First, Right Truth posts some links to a story from WorldNetDaily that indicate Iraq shipped WMDs to Syria before the U.S.-led invasion back in 2003:
Don Bordenkircher – who served two years as national director of prison and jail operations in Iraq– told WND that about 40 prisoners he spoke with "boasted of being involved in the transport of WMD warheads to Syria."
A smaller number of prisoners, he said, claimed "they knew the locations of the missile hulls buried in Iraq."
Some of the inmates, Bordenkircher said, "wanted to trade their information for a release from prison and were amenable to showing the locations."
The prisoners were members of the Iraqi military or civilians assigned to the Iraqi military, often stationed at munitions facilities, according to Bordenkircher. He said he was told the WMDs were shipped by truck into Syria, and some ended up in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley.
Next, Little Green Footballs reports on a Washington Post story that indicates the leader of 'Al Qaeda in Iraq' needs to get new business cards printed up:
Excellent work, men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces!
Next we have a report that Al Qaeda's #2 man, Ayman al-Zawahiri may have been killed in a recent U.S. missile strike in Waziristan. Zawahiri's death has been reported a couple times before, so we'll have to wait for the confirmation before celebrating too much, but if they actually got him this time, it would be a monster blow to what's left of Al Qaeda. I'll let you know when the confirmation comes in.
Finally, UPI.com posts a story that U.S. combat-related deaths are at an all-time low since the Iraq war began:
The report represents a dramatic drop from a year ago, when more than 100 troops a month were killed for several consecutive months.
U.S. President George Bush suggested the decreasing violence in Iraq would allow him to withdraw additional troops before leaving office in January, the Post said.
"[T]here now appears to be a degree of durability to the gains that we have made. We are now in our third consecutive month with reduced violence levels holding steady. We have now brought home all five of the combat brigades and the three Marine units that were sent to Iraq as part of the surge. The last of these surge brigades returned home this month."Troop withdrawals because of victory - that's what Americans wanted! Not surrender, not premature withdrawal, but an orderly drawdown as the result of victory.
So there you have it. The war is all good news. That's why you're not hearing much -- if anything -- about it in the MSM.
There's my two cents.
3 comments:
If you would apply just a touch of reasoning to your "evidence" of WMDs in Iraq you would note a HUGE problem. If there were CREDIBLE reports that there were a lot of WMDs in Iraq pre-invasion, why have no administration officials really come out and strongly said "I told you so" in some grand speech to the nation? Why is it only reported on second-rate conservative news website and two-bit (or, excuse me, two cents) conservative blogs? It doesn't make sense. There's really only four possible conclusions as to why:
1. They don't want to justify the war (obviously untrue, as they attempt to justify it all the time, just with terrible evidence).
2. They don't care at all about the justification as they were going to have the war one way or another (again, not likely--even though some crazies on the left might think so).
3. They're all really dense and stupid (I'll leave that one alone).
OR
4. They don't really think these so-called "reports" are credible enough to prove that there were really WMDs in Iraq pre-invasion (a much more likely reason).
And, if you step back and analyze the sources for these reports, you should notice some other holes. Is it at all suspicious to you that a bunch of Iraqi prisoners might attempt to trade "information" about WMD movements to secure their release from prison (as explained by the U.S. official)?
And, one other thing...if they shipped the WMDs to Syria pre-invasion, doesn't that mean there were no WMDs in Iraq when we invaded? Why didn't we go after Syria instead?
You know, that is an extremely good question! It is one I have asked myself many times. The best answer I can give you here is that I think the administration sees the PR battle as so far gone that it's not worth even fighting anymore. I saw an interview with a former administration official who suggested as much, but I haven't been able to go back and find it. At this point, I probably never will. That makes a certain kind of (stupid) sense, though, because Bush has never been one to follow popular opinion (obviously), and he seems content to blaze his own way if he's convinced it's right. He doesn't appear to need or want approval. While these can be admirable traits at times, I have found this to be one of Bush's biggest failures - he doesn't defend himself, even when he's right. While it's good not to get caught up in playing constant defense, there are certainly times to use the bully pulpit of the White House. If it were me, I'd be shouting it from the rooftops!
So, in regard to your conclusions...
1. I agree
2. I agree
3. That's a distinct possibility...!
4. Possible, or it could be one of those situations where they need to keep things quiet for security purposes or future operations.
One major, major thing that you're forgetting, though...when we talk about WMDs, we're not talking about just nuclear weapons. There is no debate (unless one is willing to lie) about the fact that there were WMDs (i.e. chemical and biological) in Iraq, because he killed literally hundreds of thousands of his own people with them. And, it's not just former Iraqi prisoners - I've cited the U.N., as well as many former U.S. officials (including many prominent Democrats). If Bush lied about WMDs, so did a whole world's worth of other people.
That's the point, and the thing that people always seem to forget.
And, on top of that, Iraq had been violating dozens of U.N. resolutions, some of which included things like unmanned drones and other technologies that were found in Iraq. These were some of the reasons we went into Iraq; it wasn't exclusively the WMDs. People get hung up on that one detail way too much, but it's the truth that there were others, too.
Regarding Syria, they didn't have these conditions that Iraq did. And, if I remember correctly, at the time it was only speculation (at least, as far as the public knew) that those missing WMDs went to Syria. We've only found more concrete proof since we've liberated Iraq.
Once again, thanks for your comments!
Post a Comment