Arrowhead Ripper and Phantom Thunder were two recent highly successful operations that (again except for FOX News) received scant reporting. It’s no wonder some Americans “don’t care”.
If I only got my news from hacks like Brian Williams, Charles Gibson, Katie Couric and Chris Matthews, I’d be depressed too.

The troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan receive some of the best medical care in the world. I had surgery at Bethesda, and I can attest to what I’ve seen. This is not to say that there aren’t issues with care and competency at military hospitals, but Bethesda and Walter Reed are the high-profile, premier military hospitals that treat U.S. dignitaries as well as troops. The personnel at those facilities are likely to be the best. The staffs at places like Walter Reed and Bethesda deserve a pat on the back for all the excellent care, concern, and treatment given to veterans. The problem with the facility at Walter Reed was thanks mostly to a civilian contractor and the ongoing construction of temporary buildings housing the wounded. BTW: You can thank the politicians for lack of progress because a civilian review panel’s recommendation that the Pentagon accelerate the expansion of the facilities was met with concerns by the local officials over traffic problems. The VA has ALWAYS been understaffed and underfunded, but they do their best at treating PTSD. The only time I’ve been aware of troops being ‘treated badly’ is when the Code Pink morons stood outside military hospitals and Andrews Airforce base holding up signs that said: “You got maimed for a lie” to show the returning wounded. And you wonder why Dover is closed to the public.

One of our students, at ITT where I teach, died yesterday. He was a vet, returned from Iraq with some kind of infection in his body that the doctors couldn’t treat. His brother told his teacher — I was in the same room — that the doctors told him, that the only treatment would have been to cut off the guy’s leg before the infection spread. Unfortunately, it was too late. 19. Another teacher here, a retired Navy chief, told him that this infection has been known for many years, that it is in the earth over there. Information about this has been suppressed.

I wish I had more time. I can’t keep up with your energy level. Thanks again.

With respect,

Kim
Comment by Kim Iannone — October 11, 2007 @ 5:00 pm | Edit This

Okay, I’ll try to deal with this “earth-based” infection without lending creedence to any ridiculous conspiracy theories. 1) Did the family consult with the doctor to get a full diagnosis of the type of infection? 2) Did the doctor offer any possible sources of the infection? 3) If it’s “in the earth over there” doncha think more people besides American troops would be coming down with it? 4) Before anyone goes on a tangent about cover ups and “suppression”, here are some other facts:

The “Gulf War” syndrome, a condition contracted by some of the troops returning from Desert Storm, still hasn’t been solidly traced to any source or sources. It can have one or all of the following symptoms: fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, cognitive problems, skin rashes, and diarrhea. The last known percentage of those afflicted was 12% of Desert Storm veterans. The possible causes were either one or a combination of the following: Chemical warfare agents (you know, the “non existent” nerve gas developed by Hussein), the pyridostigmine bromide pills, which were given to us as a preventative measure against exposure to nerve agents, psychological stress, exposure to the oil well fires, (breathing in the contaminated air), depleted uranium, and pesticides. There is no specific treatment, just experimental procedures.

I and my fellow Soldiers took the pills for a little while, breathed in some of the filthy air, used DEET repellent, were exposed to depleted uranium, and god knows what else was being blown up around us. I have received 3 letters so far, from the Secretary of Defense regarding Gulf War illnesses, telling me to contact them if I exhibit any of the symptoms. So far, I’ve not exhibited any of the illnesses, although some who know me would argue as to my psychological condition (ha ha). The government, to my knowledge, has never suppressed this information. They were reluctant at first, to acknowledge the medical condition because of the usual paranoia and tin-foil hat loonies that label everything a government cover-up. Once the number of troops affected became substantial, the government, to it’s credit, started checking up on everyone who had been deployed to the region. I can remember being asked about my health as early as 1992.

respectfully,
SFC MAC

Hi Cheryl,

I read about your surgery. You wrote, that you received the best medical treatment in the world. You defended the care that the US government gave you, and has given our soldiers. I concede all of your points. I do not wish to contest this issue with you.

