Good News!

Hussein deputy, insurgent leader al-Douri killed, Iraqi TV reports

I hope it's true.

About Those WDM In Iraq...

...that supposedly were never found:

Oh yes they were.

This, taken together with the stockpile of yellowcake that was sold to Canada, pretty much vindicates George Bush.

More.

About Those Chemical Weapons...

I Hope Digital Copies Of These Documents...

...will be posted online, translated to English, of course.

Iraqi Ambassador visits Stanford for Hoover Institution conference on Saddam-era documents

Things are not going well for Iraq, though: Post-Election Wave of Iraq Attacks Kills 74

Every Once In A While...

...I do a search of my own blog using a specific keyword. Because things are heating up between Turkey and Syria, I decided to search using the keyword "Turkey".
Here's what came up.

Interesting, no?

Meanwhile.

I've Become A Comment Freak...

...on Sun Net News' website. The other day some got to reinventing recent history by claiming Saddam Hussein was a jolly good fellow. One quoted the tired old meme about 600,000 having been killed as a result of the American invasion - by the Americans. This figure is taken from Lancet's study which assumes that war casualties spread the same way communicable disease spreads. Then there was a discussion about how many people Saddam Hussein himself had killed. Of course, I went looking. Here's what I found:

How many people did Saddam Hussein kill?

How Many People Has Saddam Hussein Killed?

How may people did Saddam Hussein kill?

How many people did Saddam Hussein kill?[Not the same as previous link.]

Documented human rights violations 1979–2003

How Many People Has Saddam Hussein Killed?

Saddam Hussein

Top 5 crimes of Saddam Hussein

Worst genocides of the 20th and 21st centuries

How many people did Saddam kill?

Well, If We Have to Take Him...

...back, let me recycle an old idea of mine, from the Iraq war days. I had a plan back then to take So-Damned-Insane and put him in a specially constructed prison at the north end of Ellesmere Island, where he could bask in the 24 hours of sunlight for a few weeks every year (and freeze in the dark, for the remainder). But then they went and hanged him, instead. Oh well. I still think it's a good idea.

Which President Was It Again?

I'm Sure the Leftards of the World...

...are salivating about this:

Defector admits 'fabricating' Iraq WMD intel

The WMD thing is such a small part of the larger picture which leftards throughout the world have always missed. The fact that al-Janabi was willing to do anything to help bring down the real WMD, Saddam Hussein, is the real story here. They also seem to forget that it was Hussein's refusal to comply with UN resolutions was the real reason for the invasion. And it's not like he wasn't given many, many months to come clean. He was even offered the chance to leave the country to some safe asylum, but he scoffed at the opportunity, as was typical of his behavior throughout his long and brutal career. He was renowned for playing a great game of cat and mouse, too. Does anyone remember how he played with the UN inspection team for months on end?

Speaking of History

Twelve years ago today:



But it took George Bush to finish the job.

Another Damaging WikiLeaks' Factoid

WikiLeaks: Saddam Hussein told to 'go to hell' before execution

Oh, the humanity!!

h/t Iraq Pundit

Yet Another Mass Grave

...found in Iraq:

Mass Grave Yard of former regime's victims discovered in Basra

h/t Iraqi Mojo

It's Happening Sooner Than I Thought It Would

Most elected leaders are vilified while they are in office and for some time afterward, either by the left or the right. Eventually, though, as generations pass, and historians do their job of assessing a given presidency or prime ministership, more reasoned voices prevail. This is partly because the impact of decisions made by said president or prime minister aren't always apparent for many years afterward. Often the consequences of decisions made take years to manifest.

I am surprised at the bit of a comeback that George W. Bush is getting in the press. He was so vilified, I thought it would take two or three generations before the press could write about him with something close to rational analysis. But look what's coming from the Guardian, of all places:

Decision Points by George Bush - review

"This self-serving memoir confirms that George W Bush is a moronic war-monger who can't think straight, can't string two words together and spent his presidency looking for countries to invade, oil to snatch and ways to make the world a more dangerous place.

