Slick Willy Says Something...

...lefties won't like:

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.

Speaking of History

Twelve years ago today:



But it took George Bush to finish the job.

It's All About the Oil, Illegal Wars, and Other Nonsense from the Left (Old Post Previously Unpublished)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

Loads of Good Stuff at Pajamas Media Today

But my favourite is Tony Blair's 'No apologies' Tour, which is primarily about Tony Blair's book tour, and an interview with one of BBC's finest:

(BBC's interviewer) "Marr’s questions and tone were shot through with the liberal-left assumptions that hold sway at the BBC. Time and again he put words in Blair’s mouth, made facetious comments, and took cheap shots: Any regrets? Would you do it again? Anything to say to the relatives of the dead? For Marr it’s not bias, or even probing journalism, to express suspicion of and incredulity towards Blair’s arguments — it’s the default position. (At one point Marr suggested to Blair that in supporting the invasion of Iraq he stood with an American president who was “loathed” by many people in Britain. What he meant was that Bush was loathed by the left, and by media commentators and other public figures whose condescending anti-Americanism transcends political divides. The hatred eventually filtered down even to people quite ignorant of current affairs.)

Blair stuck to his guns, and the point he returned to again and again was that, yes, the war was dreadful, and yes, mistakes were made, but while he understood and respected those who disagreed with him, he wished they would at least acknowledge that those who supported the war had arguments that were worth considering, that it was “at least arguable that the world is better off without [Saddam] than with him,” and that people understood the “complexity” of the decision."

The entire interview is here.

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.

Tony Blair Looks Back

Blair answers the toughest questions with the moral clarity that made him one of my heroes. The interviewer, on the other hand, is bound and determined to pin his carefully crafted lefty narrative on Blair, but succeeds only in revealing what's wrong with journalism today. Create a narrative through a variety carefully spun misinformation campaigns, then carry on as if the narrative they have created is the undisputed gospel truth, and without challenging it, repeating it in subsequent interview questions.

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?

Saddam Hussein Was No Longer Contained

Over at Iraq Pundit there is a discussion about the El Pais article. Iraq Pundit himself, of course, immediately zeros in on the point about WDM, unlike our friends the BDS sufferers. In the comments there is a statement by Muggins which pretty much sums up the justification for the Iraq war.

"Iraq had chemical manufacturing plants. Iraq could produce WMDs easily. What the U.S. didn't want is cooperation between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Both of them were in competition for dominance in the Middle East, but both had in common the U.S., that they wanted out of the Middle East. And they had reciprical resources:

Iraq had chemical technology, real estate, and money, while al Qaeda had terror cells and Kamikazees. With the asymmetrical warfare demonstrated on 9/11, Saddam
realized that he didn't need his tanks and air force to attack the U.S.. He was no longer contained."

We know there had been contact between al Qaeda and Iraq from a letter discovered by Canadian journalist Mitch Potter, shortly after the Hussein Regime fell. We know Saddam Hussein funded and supported terrorism. So why should this be such a difficult thing for BDS sufferers to grasp?

There are other cogent comments on the whole fiasco in the Iraq Pundit comments as well. I highly recommend you check it out.

Oh my, oh my, oh my. Do we have another lefty meltdown!

The blogosphere is abuzz with shouting matches about the publication of a discussion between Bush and then Spanish Prime Minister Asnar in the final hours before the invasion of Iraq. Lefties, who appear not to have read either the original Spanish version or the English translation, are hooting and hissing about what their masters in the MSM have told them the conversation implies.

A good place to start is at Pajamas Media, where the rout begins and then follow the links. As usual, the comments section at many of the linked pages is where the lunatics on the left get their best comeuppance. Once again the blogosphere provides the best and most efficient way of proving how stuck on stupid the left really is. Thanks to Barcepundit, a Spanish blogger who is a contributor to Pajamas Media, we now have an English translation of the original story which appeared in the Spanish newspaper El Pais.

Jules Crittenden's blog is a good example. As an added perk, a commenter on Jules Crittenden's blog named Rich Casebolt nails the case for war, too, in the sharpest, most succinct analysis I have yet to read.

And remember the leftards rallying cry about Bush's statement: "If you're not with us, you're against us." Well guess what. Those words are actually precisely what Hillary Clinton said. Here's an audio file in which you can hear her saying it. Scroll down to the phrase "Clinton pay price" and click on it. That's right, she says "Every nation has to be either with or against us. Those who harbor terrorists or finance them are going to pay a price."

Bush's statement, which is only a bit different, but in an important way, was in his Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People on September 20, 2001. His precise words were "If you are not with us, you are with the terrorists", which I take to mean you are enabling and encouraging the terrorists.

IMHO this includes not just nations, but most of the rabid leftards whose Bush Deranged Syndome continues to progress to advanced stages. "BDS sufferers" is just another way of describing the type that Lenin's referred as useful fools. These fools also remind me of Baghdad Bob, completely oblivious to the elephant in the room.

You can read and listen to the speech yourself at the link, but for those too lazy, or who have reached the advanced stages of BDS, this is the context in which the phrase "If you are not with us, you are with the terrorists." was made:

"Our response (to 9/11) involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

I've added a little emphasis in bold for BDS sufferers who have fixated on only what they see on the soundbites delivered via their television sets. I wonder if BDS is a terminal illness. If it is, it may in due course be terminal for many more people than just those with the affliction. Perhaps those who suffer from it, like the alcoholic, recognize that withdrawal and recovery can be a horrific struggle which, if successful, means they have to develop a new way of reacting to the world. That new way includes giving up their fairytale beliefs that outside of the Republican party, there is no greater evil.

To the leftards out there, please, for your own sake, and for the sake of others who you will drag down with you, read or listen to the entire speech. Learn and recover.