Category Archives: WMD

Neocon Condoleezza Rice Tries To Rehabilitate Herself

Bush, Democracy, Iraq, Propaganda, WMD

Condoleezza Rice is misleading again. At the time of Operation Iraqi Freedom, she had compared the Iraqi democracy project to early America’s fits and starts. Basically, America was once Iraq. Iraq will get there. Moreover, she had no right to “overthrow Saddam,” which was as radical an act as one could commit against a sovereign country that had not attacked the US.

“‘We went to Iraq to overthrow Saddam, not bring democracy’ – ex-State Secretary Condoleezza Rice.”

Going into Afghanistan to get Osama bin laden was a legitimate act. Bush had asked the Taliban to relinquish him; they refused. He invaded. Fine. Remaining in that hellhole for decades to bring democracy: that was illegitimate.

From The Fact That Sarin Was Used In Syria; It Doesn’t Follow That We Know Who Used It

Donald Trump, Middle East, Military, War, WMD

At the end of the war on Iraq, the only document that proved truthful was the one presented by a terrified Saddam Hussein, in which he accounted for his weapons of mass destruction: Hussein had none. At the time, those who killed that country laughed at him, in anticipation of The Kill.

So when a weak leader stands up to the big bullies of the world and says he didn’t do it; it’s worth listening to Bashar-al Assad. (Those of us who hail from the Middle East and know the culture, appreciate how easily Arabs play the idiot superpowers, to get what they want from them.)

In any event, from the fact that Sarin was used in Syria it doesn’t follow that we know who used it: And how do you verify a video? There is certainly no reliable information shared about this attack other than iffy video footage.

Mr Assad accused the West of making up events in Khan Sheikhoun so it had an excuse to carry out missile strikes on the government’s Shayrat airbase, which took place a few days after the alleged attack.

“It’s stage one, the play [they staged] that we saw on social network and TVs, then propaganda and then stage two, the military attack,” he told the AFP, questioning the authenticity of the video footage.

Mr Assad also said the Syrian government had given up its chemical arsenal in 2013, adding “even if we have them, we wouldn’t use them”.

Since 2013, there have been continued allegations that chemicals such as chlorine and ammonia have been used against civilians, by both the Syrian government and rebel groups.

Turkey and the UK say tests show Sarin or a Sarin-like substance was used in Khan Sheikhoun, which would be the first time since 2013 that a prohibited chemical had been used on such a scale.

Doctor Sarin:

What’s In The Iran Deal For The US?

Barack Obama, Iran, WMD

So accustomed have we become to a ruling class that gives away what is not its to give—that we don’t even examine the wonderfully Trumpian angle of the deals we allow the traitors to sign on our behalf: What’s in it for the US? In this case, how does the Iran deal benefit and protect Americans; the people to whom the US government is beholden?

American prisoners still languish in Iranian jails. The despicable Barack Obama has not bothered to secure their safe return. And as Donald Trump puts it,

Iran will receive notice before any inspections take place. Iran can block inspection of certain facilities. Iran will soon be able to continue expanding its conventional arms and guided missile programs without facing snapback sanctions. Iran can keep American prisoners, including one former U.S. Marine and, very sadly, a Christian minister. Iran can continue to operate about 6,000 centrifuges. Other countries will be free to invest in Iran.

Note the words “very sadly.” Affronts to Americans Trump takes very personally.

Below is a CNN interivew with Harvard Law Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz, whose perspective is, as always, decidedly Israel-centric. I have highlighted Dershowitz’s admission of Obama’s sleight of hand in passing the deal.

[09:42:43] SMERCONISH: The day after the proposed nuclear arms deal with Iran was announced, famed attorney and Harvard Law professor emeritus, Alan Dershowitz, woke up, so incensed that he wrote a book condemning it which he finished in 11 days, I guess, on the twelfth day you rested, right?

It’s titled, “The Case Against the Iran Deal”. And check out the die that are on that cover, one with a nuclear symbol and one with a peace sign.