There, I've said it, and the conventional wisdom chatterati will nod amen to that. The problem is that none of the above is true. Cue avalanche of Guardian Online vitriol."

And the vitriol does come, on cue, like sheeple.

It's All About the Oil, Illegal Wars, and Other Nonsense from the Left (Old Post Previously Unpublished)

[Note: Dead links have been removed]

Great chart showing oil reserves and production of leading oil countries. Iraq's is minuscule.

Big U.S. oil companies make deal to return to Iraq

Saudi Arabia

Middle East

Tehran Times

Hartford

Middle East Crude Oil Production and Exports

"Currently over 60% of exports from the Middle East are destined for Asian markets, where they sell at a premium. The geographical proximity of the two regions, growing Asian supply deficit and absence of alternative sources for Asian countries will result in an even larger share of eastern sales for Middle East Oil. However, the relationship between Asian refiners and Middle East producers is not seamless. Asian refiners have complained for some time about the premium they are charged on Middle East oil. In the future it will become tougher for producers to charge this premium, and also for Asia refiners to pay the extra, because of consistently poor refining economics in the Asia-Pacific region, and deregulation in Asian countries exposing domestic refiners to harsher economic realities."

Legality of invasion

Iraq's attempt to enter Saudi Arabia

Is there a military solution to terror

Lancet Study Farce

Democrats on Iraq's WDM

Iraq's oil contracts, March 2008

Iraq invites oil companies

Iraq Energy Expo

World's top oil producers, 2006

ed driscoll

How many people did Saddam kill?

And from an exchange at the now defunct blog "Soldier's Dad" which I really, really miss (complete with typos in the original):

"Lisa,

The modeling in the 1970's as to what would happen if Middle East oil stopped flowing was 30,000 people a month would freeze to death in the first winter in Europe. Unemployment in Europe would reach 50% withing 90 days and unemployment in the US would reach 50% in 180 days. Envery energy dependent country in the world would face massive civil unrest. Then the real war would start.

Neither China nor India were particularly large energy consumers then. They are now.

We all need to personally thank Jane Fonda for the movie "China Syndrome" which made it politically impossible to build a nuclear power plant in the US.

Whose the worlds second largest oil producer...Russia. Really slick plan the Russians had...the way to bring the West to its knees was to cut off the oil and keep the West from actually producing an alternative.

So our usual communist sympathizer suspects on the hard left were taught to chant

"No war for Oil"
"No No to Nuclear Power"

I am I forgot...the US has enough coal to meet our energy needs for 1,000 years...and yes your car will run on gasoline refined from coal.

"No No to Coal"

In the meantime the Soviet Union went merrily along installing dictators anyplace in the world that had more than 3 drops of oil.

Hugo Chavez is too stupid to get himself elected dog catcher never mind Glorious Leader of a major oil exporting country...he had help.


Whose the hero of all the anti-war groups in the US...Hugo Chavez.

I wouldn't be surprised if the KGB sabotaged Chernobyl deliberately in an effort to convince the Western Europeans that Nuclear Power was bad, bad, bad and keep them nice and dependent.

Then we have this years presidential race...the Obama messiah is a manufactured candidate if I ever saw one...who manufactured him...some guy from Syria named Rezko. Syria is yet another Soviet puppet state whose glorious leader is a complete idiot.
SoldiersDad | 06.08.08 - 2:31 pm | #

Anand,

I don't think we can use Jerry Brown as an example. His father was a serious "Bring Home the Bacon" politician. Blather on endlessly about the "Environment"...and then happily show up
at a ground breaking for an Asbestos Factory that would employ 10,000 at $20 an hour. If an "environmentalist" builds an asbestos factory...it must be okay...right?

I used to work for a major entertainment complex in Europe...the neighbors rightfully complained about the noise.

