NOW will you shut up?
Now just watch as the antiwar folks question the timing, or complain about Santorum getting the info via a leak. And watch this vid, wherein hapless liberal Alan Colmes hilariously claims that they’re “the wrong WMDs, not the ones we went to war over.” The key bit from Hoekstra’s and Santorum’s announcement, at least as far as I’m concerned:
HOEKSTRA: I think what the news here is is a couple of things. Number one, the quantity that actually is publicly being reported — hundreds of warheads filled with — perhaps in some cases degraded — but still very, very lethal material.
And you know, when you say 500, you know, big deal — 500. I think in some of the attacks that have been identified with Saddam, 15 or 20 of these shells strategically placed in a city can have a very, very deadly impact, impacting, you know, killing hundreds, if not thousands of people.
This is not, you know, 500 artillery shells of the standard type that are going off on a regular basis. This is chemical weapons. And if they’re in the stockpile — you’re not talking about transferring hundreds to make an impact in New York, in a subway or anything like that. One or two of these shells, the materials inside of these, transferred outside of the country can be very, very deadly.
SANTORUM: Just recall — the Duelfer report said there were no stockpiles. And I remember when the report came out. The whole mood was: There was no WMD at the time we went into Iraq…This is a missing piece — a very important missing piece of the puzzle.
HOEKSTRA: And there are still other additional pieces that from my perspective need to be filled in and other questions.
So that’s why I’m up here, saying there’s not a single stockpile in Iraq that says: Whew, now we’ve answered that objection. You put the whole thing in context and the overwhelming weight of the evidence says that the conclusions that many of these senators reached three years ago, where they said he is a threat, was the right one. And now, all of a sudden, when they said he wasn’t a threat, that’s the wrong one.
They were right before they were wrong.
QUESTION: If you have pre-’91 weapons, and you have research going on in the ’90s, do you think there was a program in the ’90s?
SANTORUM: The Duelfer report says very clearly there was a program.
Bold mine, natch. I can’t speak for Dubya, obviously, but I myself am perfectly willing to accept groveling apologies from any antiwar dimwit on the Left who has enough functioning brain cells to realize the game is finally up, and the antiwar Left lost.
Needless to say, I won’t be holding my breath. And I’d also like to remind all and sundry for about the thousandth time that the whole point was never specifically about finding WMD in the first place; the point was that we didn’t know, and as long as Saddam was allowed to go on playing cat and mouse games with UN inspectors, we were never going to.
And after 9/11, which demanded a profound change in our previous complacently lax attitude towards national security (and actually did bring about that change of mind, for everyone not a Democrat kneejerk Bush-hating fool, anyway), that uncertainty was simply unacceptable. In fact, it’s what made all the jerkwad catcalls of “Bush lied” and “no WMDs” the last couple of years particularly obnoxious: the only reason — the ONLY reason — anyone “knew” that there were no WMDs for certain was because we went in to find out. In other words, the Left’s whole argument against the war depends on our having fought the war in the first place — a conundrum that people not accustomed to perpetual cognitive dissonance would ordinarily find rather, umm, vexing, shall we say.
It never seemed to bother the antiwarriors much, oddly enough.
And now it turns out the anklebiters were wrong anyway, about everything. Well, whaddya know about that. Now we get to point and laugh as they cast desperately about for reasons why this latest discovery (and there have been others) doesn’t matter either.
Enjoy that crow, assholes. Eat hearty; there’s plenty here for all of you.
Now let’s get on with ignoring the screechmonkeys and winning this war, shall we? I’m quite sure there are many other interesting discoveries waiting just across the border in Syria, if only Bush would find the will to act. Never forget: “Either you’re with us, or you’re with the terrorists.”
Update! Austin Bay sums up:
Saddam used WMD and once the Desert Storm sanctions were lifted I believe he intended to reconstitute his programs. To believe otherwise about Saddam is to put you in league with goofs like Michael Moore and George Galloway.
When it comes to WMD, intent to acquire and use matters. UNSCR 687 and subsequent resolutions gave Saddam very specific guidance and requirements. He violated them in spirit and in fact (in 2003 post-invasion investigators found a handful of modified SCUD missiles violating the requirements).
