WMD’s found in Iraq
Liberwocks continue to labor under an old but effective fiction: that there were no WMD’s in Iraq. The fact that political mythology of this kind is still believed by so many is the reason for this post.
A while ago I was blogging at another site when a liberal cosmonaut wandered in and left this witless comment.
“Bush killed many innocent and young soldiers when he said there was a need to fight in Iraq and Iran. The truth is both these countries never had nuclear weapons of any kind to be of any threat to any country including USA. He should be tried for failing Americans but he got away scott-free.”
The comment is especially entertaining, because it carries with it the message neoliberals wanted everyone to get. You see, they never came out and said there weren’t any WMD’s—just that none had been found. The implication was that since no weapons were found, there never were any to begin with. Makes perfect sense…if you’re a liberal. Anyway, the poor dunce who commented on my post just went ahead and stated “aloud” what the libtard powers that be wanted everyone to think. So, of course, I felt it my solemn duty to confuse him with the facts.
FACT: In June of 2006 the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, released portions of a declassified report which stated unequivocally that “Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent.”
FACT: In a January 2008 report on 60 minutes, top CIA operative George Piro revealed that Saddam Hussein had phased out his biological weapons program since the 90s but was willing to go to war with the U.S., because he needed to continue the illusion that he had an active WMD program, as a hedge against his arch enemy, Iran. He apparently had no idea that the U.S. was planning such an exhaustive offensive, or he would’ve reconsidered that strategy.
FACT: Saddam was planning on restarting his program on every level (nuclear and biological), approximately one year after U.N. sanctions were lifted. This explains why he was actively approaching North Africa for the procurement of yellow cake. This also explains why 550 metric tons of the stuff was removed from Iraq in 2008 courtesy of the United States of America.
What does it all mean? Well…it means that we can dispense with Bush bashing over the “no WMDs” hoax. There are plenty of other things to be pissed off about concerning Bush Jr, but his grounds for invasion ain’t one of ‘em. We can also dispense with the whole, “Bush should be tried for war crimes” BS as well. Long before Bush Jr was going to war, the same liberals who decried it, were agreeing with the intel and saying, “we have no choice but to take Hussein out.” Well, I’ll bet you won’t read that in The New York Times, will you?
Popularity: 26% [?]
Chad, you are spot on here. I hope that everyone that reads this post takes the time to watch the video you provided. Seeing a “supposed” opponent to the Bush policies on Iraq speak so fervently in SUPPORT of his actions only strengthens the concept of “legislate by popularity” that the Democrats have employed.
It’s all crap. Hussein was a threat (along with others) and we acted, unlike the spineless countries like France (that we repeatedly defend militarily). So, either put up or shut up, I say. If you TRULY are against such policies, then at least have the guts to do it when it is unpopular. Yeah, right. The liberal agenda is driven by the emotion of the uninformed American. Fact is an enemy to the liberal cause. I suggest we send ‘em to China if they want socialism. Duplicitous [children with no known father]!
[...] Earlier this week, I posted some commentary entitled, WMD’s found in Iraq. [...]
WOW! We only paid $1.4 Billion per container of unusable sarin and mustard gas. You folks on the right know a bargain when you see one! I wish us liberals were that smart!
It was Herman Goering, that old Nazi, who said, “People can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.… All you have to do is tell them they’re being attacked and denounce the pacifists for a lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”
MR,
And that means exactly “what” to me? Your cutesy little comments don’t cut any mustard around here, pal. If you can’t address the central schema of this post, then please, do us all a favor and shut the hole under your nose. “Degraded” doesn’t mean unusable and saying you’re planning on kick-starting your biological weapons program on every level doesn’t mean you’re just going to sit on your hands and do nothing. BTW, yellow cake isn’t something you eat in this context; it’s something you use to make a nuclear weapon…or didn’t you read the post? In addition to removing an imminent threat in the form of Saddam Hussein, we also established a government of democracy over there. That’s pretty substantial no matter how you sissyfied libernazis want to frame it.
Does no one else think it’s disturbing MR is quoting a nazi? Should you believe ANYTHING a Nazi tells you? They’re Nazis! if their ideology was wrong, then their assertions are, too…
But wait, Nazis=Socialism. And Maobama=socialism. Wow, I should have realized, OF COURSE, leftards will quote the Nazis- they idoloize their manipulation of the populace. That’s the ultimate elite goal- the few controlling the many.
It is really interesting to see someone refer to anyone as “leftards” after stating that the nazis were socialist. Either you do not know what socialism is or you do not know who the nazis were. I guess that makes you a rightard.
And what, pray tell, do you think Nazis were?
