Where are the WMDs?
A new book by the number-two guy in Saddam's air force claims that there were WMDs in Iraq and that they were spirited off to Syria just in time.
posted by Pat Campbell @ 7:52 PM
11 comments
PC1170
PC1170 is the blog of Pat Campbell morning host at 1170 KFAQ in Tulsa, OK.
Friday, January 27, 2006
A new book by the number-two guy in Saddam's air force claims that there were WMDs in Iraq and that they were spirited off to Syria just in time.
About Me
- Name: Pat Campbell
- Location: Tulsa, OK, United States
Time Magazine's Person of the Year 2006
Previous Posts
- KING'S WAR CRY
- 57% Americans support military action in Iran
- District: Educator is innocent
- I'll be on The O'Reilly Factor tonight at 8:00PM ET
- Hugh Da Man! Or, Who Is Joel Stein?
- I was on The Daily Buzz on WB this morning for the...
- Fla. Dad Punches Accused Teacher's Aide
- Schiavo, Centonze Wed In Catholic Church?!?
- Today on the show...
- Health Insurance in the news
11 Comments:
This is not a new story. A former, high-ranking, Soviet-bloc intelligence director described all of this in a book several years ago. It was a standard program for quickly dumping, moving, burying, etc. all traces of wmd. (I can't remember the guy's name who revealed all of this. If it comes to me later, I'll post it at that time.)
I looked into my dusty old email files and found the name of that intel director for Romania: Ion Pacepa.
I just now did a google search ("Ion Pacepa " Iraq wmd Russia), and came up with a boatload of interesting stuff.
Who cares if there were WMDs or not? Saddam killed thousands of his own people and he was an unstable, anti-American presence in an unstable, anti-American region. The new Iraq will bring stability to the Middle East, much like the westernized Germany brought stability to Europe.
Germany had a history and a culture of social cooperation and a relatively homogenous population. Iraq has three very different groups of people (Sunni, Kurds, Shia) and a history of solving all problems at a personal or tribal level. The demon-spawned religion encourages murder and mayhem. There is no meaningful comparison between Germany and Iraq, in my humble opinion.
I suspect that, after the U.S. leaves Iraq, it will degenerate into the same cesspool to which all of those mid-east "nations" are prone. I hope not, but ....
The inspections teams said they couldn't find wmd. That's not the same as saying there were no wmd.
Our intervention will create more instability in the region. We now have created a Shia dominated "democratic" government in Iraq which is the natural ally of Iran. We helped to create a "democratically" elected Hamas goverment in Palestine, now a natural ally of Iran. Removing Saddam was a stupid idea as we could have used him against Iran as we had done during the 1980's. We supplied Saddam with most of his so-called wmd's which he used on some of his own people, then 20 years later the US started to cry for the poor Kurds. Back in the 80's the Reagan administration knew about these atrocities yet barely protested. All we have done is made Iran stronger. We can't afford another war. Our grand children will still be paying for it. At some point if we should fight Iran, the new "independent" government of Iraq could order us out, then when we refuse, we would have not only an insurgency to deal with, but a full scale war with the new Shia Iraq. What a waste of lives and money this whole fiasco in Iraq has turned out to be.
.
.
somebody said: "Our intervention will create more instability in the region."
The old, "stable" Iraq, murdered its own citizens without restraint or mercy; reacted to fundamentalist, shia-dominated Iran's guerrilla incursions by starting an eight-year war (Yeah, that's a real good example of the region's stability!), invaded Kuwait (more stability!), provided bases and facilities for training terrorists (Yeah, those islamist nice guys are all about stability), and caused the Saudis, who feared the very-real probability that Saddam would invade Saudi Arabia, to urgently request that the U.S. send troops to resist the Iraqis. Yeah, that's stability alright.
I must admit that we have not replaced Saddam's agressive instability with stability. Now there's a different kind a instability caused by the fear that the region's tyrants have for the prospect of a stable, democratic Iraq. The monarchs (Kuwait, Arabia, etc.)fear that their serfs will want the freedom that the Iraqis may someday enjoy, so they secretly send money and supplies to the insurgents in Iraq. The fundamentalists (Iran, and now Turkey, etc.) fear the possiblity that their people will want what Iraq has in addition to fearing that the Kurds will grow stronger and demand that a new country called Kurdistan be carved out of Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Pakistan, so all of those countries have a stake in destablizing Iraq. The secular, Baathist tyrants in Syria have not abandoned their dream of a greater, pan-Arabic nation dominated by Syria, which is mutually exclusive with the concept of a popularly elected government in Iraq. The secular government in Egypt fears its own fundamentalist insurgents, so it appeases them by not supporting a stable Iraq. (The islamist fundamentalists believe that democracy is un-islamic, because men must be ruled by a theocracy rather than by rules made up by a secular parliment or congress.) Yes, there is no doubt that this experiment in mid-east democracy has definitely brought out a host of regional governments and groups who have strong reasons to see a secular, popularly-elected government in Iraq fail.)
My hands are shaking and my legs feel weak, so I'm gonna end this post, get off my soapbox, and check my blood sugar. (I'm diabetic.)
Why should you care about Saddam and Iran killing each other, it was STABLE for the US when we had them at each others throats. Please don't spew out that crap that you care for the Iraqis that Saddam killed.
Saddam was hosting training facilities for terrorists. Saddam was working on nukes. (How else would one explain the ton of enriched, bomb-grade uranium which was found post-invasion?) Saddam already possessed and used chemical weapons. He declared himself an enemy of the U.S. He reached out to OBL to offer aid, which OBL would have accepted had he not received a better offer from Afghanistan.
It was not stable "for the U.S." It was bad and getting worse.
Because they are people?
The previous was not towards the AntiChrist Bill.
Post a Comment
<< Home