Why do so many people completely trust Duelfer's report, and look at disdain at ALL PREVIOUS INTELLIGENCE?
Because Duelfer had complete and unfettered access. Something possible ONLY AFTER SADDAM WAS REMOVED!
Before the overthrow of Saddam, NO intelligence agency - of any country ("GLOBALLY, OR ELSEWHERE") - had unfettered access - NOT EVEN THE UN INSPECTORS HAD UNFETTERED ACCESS IN 2003 - even though that was a requirement of UNSCR#1441. The 2003 UN INSPECTORS were supposed to be given complete unfettered access - and they were not; that was a violation of UNSCR#1441 - and a casus belli, in and of itself. That's CASUS BELLI #1.
Duelfer's report confirms what Kay has ALREADY TESTIFIED TO UNDER OATH, TO BOTH BODIES OF CONGRESS: that Saddam was in violation of UNSCR#1441, and other UNSCR'S which were the conditions for the armistice of the 1991 war.
Let's look at the record:
Kay and Duelfer both confirm that the Declaration Saddam submitted to the UN as a requirement of UNSCR#1441 WAS FALSE, and INCOMPLETE. That's CASUS BELLI #2.
Since the UN Inspectors were meant ONLY TO VERIFY Saddam's declaration, and NOT TO BE DETECTIVES, and because they were not given unfettered access, PROVING SADDAM was IN FACT IN VIOLATION of UNSCR'S would have been impossible for the UN Inspectors to EVER ACCOMPLISH.
As Duelfer writes in his report: Saddam had a CLEAR INTENT to restart manufacturing WMD as soon as the sanctions were lifted - and he was following a deceitful strategy - INCLUDING BRIBING OFFICIALS AT THE UN, in FRANCE, GERMANY, RUSSIA, and CHINA - in order to accomplish EXACTLY THAT. For those keeping count, those're CASUS BELLI # 3 & 4.
Therefore, it is INESCAPABLY TRUE that the ONLY way Saddam would have EVER been NEUTRALIZED (vis a vis WMD - stockpiles or manufacturing capability) was to remove him, and the only way to remove him was war.
IN FACT: THE TERM "STOCKPILE" DOES NOT EVEN APPEAR ONCE IN ANY UNSCR! With regard to quantity, the UNSCR'S ban Saddam from having ANY AND ALL stocks, or programs, or capability. Kay & Duelfer proved that SSaddam (a) had illegal missiles program (which he hid from UN Inspectors in 2003), and that Saddam (b) maintained capabilities - Saddam maintained samples of biotoxin strains. Those're CASUS BELLI #'s 5 &6.
Therefore, in view of Kay's and Duelfer's report: The "War to Oust Saddam" was good, true, just - and legal - SADDAM WAS IN VIOLATION OF HIS UNSCR'S, and VIOLATION OF THE UNSCR'S was the ONLY BASIS FOR USING FORCE ACCORDING TO THE BILL AUTHORIZING FORCE PASSED BY THE US CONGRESS,
and UNSCR#1441 explicitly stated that it was Saddam's FINAL CHANCE FOR COMPLIANCE, and that if he did not comply, that SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES WOULD FOLLOW.
Perhaps those on the Left, and the cowardly "cave-in" candidate Kerry, and the Democrat Party's "mujahowarddeans" would like to argue that Saddam was IN COMPLIANCE!?
Or that, "FINAL CHANCE" DOES NOT MEAN "FINAL CHANCE" - it means "another chance"?
Or that "SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES" means another meaningless resolution, or more incomplete/fettered inspections and not WAR?
I, for one, KNOW what "full, final and complete" means, and I know what serious consequences mean.
And I know what it means to have a president who expects the demands of the international community - the terms of an armistice - to be OBEYED, and NOT USED AS A MEANS FOR GARNERING BRIBES.
Kerry has openly stated that if he had been president in 2003, that the inspections would have gone on. UNTIL WHEN? Until Saddam had succeeded in wearing down the UNSC, and succeeded in getting all the sanctions removed - SO HE COULD RE-START THE MANUFACTURE OF WMD'S as Duelfer says he planned to do!?!?
It would seem so. It would seem that had Kerry been president in 2003, then Saddam would have been correct in his strategy, AND SADDAM WOULD STILL BE IN POWER.
Thank God Bush was president in 2003.
I pray he is re-elected.
The Free World cannot afford to have a U.S. president who can be suckered by the likes of Saddam, or Chirac, or the UN - "Saddam's legions of the bribed."
That Saddam did not seem to have stockpiles means NOT THAT BUSH ACTED TOO SOON, but that BUSH DID NOT ACT TOO LATE!