Wait! Before you answer, let me give you a simple link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism
Nazism, known officially in German as National Socialism[1][2][3][4] (German: Nationalsozialismus), is the totalitarian ideology and practices of the Nazi Party or National Socialist German Workers’ Party under Adolf Hitler, and the policies adopted by the dictatorial government of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945.[5][6][7][8]
They proclaimed themselves Socialists. I know, I speak some German, so I had an unfair advantage over you, and totally grasped where “Nazi” comes from. Sorry, I normally don’t engage in a battle of wits with unarmed folks.
Thanks T.R.
Yes, because anyone who has attended junior college ( or is imbecilic enough to listen to their prof) “knows” that Nazis were really conservatives obsessed with iconic imagery, symbolism, marching with very stiff legs, and…oh yes, snuffing out an entire race of ppl. You lefties surprise even me with your ignorance.
Troglodad, I just wanted to correct you since you seem to be purposely leaving out information. If you read the rest of the paragraph of your own “proof” of Nazi’s being socialists then you would see that you are mostly incorrect in your assertion that Nazi’s are socialists. They more resembled far-right fascists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism
Nazism presented itself as politically syncretic, incorporating policies, tactics and philosophies from right- and left-wing ideologies; in practice, Nazism was a far right form of politics.[10]
First off, wikipedia isn’t always right. The entry you quote is clearly just a dig on the right from some tree-humping, liberal commie.
Secondly, it was the National SOCIALIST party. They called themselves SOCIALISTS. If they don’t get to determine what they are, and we do, then I guess Obama is a Commie. I know, he doesn’t declare himself to be one, but I get to, right?
Patrick,
Are you an 18 to 20 something, liberal? Or is your previous comment just an isolated example of your ignorance?
Today’s righty-tightys are generally conservative, a descriptor which precludes socialism. They are mutually exclusive. Hitler’s party was socialist which by definition has much more in common with the far left. As for your attribution of Fascism, you’re quite correct. Fascism isn’t mutually exclusive and can be either right or left. But the attribution of far right to Hitler is a high form of liberal historical revisionism.
In case my previous comment does not get approved:
You’re very misguided. Those “500 weapons munitions” were useless and long abandoned by the Iraqi military. Here are some details: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/21/AR2006062101837.html
They happened to meet the criteria of WMDs, but like I said, they were useless and inactive… an artifact from the 80s. I know you’re having a hard time understanding this concept, but politicians often twist things around to fit their agenda.
Your other two “facts” have nothing to do with WMDs being in Iraq. People (and countries) often feign how much power they have in order to ward off their enemies. That’s exactly what Saddam was doing, and it in no way supports your proposition that “WMDs were found in Iraq”.
I highly recommend you check this book out: http://www.amazon.com/Crimes-Against-Logic-Politicians-Journalists/dp/0071446435/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277488612&sr=1-1
It will help you better develop your reasoning skills.
In the future, please get your facts straight before coming to bad conclusions. You’re giving conservatives a bad name.
Well, if we get to choose, we’ll take the least profane of your two responses…
Um…lawl, the only one giving anyone a bad name around here is you pal. Just what don’t you understand about degraded mustard and/or sarin nerve agents? Or must I re-REiterate your reiteration of the author’s original iteration? Here, I’ll spell it out for you cupcake D-E-G-R-A-D-E-D. Get it? The author never said they weren’t. I think you need to go back and read Crimes Against Logic again to uh…as you say, “better develop your reasoning skills” you tripe vending, arrogant, condescending, liberwock hack. That’s not a recommendation either, smartass. In fact, don’t come back until you’ve reread the entire volume with particular emphasis on Chapter 1 The Right To Your Opinion; Chapter 7 Inconsistency; Chapter 8 Equivocation; and especially Chapter 9 Begging The Question.
And…if you bothered to read the interview, you’d know that Saddam planned on developing his WMD program on every level. Or was that just selective use of evidence on your part? According to Piro, the man inside Saddam’s head, Saddam was planning on continuing development of chemical, biological, and nuclear WMD. Talking about coming to bad conclusions, here’s one: Let’s wait until a Saddam Xenopsychopath has not only developed WMD, let’s wait until he uses them before we do anything about it.
Bob,
While I appreciate your spirited defense of my opinion piece, it was really unnecessary. But thanks.
lawl,
The original source material for the first “FACT” is no longer available. However, I believe that I did quote the fact that the WMD, which were found BTW, in Iraq, were degraded. So, you’re not really highlighting any new info there. Instead, you’re merely repeating what I already pointed out and then using that to create a strawman. You’ll have to do better than than that if you want to be taken seriously around here.