We needed more office space...but the building was a "Historical Architectual Building".

For the price of a Mercedes Sportscar the politico manage to get the local population to "Demand" we put windows in the openings.

We had been appealing to the local "Historical Society" for years to allow us to put windows...so we could get 30K sq feet of office space below the bleachers and rent it at a tidy profit.

Once the locals were in a tizzy, the historical society relented.

Thats what a "Jerry Brown" type of politico can accomplish.

I'm sorry...but there is a world of difference between a political opportunist and an ideologue.

When I look at Obama's pals...I see Ideologues. Ideologues get people killed.

I remember an interview that Dianne Sawyer did with Yeltsin. His mother died for a lack of medication that US physicians hand out like candy to the elderly in the US. The Soviet Premiere's mother died because he couldn't get medication that the poorest of the poor elderly in the US eat like candy.

Ideology killed Yeltsin's mother.
SoldiersDad | 06.10.08 - 11:43 pm |

Tenth Anniversary (Old Post Previously Unpublished)

Ten years ago this week [Ed: "this week" being the week of February 17, 1998], the President of the United States issued the definitive statement on Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Throughout the year, Clinton would repeat the warning.

And For All Those ...

... who still harbour the delusion that the Iraq war was unjustified:

Why Saddam Lied

ht: Sleepy Old Bear

But Christopher Hitchens had that figured out a long time ago.

God Bless America.

But It was Okay When Clinton Did It

Fourteen years ago, today.

Flopping Aces Takes on Old Memes

I don't remember when or why I stopped reading Flopping Aces on a regular basis. It was a great blog. Perhaps there were just too many. In any case, I'm glad I accidently stumbled upon him yesterday, cause today I discovered a list of oldies but goodies on his front page. They are goodies that competently address several of the questions that became controversial during the Iraq war. Here they are:

The Truth On The Iraq/al-Qaeda Connections

Saddam's WDM Program and Site 555

KEY POINTS Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Phase II investigation report on pre-war Iraq Intel

Did President Bush link Saddam Hussein to 9/11?

Were We Greeted As "Liberators"?

Anywho, today Aces is going up on my American Blogs list. It's time for an overhaul and clean up of that list in any case. And I shall not ignore him again.

Al Qaeda-Saddam Hussein Pre-war Ties Revisited

A Master Terrorist's First Days in Bahgdad

With the death of "Abu Ayyub al Masri (aka Abu Hamzah al-Muhajir, the military leader of al Qaeda in Iraq) and Hamid Dawud Muhammad Khalil al Zawi (aka Abu Umar al-Baghdadi, the overall leader of AQI)", the Weekly Standard's Thomas Joscelyn takes another look at the links between the Ba'athist regime and al Qaeda.

"...here is one fact the press is not likely to trumpet: Abu Ayyub al Masri set up shop in Saddam’s Iraq roughly ten months prior to the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. His presence there was tracked by the CIA. The agency was even concerned that al Masri and his al Qaeda compatriots might be planning terrorist attacks outside of Iraq from Baghdad."

[---]

"(George) Tenet writes: "...by the spring and summer of 2002, more than a dozen al-Qa’ida-affiliated extremists converged on Baghdad, with apparently no harassment on the part of the Iraqi government. They had found a comfortable and secure environment in which they moved people and supplies to support Zarqawi’s operations in northeastern Iraq.

Among the al Qaeda operatives who moved to Baghdad in May 2002 was an Egyptian named Yussef al Dardiri. As The Washington Post first reported, Yussef al Dardiri is Abu Ayyub al Masri’s real name."

[---]

"Saddam’s Baghdad was a neo-Stalinist capital, and it is difficult to believe that al Qaeda terrorists would set up shop there, coordinate their activities with other al Qaeda terrorists in northeastern Iraq, and engage in a variety of other activities without Saddam knowing it. One important al Qaeda terrorist was even briefly detained in Baghdad during this period, but Saddam ordered him released.