The fact that North Korea has nukes, and that Iran is on the verge, makes them MUCH MORE DIFFICULT "STATE SPONSORS OF TERROR" TO DEAL WITH than Saddam.
Saddam was a "gathering threat", whose threat we neutralized BEFORE IT WAS TOO LATE.
That is a good thing.
In fact, while debating the war resolution in 2002. TOM DASCHLE (Senate Majority Leader and Democrat) said: the threat of Iraq's weapons programs "may not be imminent. But it is real. It is growing. And it cannot be ignored."
House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt said :
"I believe we have an obligation to protect the United States by preventing him from getting these weapons and either using them himself or passing them or their components on to terrorists who share his destructive intent," said Gephardt, who helped draft the measure.
Glenn Reynolds added:
"So they didn't think that Saddam was an "imminent" threat, but thought it was worth going to war to keep him from becoming one, eh?
That's just what Bush said. So where's the beef in the "Bush lied" argument? (Hat tip to reader Daniel Aronstein). "
SO... let me NOW say: Thank you, Mr President, for enforcing UNSCR#1441, and for removing Saddam before it was too late.
Because Duelfer had complete and unfettered access. Something possible ONLY AFTER SADDAM WAS REMOVED!
Before the overthrow of Saddam, NO intelligence agency - of any country ("GLOBALLY, OR ELSEWHERE") - had unfettered access - NOT EVEN THE UN INSPECTORS HAD UNFETTERED ACCESS IN 2003 - even though that was a requirement of UNSCR#1441. The 2003 UN INSPECTORS were supposed to be given complete unfettered access - and they were not; that was a violation of UNSCR#1441 - and a casus belli, in and of itself. That's CASUS BELLI #1.
Duelfer's report confirms what Kay has ALREADY TESTIFIED TO UNDER OATH, TO BOTH BODIES OF CONGRESS: that Saddam was in violation of UNSCR#1441, and other UNSCR'S which were the conditions for the armistice of the 1991 war.
Let's look at the record:
Kay and Duelfer both confirm that the Declaration Saddam submitted to the UN as a requirement of UNSCR#1441 WAS FALSE, and INCOMPLETE. That's CASUS BELLI #2.
Since the UN Inspectors were meant ONLY TO VERIFY Saddam's declaration, and NOT TO BE DETECTIVES, and because they were not given unfettered access, PROVING SADDAM was IN FACT IN VIOLATION of UNSCR'S would have been impossible for the UN Inspectors to EVER ACCOMPLISH.
As Duelfer writes in his report: Saddam had a CLEAR INTENT to restart manufacturing WMD as soon as the sanctions were lifted - and he was following a deceitful strategy - INCLUDING BRIBING OFFICIALS AT THE UN, in FRANCE, GERMANY, RUSSIA, and CHINA - in order to accomplish EXACTLY THAT. For those keeping count, those're CASUS BELLI # 3 & 4.
Therefore, it is INESCAPABLY TRUE that the ONLY way Saddam would have EVER been NEUTRALIZED (vis a vis WMD - stockpiles or manufacturing capability) was to remove him, and the only way to remove him was war.
IN FACT: THE TERM "STOCKPILE" DOES NOT EVEN APPEAR ONCE IN ANY UNSCR! With regard to quantity, the UNSCR'S ban Saddam from having ANY AND ALL stocks, or programs, or capability. Kay & Duelfer proved that SSaddam (a) had illegal missiles program (which he hid from UN Inspectors in 2003), and that Saddam (b) maintained capabilities - Saddam maintained samples of biotoxin strains. Those're CASUS BELLI #'s 5 &6.
Therefore, in view of Kay's and Duelfer's report: The "War to Oust Saddam" was good, true, just - and legal - SADDAM WAS IN VIOLATION OF HIS UNSCR'S, and VIOLATION OF THE UNSCR'S was the ONLY BASIS FOR USING FORCE ACCORDING TO THE BILL AUTHORIZING FORCE PASSED BY THE US CONGRESS,
and UNSCR#1441 explicitly stated that it was Saddam's FINAL CHANCE FOR COMPLIANCE, and that if he did not comply, that SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES WOULD FOLLOW.
Perhaps those on the Left, and the cowardly "cave-in" candidate Kerry, and the Democrat Party's "mujahowarddeans" would like to argue that Saddam was IN COMPLIANCE!?
Or that, "FINAL CHANCE" DOES NOT MEAN "FINAL CHANCE" - it means "another chance"?
Or that "SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES" means another meaningless resolution, or more incomplete/fettered inspections and not WAR?