And you seem to be missing the point(s) entirely: (1) Hussein had developed WMD and proved to the world he wasn’t afraid of using them, even on his own people. (2) He pretended to have an active WMD program, which at the time, the intel supported. (3) Piro confirmed that Hussein was going to not only restart his WMD program on a chemical/biological level, but he was intent on pursuing nuclear WMD, as evidence not only by his (Hussein’s) own words, but by his stockpiling of 550 metric tons of yellow cake.
Finally, if you want to make a point, you’re welcome to make it. But there’s a thing called manners. Perhaps you’ve heard of it. If you can’t make your point without being condescending, then kindly shut your cake hole and refrain from commenting on this blog. If you come in and treat people with respect, you’ll be treated that way in kind.
Other than that, thanks for visiting.
See you.
still spouting that “hitler was a Leftist” nonsense?
i will give you wingdings credit, when you commit, you really commit, no matter how much stupid you have to swallow.
for people who enjoy pointing out errors in logic, you seem to be oblivious to your own.
let me illustrate-
one of the major proponents of the “hitler was a Leftist” dipshittery is a man named john j. ray.
here are a few examples of mr. ray’s “logic”-
ray claims one proof of hitler’s association with the Left is his use of the swastika.
according to ray, the soviets used the swastika first prompting hitler to adopt it as a tribute of sorts.
there are two serious problems with ray’s conclusion.
1) even if hitler borrowed the symbol from the soviets, that doesn’t make him a Leftist.
the cherokee indians used the symbol before the soviets. does that make the soviets cherokees?
of course not. that’s silly.
numerous cultures use/d the swastika. that doesn’t mean they support one another or share the same beliefs.
i use barbie dolls for one of my blogs because she suits my goal.
i despise barbie.
hitler despised the Left, and believed jews hijacked “Socialism,” which he considered a response to Marxism.
if he did borrow from the marxists, isn’t it just as likely he did so in an attempt to piss them off?
2) hitler DID NOT borrow the swastika from the soviets.
the swastika was adopted because indians (asian) used it.
why?
nazis believed they had ancestral ties to india (the aryans).
indians began using the swastika in the 5th century BCE.
more to the point, “aryans” were using the symbol in the 18th century (emile burnouf) long before the soviet union existed.
another example of ray’s incredible reasoning powers-
hitler was a leftist because he was anti-semitic, and there was anti-semitism on the Left.
huh?
yep, ray makes all these nebulous connections between hitler and prominent “Leftists” who shared his anti-semitic views.
surely ray isn’t making the assertion that anti-semitism was only found on the Left?
no, he acknowledges the anti-semitism on the Right, however, he assures us said anti-semitism was harmless.
and how do we know this?
well, because ray tells us so.
if a “Leftist” made such a specious argument, chad and bob would eat them up by citing books, and logical fallacies, and other such ironically “intellectual” stuff.
i think the best way to confront this idiocy is to use a line of reasoning the wingnuts use against obama-
you are who you know.
obama is a “radical” because he associates/knows/supports radicals.
seems reasonable.
of course, in obama’s case, many of the associations are superficial, at best, but overall, i agree the reasoning is relatively sound.
we tend to gravitate toward those who share our ideas/values.
so.
let’s look at hitler.
with whom did hitler associate?
stalin?
nope.
f-ing hated stalin.
f-ing hated communists.
sent communists to death camps.
hmmmm.
how about paul reynaud the french prime minister who was assailed by the Right for taking a stand against…can you guess…
Right!
Hitler!!
nope.
hitler hated him, too.
by the way-
why would Right Wingers criticize reynaud for taking a stand against Nazism? After all, Nazism is a “Leftist” movement.
more importantly, why would a “Leftist” take a stand against Nazism?
weird, huh?
the truth is, “Leftists” from all over the world, came out against hitler and the nazis.
i’m not saying their reasons were pure, but that’s not the point.
the point is, if hitler was a Leftist, as chad and others on the anti-intellectual Right claim, why didn’t Leftists support him?
the question answers itself.
so, who then, did hitler like?
ah.
well, he really, really, really liked Mussolini.
in fact, hitler idolized mussolini so much he mimicked his mannerisms, speaking delivery, and even dress.
who else?
franco.
hitler liked him some franco.
sent troops to spain to assist franco in the spanish civil war.
thought doing so would strengthen his ties with italy aka mussolini.
that’s interesting.
what did franco and mussolini have in common?
well, they were both Fascists.
and they were Fascists during a time when Fascism was considered a Right Wing ideology.
today, the word “Fascism” is used to describe any oppressive regime, regardless of political ideology.
hitler loved him some Right Wingers.
and did he ever hate those on the Left.
in fact, hitler referred to Socialism, and Communism as “Jewish Movements.”
we all know how he felt about the jews.