The kid’s story I told you about, well, his doctors were US Navy. I assume that they were pretty good and tried hard.

Regarding the third link in your initial response in our ongoing argument about why we went to Iraq, the materials found by the Poles were identified by US and UN inspection teams in 1991. These materials were, as in your first link, leftovers of the WMDs destruction program started in 1991 and supervised by the UN and the US. These materials, and the facilities and machinery to make them, were developed in the 1980s during the Iraq-Iran War. The Reagan Administration supported Iraq during that war.

Kim,
The warheads containing cyclosarin were still usable, and dangerous. All of the ‘leftovers’ and the subsequent weapons developed after Hussein kicked out the U.N. inspectors in 1998, weren’t removed until post-initial combat ops. The facilities and machinery developed in the 80’s were still functional in 2003.

When the first inspectors were in Iraq from 1992 to 1998, it took until 1995 to learn Iraq had an offensive biological weapons program. That only came to light because Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein’s son-in-law defected. Hussein Kamal had been in charge of the Iraqi biological warfare program since 1988. He told inspectors about the program and where to look.

He detailed a large research and development effort looking at a range of biological weapons from anthrax to ricin to possibly smallpox. He also detailed a number of industrial plants around Iraq where large-scale production occurred. Finally, he revealed the extent of the Iraqi program to “weaponize” these materials and research into other dispersion methods.

Inspectors located some of this infrastructure. But Saddam Hussein continued to hide and lie and deceive the inspectors up until he kicked them out in 1998. When the inspectors left, Iraq had declared 8,500 liters of anthrax. Inspectors believed the Iraqi government actually had 15,000 to 24,000 liters. The Iraqis declared they had 19,000 liters of botulinum toxin, the inspectors maintained they actually had 26,000. According to U.N. officials, Iraq has yet to prove even these declared amounts of biological agents have been destroyed.
Link: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=29525

The rest of the weapons and material (provided in the other links) which were uncovered and destroyed, were just as lethal.

The US and the UN did not ignore these weapons or allow the continued development of them after we took over the country in 1991. We instituted a program there to destroy the Iraqi WMD facilities. The inspections program continued, with interruptions, up to the invasion in 2003.

Took over what country? If you mean the “no fly zone” and the pitiful U.N. inspections and “enforcement”, surely you jest. Saddam Hussein was still firmly in power, and being very deceptive and uncooperative. Again, the “inspections program” ground to a halt when he kicked them out in 1998.

According to Hans Blix:

In his Jan. 2003, report, UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix stated that “Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament that was demanded of it.”
Link: http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0779964.html

Given that he continued the program beyond that point, was a clear indication that he was not going to stop willingly. Secondly, the so -called sanctions were a joke. Koffi Annan’s “Oil for Food” program was a scam that helped prop up Hussein’s wavering status. The list of those who received oil from Hussein’s regime, (at below-market prices) include the French and Russians, along with kickbacks given to the former U.N. Assistant Secretary-General Benon V. Sevan, executive director of the oil-for-food program, and former U.N. Secretary Kofi Annan, and his son.
Links:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/wm438.cfm
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/29/oil.for.food.kojo.annan/index.html

There’s also strong evidence that the program probably helped terrorist organizations.
Link: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133212,00.html

On September 10, 2006, Dick Cheney said that Iraq did not have any WMDs prior to the 2003 invasion. Here’s a link:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14767199/

Respectfully,

Kim
Comment by Kim Iannone — October 12, 2007 @ 4:10 pm | Edit This

Well, the tons of WMD material uncovered and destroyed, after the invasion kinda belies that statement, doesn’t it?
Oh, and speaking of former allies, the Soviets shared that status with us at one time, didn’t they?
Respectfully,
SFC MAC

Aleks,
Well at least the Democrats and the idiots who vote for them…..