At a minimum, Tenet’s testimony rebuts one of the more prevalent Iraq war myths – that there were no al Qaeda terrorists present in Saddam’s Iraq until the American invasion opened the door for them.

There is more to this story than Tenet lets on.

For example, there is evidence that Saddam actively fostered al Qaeda’s presence on Iraqi soil. In Abdel Bari Atwan's The Secret History of al Qaeda, Dr. Muhammad al Masri (a known al Qaeda mouthpiece) and Baathist sources explain that Saddam funded the relocation of al Qaeda operatives to Iraq “with the proviso that they would not undermine his regime.” Saddam also sent “messengers to buy small plots of land from farmers in Sunni areas” and “[i]n the middle of the night soldiers would bury arms and money caches for later use by the resistance.”

Dr. al Masri told Atwan that Iraqi army commanders “were ordered to become practicing Muslims and to adopt the language and spirit of the jihadis.” When al Qaeda operatives arrived in Iraq, they “were put in touch with these commanders, who later facilitated the distribution of arms and money from Saddam’s caches.”

From this vantage point, it is not surprising that the places where Saddam’s regime was strongest ended up hosting al Qaeda. Abu Ayyub al Masri himself was killed not far from Saddam’s hometown of Tikrit.

There is additional evidence that Saddam called for terrorists throughout the region to relocate to Iraqi soil. And, in February 2003, Osama bin Laden himself called on Muslims to fight alongside Saddam Hussein’s forces. Saddam and his regime were “infidel” socialists, bin Laden said. But they were better than the Americans. “There is nothing wrong with a convergence of interests here,” bin Laden argued.

There are deeper ties here as well. Abu Ayyub al Masri was a member of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ), which Ayman al Zawahiri led since the 1980s. The EIJ’s cooperation and eventual merger with al Qaeda provided Osama bin Laden with much of the muscle and tactical capabilities his organization needed to blossom into an international terrorist threat. Zawahiri also influenced bin Laden in profound ways, crucially contributing to the terror master’s plans for creating an international jihadist coalition.

Zawahiri always found utility in cooperating with rogue states when it suited his interests. For instance, the 9/11 Commission found that Zawahiri “had ties of his own” to Saddam’s regime.

Iraqi Intelligence documents discovered in post-Saddam Iraq provided additional context to the 9/11 Commission’s finding. One document, in particular, notes that Saddam’s intelligence services and Zawahiri’s EIJ agreed to cooperate in operations targeting Zawahiri’s long-time enemy: Hosni Mubarak’s regime in Egypt.

Abu Ayyub al Masri was one of Ayman al Zawahiri’s longest-serving lieutenants. Zawahiri found it convenient to cooperate with Saddam on occasion.

Lo and behold, we find that Abu Ayyub and other senior EIJ members relocated to Saddam’s Baghdad in 2002. And Abu Ayyub had plotted terror inside Iraq ever since."

Now, put all that together with what we know about an Iraqi ambassador to the Vatican and his trip to Niger in February, 1999.

And Now, Back to Our Useful Idiot

Sean says: "...ya, international rules and conventions be damned, there's oil in them hills...oh wait it was because of WMDs, nope that's not it, it was because Saddam was bad, nope that's not it, it was because of freedom and democracy, oh wait...no that isn't it either"

I have dealt with the smaller points in Sean's monotonous, machine generated leftie speak here. I will cover the idiocy of the "it's-all-about-oil" meme in a future posts and as I've already said, I will deal with the WMD issue in a separate post, as well, but some of it has to be discussed here, because it is relevant. What I want to deal with in this post is Sean's ridiculous assertion that Saddam Hussein's tyranny - you know, his flouting of those international rules and conventions - had nothing to do with the decision to invade. The case has been made over and over again both here on my blog (see my Epistles to Foud, starting here, for a recent example.) and on dozens of others, not to mention by legions of knowledgeable folks using the entire panoply of media available today.