another point ray makes that i’d like to address.
ray makes the claim that, although hitler’s nationalistic beliefs contradicted the “for the people” philosophy of the Left, in the end, it didn’t really matter because, well, again, because ray tells us it didn’t matter.
however, it DID matter.
the driving force behind nazism, just as it was in Fascist Italy, was the State. the will of man subjugated by, and for the State.
that is diametrically opposed to the tenets of marxism. marx believed man would one day live without government, without religion, money or private property. in other words, in marx’s perfect world, the STATE IS EXTINCT (hitler disagreed, just a bit).
there are numerous other examples of ray’s intellectual dishonesty, and his understanding that his audience is made primarily of lazy, uneducated, doofs prone to believing all sorts of ridiculous things- jonah lived in a whale’s belly, reagan was a conservative, reading 10-15 pages of a book about evolution, written by a rabid anti-science loon, puts one on equal ground with another who’s studied the field for decades, etc, etc.
for instance, ray claims hitler’s anti-semitism was “grounded” in marx.
he demonstrates by comparing marx’s use of the word “aufloesen” to hitler’s use of the word “Endloesung.”
now, this is where you really have to pay attention.
in discussing the “jewish problem,” marx attacked what he saw as selfishness, and obsession with money among what he coined “the everyday jew.” he considered such behavior “anti-social,” and said the root, “judaism” (the belief system. not the people) must be dissolved (aufloesen) in order to not only emancipate society, but to emancipate the jews themselves.
his point was, selfishness was hurting everyone, including the jewish people, and that the jewish religion was the guiding philosophy behind the selfishness.
was he stereotyping jewish people?
hell, yes, he was.
was marx anti-semitic?
maybe.
remember though, marx was jewish, as were many of his allies.
regardless, marx never called for exterminating jews. marx believed on the path to freedom, human beings would willingly give up their attachments. this referred to the theoretical world of marx’s imaginings where human beings no longer needed religion or government or property, as they would eventually evolve beyond such constraints.
arrogant? absolutely. naive? yes. delusional? probably.
but hardly the birthplace of nazism.
in fact, marx defended jews against bruno bauer who said for people to have political freedom, religion must be abolished.
marx disagreed using the united states as an example of secular state where religion existed alongside freedom.
hitler, on the otherhand, as we all know, called for the extermination of the jews through what was coined the “Endloesung”- Final Solution.
somehow ray conflates “aufloesen,” with “endloesung.”
Aufloesen- dissolve
Endloedung- Final Solution
marx said, in order to be free, it was necessary for “judaism,” what he considered to be a selfish and anti-social belief system, to “dissolve itself.”
note he said “Itself.” the implication is, as i said, that jews would willingly give up their beliefs.
hitler’s meaning is much MUCH different-
“Final Solution” = Mass Murder.
i could go on, but i know it’s pointless.
the response will be barely coherent, and excruciatingly dull as it is.
the ultimate point is- there’s no such thing as a Right Wing Intellectual.
the Right Wing, as evidenced by hitler, mussolini, reagan, bush II, sarah palin, michelle malkin, rush limbaugh, sean hannity, john j. ray, et al, is rabidly anti-intellectual.
what they’re selling is ignorance dressed up with just enough $2 words to fool the average fool.
check out one of Troglodolt’s posts where he dismisses evolution or climate change without having even a vague understanding of either.
Hey, Dom, loved your work in Cannonball 1 & 2. Great to see a comedic genius communicating with us from the afterlife. Can you tell me what kind of service you have in heaven? T1, DSL, Cable?
Anyways, regarding your LONG winded comment (I guess there’s plenty of time to write such posts until Burt Reynolds drops dead and you are rejoined with him…)
Who the F*&$ said Hitler was a leftist?!
I’d have to agree Hitler was more of a socialist by his era’s standards. And leftists in this country are socialists today. Does that mean Hitler was a leftist? Don’t know, don’t care. He, like the devilcrats, are enemies of freedom and liberty. Nuff said.
If you want to argue creation and devilution, let’s do that in another thread, okay?
Love your son’s work on Waverly Place- but I preferred him on Seaquest DSV…
You could go on, meatball??? Really????? The mind reels that it would be possible. What’s a matter? Things kind of s-l-o-w over at BMPT? Not getting any air time over there? Hard to believe.
Love this quote from you.
Meatball says, “the Right Wing, as evidenced by hitler, mussolini, reagan, bush II, sarah palin, michelle malkin, rush limbaugh, sean hannity, john j. ray, et al, is rabidly anti-intellectual.”
That’s an amazing statement for two reasons: (1) its abject absurdity and (2) you and every moonbat on planet earth believe it.
Dork!