In my well-documented view Saddam had to go because (1) our presence in Saudi Arabia was an Al Qaeda recruiting tool; which is intimately tied to (2) our 12 year war against Saddam had to end with victory, if UN resolutions were to have any substance (and his sanctions evading routines, including Oil For Food, were working); (3) tyrannies are the grounds that breed terrorists, and that is especially true in the Middle East; (4) rogue states want WMD– they are the most-likely supplier of WMD to a terror organization, and post-9/11 we had to show tyrants we mean it about stopping WMD proliferation; (5) Iraq, with its water, source of capital (oil), and comparatively well educated and motivated populace is the prime place to affect democratic change in the politically dysfunctional Middle East.
Couldn’t have said it better myself, and only a fool could argue with it. Removing Saddam was right and just; the antiwar Left is, was, and ever shall be just plain wrong. Period.
- Entries
That's a real knee-slapper there, Mike.
Wait, that wasn't a serious question, was it?
read these neocon dominated sites and guffaw at the defenders of a lost war who grasp at straws
to rationalize the deliverance of Iraq into the Iranian anti-American orbit.
Scott Ritter at the CSM among a plethora of
experts shows that degraded weapons are not WMDs
nor are they the WMDs Rumsfeld assured the populace would be found and where. Then denied
having done it only to be corrected publicly a few weeks ago by ex CIA expert Ray Mc Govern. What a thoroughly disgraced Administration!
Disgraced since the Kay Report but reeling on the ropes since an unexpected resistance and a defiant
Sistani and alSadr combined to make untenable the original scheme to transform Iraq into an Israel-friendly, free market/privatized American
vassal, with at worst a few hundred American
casualties.
Oh, and check the "After Downing Street" site
to find why the disgrace is irreveersible.
Dearlove, the UK intelligence chief has
verified: the "intelligence" was being cherrypicked to confirm a preexistent policy of invasion.
End of story. Except that if the Israel-firsters
of Front Page Mag get their way, America will
have its military and economy sapped to the point of no return defending Israel's borders rather than our own.
Heh. Yeah, too bad you insurgents lost, huh, Ken? That's gotta be kinda humiliating, losing to a moron like Chimpy and our baby-killer soldiers like that. You seem a little confused about who has influence in IraQ, though. Here's a hint: It ain't Ritter, or McGovern, or any of the other cadre of "Downing Street" losers you lefty's are so fond of. We won the war in spite of your best efforts to stop us - in fact, you losers didn't have any effect at all on the successful prosecution of the war. And those awful Republicans just keep kicking your asses at the ballot box - how pathetic is that? It must be really frustrating to know how impotent your protests and politics are, huh?
But hey - take another big hit off your bong, and click your heels together, and repeat three times, it's a quagmire, it's a quagmire, it's a quagmire ... and maybe one of your jihadi buddies will hear you, and do you the favor of chopping off your head. Let's face it; it's not like you actually use it or anything, right?
I didn't think that was possible.
know more about Iraq conditions than Iraqis themselves, who show in the latest Brookings
Institute poll they have no illusions about a
US "victory." They don't have the luxury of
American chickenhawk cheerleading from safety,however.
Were justice extant in the world, the
amoral cretins who brag about victory would be
shanghied into Baghdad forthwith and meet with their just desserts.
then again,since neocons are really hybrid Trotskyites,or led by them,
perhaps they are the ones high on hallucinogens.
Try complete sentences. Try paragraphs. Give each paragraph a topic sentence. Devote one topic to a paragraph. Use an outline if this is too difficult, such as this:
I HA! Chickenhawks!
II The War.
A. Imperial reasons for war.
B. It's lost.
III There are no terrorists.
IV You and your neoconlikudnikzionist masters will pay.
V The truth is out there!
VI HA! Chickenhawks!
See how easy that was? You can make your delusional droolings semi-comprehensible.
The reality-based intellectualistas and their brownshirted cousins - couldn't pass seventh grade composition, still can't.
call it "quagmire" and "lost war." Of course I recognize the "broader" strategy. The neocons wanted to finish quick with Saddam (thank you Baathists for not complying,as for foreign
Al Qaeda, shame on you for not recognizing borders and intruding...like America). Then they
wanted to cow Syria and Iran before sponsoring
a revolution in the latter.
What's so bad about knocking out as many of Israel's enemies as possible while controlling
the oil fields?! (Too bad the stalwart
insurgency has put a three year "crimp"
in oil flow!)