I, for one, KNOW what "full, final and complete" means, and I know what serious consequences mean.
And I know what it means to have a president who expects the demands of the international community - the terms of an armistice - to be OBEYED, and NOT USED AS A MEANS FOR GARNERING BRIBES.
Kerry has openly stated that if he had been president in 2003, that the inspections would have gone on. UNTIL WHEN? Until Saddam had succeeded in wearing down the UNSC, and succeeded in getting all the sanctions removed - SO HE COULD RE-START THE MANUFACTURE OF WMD'S as Duelfer says he planned to do!?!?
It would seem so. It would seem that had Kerry been president in 2003, then Saddam would have been correct in his strategy, AND SADDAM WOULD STILL BE IN POWER.
Thank God Bush was president in 2003.
I pray he is re-elected.
The Free World cannot afford to have a U.S. president who can be suckered by the likes of Saddam, or Chirac, or the UN - "Saddam's legions of the bribed."
That Saddam did not seem to have stockpiles means NOT THAT BUSH ACTED TOO SOON, but that BUSH DID NOT ACT TOO LATE!
The fact that North Korea has nukes, and that Iran is on the verge, makes them MUCH MORE DIFFICULT "STATE SPONSORS OF TERROR" TO DEAL WITH than Saddam.
Saddam was a "gathering threat", whose threat we neutralized BEFORE IT WAS TOO LATE.
That is a good thing.
In fact, while debating the war resolution in 2002. TOM DASCHLE (Senate Majority Leader and Democrat) said: the threat of Iraq's weapons programs "may not be imminent. But it is real. It is growing. And it cannot be ignored."
House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt said :
"I believe we have an obligation to protect the United States by preventing him from getting these weapons and either using them himself or passing them or their components on to terrorists who share his destructive intent," said Gephardt, who helped draft the measure.
Glenn Reynolds added:
"So they didn't think that Saddam was an "imminent" threat, but thought it was worth going to war to keep him from becoming one, eh?
That's just what Bush said. So where's the beef in the "Bush lied" argument? (Hat tip to reader Daniel Aronstein). "
SO... let me NOW say: Thank you, Mr President, for enforcing UNSCR#1441, and for removing Saddam before it was too late.
just an FYI...in Dec/91, Cheney, as SecDef, was informed that bulk WMDs were being taken out of Iraq and to the Pasdaran barracks, 30km southeast of Tehran, Iran. I have the D.O.D. document stating this. Want a copy ? Point is that Cheney KNEW that the WMDs the U.N. and U.S. were MOST worried about were no longer IN Iraq..soooo ? Yep, thats called a LIE. Sorry. Since I fought in the 1st Gulf War, I feel this HAS to be said..we were lied to then..recall the Emirs daughter lying about the babies being thrown from incubators, said on the floor of the U.N. ? Called the atrocities card by in the know Diplomats, and we in the Intell communities know it was scripted by Bush Senior. Again...sooo. I am one of the 2 soldiers responsible for forcing the D.O.D., CIA, and NSA to admit to what happened in Mar/91 at Khamisiyah, Iraq..to date, they have admitted that over 130,000 of OUR troops were contaminated by chemical agents when the Khamisiyah storage depot was blown up after the war. D.O.D. lied about that, until the documentation became so overwhelming that they had to give in..we are now at that same point with the reasons for the Iraq war, part 2. If you want more on this, look up the article posted 25/Aug/96 by Dave Parks, reporter for the Birmingham News in Alabama, and see for yourself what I mean...the story tells it all. For more info, just do a google search for either of the 2 spellings of Khamisiyah, or Kamisiyah, and see what lies were told by the Bush admin then, and ask this....since Mustard agent was released at Khamisiyah in 1991, and we KNOW it lasts for OVER 50 years in a state that causes health probs, WHAT has been said as a warning for our troops there NOW ??? NOTHING. Why is THAT, pray tell ? Also, just another FYI....I am a Republican, NOT a Democrat...I am simply tired of the lies. Do some reality based research and take off the hail to the chief blinders, please. Or, if you feel Bush the younger is So very right, SIGN UP FOR MILITARY SERVICE NOW. AND...get your best friends kids signed up..then you can tell them it was worth it when their son or daughter gets injured or killed. Got the guts to do that ? Betcha don't. If not, you are full of the hottest air..put up or shut up...JOIN UP and fight the war you support from the FRONT lines, NOT from your living room. Be a hero, not a coward who SAYS alot, but does NOTHING. Get with it.
ReplyDeleteJim Brown
Dir., GulfWatch I.N.S.