What Sean is asserting is that the decision to invade was not motivated by Hussein's record as an incorrigible tyrant, he is revealing himself to be a pathetic fool. It was precisely because of Saddam Hussein's record that the showdown took place. His very long record on the issue is why he could not be trusted, no matter what he said or did with respect to UN resolution 1441 or with any other previous attempt to make him come clean on his WDM. The two were absolutely inseparable. Want proof? Read on.

I'll start with statements from the mouth of that man so hated and maligned by the left, George W. Bush:

August 10, 2002:

"I have constantly said that we owe it to our children and our children's children to free the world from weapons of mass destruction in the hands of those who hate freedom. This is a man who has poisoned his own people, I mean he's had a history of tyranny."

November 8, 2002:

"All patriotic Iraqis should embrace this resolution as an opportunity for Iraq to avoid war and end its isolation. Saddam Hussein cannot hide his weapons of mass destruction from international inspectors without the cooperation of hundreds and thousands of Iraqis -- those who work in the weapons program and those who are responsible for concealing the weapons. We call on those Iraqis to convey whatever information they have to inspectors, the United States, or other countries, in whatever manner they can. By helping the process of disarmament, they help their country.

Americans recognize what is at stake. In fighting a war on terror, we are determined to oppose every source of catastrophic harm that threatens our country, our friends, and our allies. We are actively pursuing dangerous terror networks across the world. And we oppose a uniquely dangerous regime -- a regime that has harbored terrorists and can supply terrorists with weapons of mass destruction; a regime that has built such terrible weapons and has used them to kill thousands; a brutal regime with a history of both reckless ambition and reckless miscalculation.

The United States of America will not live at the mercy of any group or regime that has the motive and seeks the power to murder Americans on a massive scale. The threat to America also threatens peace and security in the Middle East and far beyond. If Iraq's dictator is permitted to acquire nuclear weapons, he could resume his pattern of intimidation and conquest and dictate the future of a vital region."

January 31, 2003: (Press conference with Tony Blair.)

Bush: "Saddam Hussein is not disarming. He is a danger to the world. He must disarm. And that's why I have constantly said and the Prime Minister has constantly said this issue will come to a head in a matter of weeks, not months."

Blair: "The whole point about the present situation is that when President Bush made his speech to the United Nations, when we went down the United Nations route, we passed Resolution 1441. And I think it really repays reading that, because we said very clearly that Saddam had what we said was a final opportunity to disarm, and that he had to cooperate fully in every respect with the U.N. weapons inspectors. As Dr. Blix said in his report to the Security Council earlier this week, he's not doing that. And therefore, what is important is that the international community comes together again and makes it absolutely clear that this is unacceptable. And the reason why I believe that it will do that is precisely because in the original Resolution 1441, we made it clear that failure to disarm would lead to serious consequences. So this is a test for the international community. It's not just a test for the United States or for Britain. It's a test for the international community, too. [Read: for the United Nations] And the judgment has to be, at the present time, that Saddam Hussein is not cooperating with the inspectors, and therefore is in breach of the U.N. resolution. And that's why time is running out."

February 6, 2003: The World Can Rise to the Moment. The whole thing is relevant, as it further elaborates on Hussein's infamous and nefarious cat and mouse game, which he continued to play, right up until the invasion, but I will quote only two passages, again by Bush:

"This is the situation as we find it. Twelve years after Saddam Hussein agreed to disarm, and 90 days after the Security Council passed Resolution 1441 by a unanimous vote, Saddam Hussein was required to make a full declaration of his weapons programs. He has not done so. Saddam Hussein was required to fully cooperate in the disarmament of his regime; he has not done so. Saddam Hussein was given a final chance; he is throwing that chance away."

[snip]

"All the world can rise to this moment. The community of free nations can show that it is strong and confident and determined to keep the peace. The United Nations can renew its purpose and be a source of stability and security in the world. The Security Council can affirm that it is able and prepared to meet future challenges and other dangers. And we can give the Iraqi people their chance to live in freedom and choose their own government.