The opposite happened. Syria has clamped down
on internal opposition and maintained proxies
like Hezbollah,now legitimately elected, in
Lebanon. Uncowed,Iran elected instead a strident
anti-American leader thumbing his nose with
success at Bush (and with assurances of help
no doubt from China and Russia who have drawn a line against Bush incursions.)
Iran holds the ace cards in iraq and Bush has backed away from confronting the winner of
the war after initial saber-rattling.
Much of which the patriot and TRUE Conservative
Pat Buchanan warned would happen before the
war. But then anyone who puts America's interests
before Israel's is a Jew-hater, right stooges?
After all, protecting Anbar Province for
Israel is more important than protecting
the Rio Grande. Got it! After Bush betrayed you guys on immigration one would believe you'd wake up to the Big Oil/Zionist/cheap labor alliance
calling the shots here. I hope the Darwinian
winnowing process doesn't hurt America too
bad as it continues to self-destruct at home and abroad.
Get a sub to AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE if you want to
track the decline.
Hey Ken, answer a question for me - every word out of your mouth is a lie, to include "the", "and", "I", and "Chimpy McHitlerburton". Why should we believe a single thing you say, especially when you don't provide any links to back up your hysterical claims?
Go back to school and do more than drool over the girl next to you. If you pay attention to your 6th grade teacher, you might actually learn something.
Lord knows he's an utter failure as a human being now.
Raging Dave, I thought about a reply to Ken. However, I came to the conclusion he is an idiot to be ignored, not an adult to have a logical argument with. Anyone who still insists on a Big Oil/ Zionist/ whatever else theory of the war at this stage is to be pitied and considered uneducable, not to be reasoned with. As I told him, people here are laughing AT him, pointing out in the rudest possible manner his flawed logic. I guess it's a feature of this village idiot's apprentice- he simply doesn't get our point, and he can't make a case for his. He still, three years later, can't think of a convincing argument against the war. He relies on discredited memes, 'talking points', disproven theories, conspiracy fantasies, and neo-communist slogans. His bravery comes from BDS. His political reasoning comes straight from Michael Moore. In short, Raging Dave, he CAN'T back his hysterical claims up. I honestly believe if you were to set his soul on fire, all you would get is *POOOF!* a little puff of grey smoke, then, nothing.
I understand why you chickenhawks are reduced to ineffectual epithets, as at least 38% of
US troops are not supportive of "the mission"
(shown above)and-as the earlier Feb. 2006 Zogby Poll of US soldiers revealed, 73% want out if Iraq is not stabilized by December.
Perhaps you Israel-firsters,Big Oil defenders
(sans arms)and general "empire for empire's sake"
armchair "fighters" should gather the 30% of
Americans who still believe in and support the war, and send out your "responses" to me
to the troops, so as to warn them what kind
of danger they are falling in by wanting to
release themselves from the unwinnable quagmire.
The "danger" of the VAST "isolationist
far right jew-hating conspiracy."
1) I live in what is probably the most miltarized area of the US. Exterpolation means that not only do I know quite a few active duty, I also know many who are retired and/or reserves. Of that number- let's say 75- only 2 have expressed doubts about our quagmire. Perhaps your education was outcome-based, but from what I see, it isn't even 3%. That means more to me than the 38% you cite.
2) 73% want out of Iraq. Dude, not only are you citing the same mathmatically questionable poll, you obviously have never been sent overseas on a tour of duty. I'm willing to bet closer to 100% of those in combat arms want to come home. In the worst possible way. But you see, they have a quality those of you on the left lack- it's called integrity. Something that not only did your mom and dad neglect to give you, they probably never had it themselves.
3) Big Oil defender? You bet your ass I am. Without them we would still be living with tallow candles and whale-oil lamps. The problem with your paranoia is you still can't rationally defend it or prove the connection between Big Oil and the government. Israel First? Naw- I'm United States first. But yeah- I like the idea of having Israel on our side. At least they won't puke up all over themselves, turn tail, and run like Germany and France did.
4) It's a good thing you aren't a member of the military, Ken. I can see you're agitating for sedition, treason, mutiny, and desertion. That sort of stuff carries penalties up to and including death. Highly unlikely you would ever be man enough to face those sorts of consequences.
I have an idea- why not send your misbegotten notions concerning the hierarchy of war to some of our personnel? You seem to think highly of yourself, Ken- surely you could find 2 or 3% who would agree.