Professor Alan Dershowitz joins me now.

Congratulations on the book.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ, AUTHOR, “THE CASE AGAINST THE IRAN DEAL”: Thank you.

SMERCONISH: … Let’s switch to Iran. Is it all over now, except for the voting?

DERSHOWITZ: Oh, no, no, no. I think why I subtitled my book, “How Can We Now Stop Iran from Getting the Bomb?” — I anticipated this vote, because the president manipulated it undemocratically, so that all he needed was one third plus one house, or the Senate. Majority of Americans were opposed to the deal, majority of the Senate, majority of the House. Now, we have to figure out how to stop Iran from getting the bomb.

The problem with the deal it only postpones it for 10, 12, 13 years. I have a proposal, and my proposal is we take seriously what Iran commits to in the preface to the deal, where they say Iran reiterates that it will never ever under any circumstances seek to develop nuclear weapons. Congress sort of passed a law now making that American policy.

SMERCONISH: Making it that we will take military action.

DERSHOWITZ: That’s right.

SMERCONISH: To the extent there’s a sign. We will act, we will strike.

DERSHOWITZ: We need deterrence. We need to have that sword of Damocles hanging.

I wish the president had started a negotiation by saying, look, Iran, you’re never going to be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. We will stop. So, why do you have to suffer from these sanctions, let’s negotiation now, under the specter of American military power. But we eliminated the military option, realistically, we allowed them to bargain with us as equals, which no superpower should ever do, and they are the guys who invented chess and we were playing checkers against them.

SMERCONISH: Your good friend is Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu.

[09:45:01] DERSHOWITZ: That’s right.

SMERCONISH: Any prospect of a first strike by him?

DERSHOWITZ: I hope not, but if Israel is ever confronted with the situation, the alternative of a nuclear armed Iran or a military strike, they will take a military strike. This makes that more likely. It also makes it much riskier for Israel. I think it makes war more likely, I think it makes the inevitable development of nuclear weapons by Iran more likely.

That’s why even the senators who are voting with the president, many of them don’t like this deal. We need to give them legislation now that will toughen the deal without changing its words. But tell the Iranians for sure, we will not tolerate their developing nuclear weapons.

SMERCONISH: I’ve never seen anything like this. Bob Casey, senior senator from my home state, 17-page explanation as to why he’s voting this way, and I guess he felt compelled to explain himself. Let me ask you this question. In retrospect now, a mistake for Bibi to have attended that joint session of Congress at Boehner’s invitation.

DERSHOWITZ: Absolutely not.

SMERCONISH: Did he not overplay his hand?

DERSHOWITZ: I don’t think so. The prime minster of Israel must defend the people of Israel. He must say what he thinks is in the best interest of his country. He was invited by the head of the legislative branch of the United States government. The president should have invited him in, there should have been much more correlation between the legislative and executive branch. I mean, you cannot blame the prime minister of Israel for not doing what Czechoslovakia did in 1938, just laying there and letting their country be dismantled.

Israel has the absolute right to defend itself and its people against the threat of nuclear weapons. Remember, Rafsanjani said, if we ever get nuclear weapons, we will destroy Israel because it’s a one-bomb state. And even if they retaliate, Islam will survive, but the Jewish state will disappear. As Elie Wiesel once said, we always take the threats of your enemies more seriously than the promises of your friends.

SMERCONISH: I have a friend in Philadelphia, smart trial attorney, Shane Specter (ph), I’ll give him a shoutout. He said, you know, this is really an acknowledgement that when an advanced country seeks a nuclear weapon, you can’t prohibit them from getting it. If they want it, they’re going to be able to get it.

DERSHOWITZ: Dead wrong.

SMERCONISH: Wait a minute. And what this is really about is bringing Iran into the family of nations, the world community to try to put manners on them.

DERSHOWITZ: That’s not going to work. They’re going to get more money to repress dissent. You can stop them. Israel stopped Iraq. It stopped Syria. The United States stopped Libya.