Saddam Hussein has made Iraq into a prison, a poison factory, and a torture chamber for patriots and dissidents. Saddam Hussein has the motive and the means and the recklessness and the hatred to threaten the American people. Saddam Hussein will be stopped."

Monday Moment of Truth for Iraq

(Press conference at The Azores with Bush, together with Blair, Spanish Prime Minister Aznar, and Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Bassaro : video available at link, top right corner)

President Bassaro: "We have joined this initiative and we organized it here in the Azores because we thought this was the last opportunity for a political solution -- and this is how we see it, this is the last possibility for a political solution to the problem. Maybe it's a small chance, a small possibility, but even if it's one in one million, it's always worthwhile fighting for a political solution. And I think this is the message that we can get from this Atlantic summit.

President Anzar: "We are committed on a day-to-day fight against new threats, such as terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, and tyrannic regimes that do not comply with international law. They threaten all of us, and we must all act, consequently."

Listen to the video and listen especially to Tony Blair's remarks. His oratory skills are far superior to Bush's and he explains it much, much better.

So you see, Sean, it wasn't about whether he had WDM, per se. It was Saddam Hussein's continual cat and mouse game with UN resolutions pertaining to them and to various other aspects of his tyrannical rule for more than a decade. The man was dangerous and he could not be trusted.

And speaking of Tony Blair, here's the statement issued by Blair's administration. The entire thing presents Britain's humanitarian case for war: Great Britain's Dossier.

There is also the US State Department's background brief, A Decade of Deception and Defiance, published in September, 2002, which contains considerable detail under the following headings:

Saddam Hussein's Repression of the Iraqi People
Refusal to Admit Human Rights Monitors
Violence Against Women
Torture
Executions and Repression of Political Opposition
Saddam Hussein's Abuse of Children
Basic Freedoms: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Information
Withholding of Food
Crimes Against Muslims
Saddam Hussein's Support for International Terrorism
Saddam Hussein's Refusal to Account for Gulf War Prisoners
Saddam Hussein's Refusal to Return Stolen Property
Saddam Hussein's Efforts to Circumvent Economic Sanctions

The details under these headings are worth reading, by the way, as they provide a lot of information that may cause you and Captain Taliban to rethink your position on a few things, the sanctity and usefulness of the United Nations, being one, but certainly the fools argument that the humanitarian angle had nothing to do with the decision to invade. Foud, you should, too, since your notions about pre-war Iraq are grotesquely off-base, to say the least.

And lets not forget who it was that signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law, way back in 1998, and what the man then sitting in the Oval Office had to say about Iraq and the justification for authorizing Saddam Hussein's removal.

There's also the passage of the Joint Resolution to Authorize the use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, passed by both houses of Congress in October, 2002, just months before the invasion. Here are some relevant passages from that resolution:

"Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region..."

[snip]

"Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;..."

It's worth reading in its entirety, Sean, sweetheart, as it blows apart every one of the naive and bankrupt assumptions from Taliban Jack's Little Red Book that you just repeat ad nauseam.

And finally, three days before Baghdad fell, this was posted on White House's website: Life Under Saddam Hussein

None of this is to say that oil was not a large factor, but as I said, I'll return to that argument in a later post. But for you to make the claim that the US lead coalition's motivation had nothing to do with Saddam's human rights record and his previous history as a "bad guy" is to admit to being either a cad or a blithering idiot. Take. Your. Pick.

Oh. And my father fought in Europe in World War II to protect your sorry ass, and I'm glad he did. He signed up the day war broke out in 1939. Canada had not been attacked, nor had Great Britain. Indeed, Canada was in very little danger of being attacked. He just did the right thing, because it was the right thing.

Just curious. Do you hate Jews, too, or is it just brutally oppressed Arabs that you don't give a damn about?