You can stop an advanced country from getting nuclear weapons if you maintain a firm military option coupled with tough sanctions. But if you negotiate with them as equals, they will beat you every time. And that’s what happened.

SMERCONISH: Could there be a realignment among American Jews toward the Republican Party based on this issue, away from the Democrats?

DERSHOWITZ: Israel must always remain a bipartisan issue. I’m remaining a Democrat. I’m going to try to push the Democrats hard to maintain their support for Israel. I don’t think this will be in the end be as divisive as it appears to be now. SMERCONISH: The case against Iran, the Iranian deal, how we can stop

Iran from getting nukes.

Alan Dershowitz, thanks.

[SNIP]

Via CNN.

#IraqWar Liars: We Knew Then What We Know Now

Bush, Iraq, Journalism, Just War, Media, Republicans, WMD

“Iraq Liars & Deniers: We Knew Then What We Know Now” is the current column, now on WND. An excerpt:

“If we knew what we know today, we would not have gone into Iraq”: This is as good an apology Republicans vying for the highest office are willing to offer, 12 years after launching a war that was immoral and unjust from the inception—as some of us pointed out from the inception—cost trillions in treasure, tens of thousands of lives (American and Iraqi), and flouted America’s national interests.

The big reveal began with Jeb Bush, who told anchor Megyn Kelly that knowing what we know now about Iraq, he would absolutely still have invaded Iraq. Broadcaster Laura Ingraham was having none of it. With the benefit of hindsight, she had arrived at the belated conclusion that the invasion was wrong. Ingraham suggested that Bush III was insane for sticking to his guns about Iraq.

Next to disgrace was Sen. Marco Rubio, also in the running. Six weeks back, Rubio had been unrepentant about the catastrophic invasion. After The Shaming of Jeb, Rubio changed his tune.

The title of Judith Chalabi Miller’s “rehab book tour” is, “If we knew what we now know … .” Over the pages of the New York Times, Miller, the Gray Lady’s prized reporter had shilled for the Iraq war like there was no tomorrow. In her reporting, she channeled Ahmad Chalabi, an Iraqi conman who fed the moronic Miller with misinformation and lies about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The other conman was Bush II, president at the time. His administration assisted Miller—a woman already prone to seeing faces in the clouds—to tune-out and become turned-on and hot for war (also the title of a January 2003, “Return To Reason” column). No tale was too tall for our Judith; no fabrication too fantastic.

Miller’s “mistakes,” and those of America’s news cartel, are no laughing matter. But it took a Comedy Central icon to deconstruct her national bid for redemption. The fact that others were on board, Republicans and Democrats, is not exculpatory. Idiocy is bipartisan. Not everybody got it wrong. Miller and her ilk chose not to consult those who got it right.

Miller had company. The Fox News war harpies were certainly a dream come true for many American men. Who cared about honest reporting or basic fact-checking when a heaving bosom is yelling from the screen, “Sock it to Saddam, Dubya!”?

In any event, the meme, “If we knew what we know now, we would not have gone to war in Iraq,” is false; a lie. We most certainly knew what we know now as far back as 2002, which was when this column wrote:

Iraq is a secular dictatorship profoundly at odds with Islamic fundamentalism. No less an authority than the former head of the CIA’s counterterrorism office, Vincent Cannistraro, stated categorically that there was no evidence of Iraq’s links to al-Qaeda. Even the putative Prague meeting between Mohamed Atta, the ringleader of Sept. 11, and Iraqi intelligence, turned out to be bogus. … Iraq has been 95-percent disarmed and has no weapons of mass destruction, an assessment backed by many experts in strategic studies.

The column excerpted was published on September 19, 2002, in Canada’s national newspaper. On that day, the flirty notes and the gracious dinner invitations from America’s leading neoconservatives ceased.

Indeed, there were many experts, credible ones, who categorically rejected the contention that there were WMD in Iraq. But they were silenced …

… Read the rest. “Iraq Liars & Deniers: We Knew Then What We Know Now” is now on WND.