Powered by TypePad

« Prepping For Petraeus | Main | Apropos Of Nothing »

April 08, 2008



Why didddam give Russian Gen Primakov a medal just before the invasion. Why did Saddam's ex-General Duda say the WMDs had been transported to Syria? Why did Syria make no complaint to the UN or anyone else about the attack?


**did Saddam***


Well, something very interesting was there. And as Clarice mentioned last night, closed lips tell tales for those with ears to listen.


I don't know what to think. If Bush thought there was something there, wouldn't he be shouting it to the rooftops? Or maybe not. He hasn't defended himself very well from the beginning.

However, like Clarice, something illegal was at that site. Otherwise, Syria would have been screeching to the world about Israel bombing it. Their silence is telling.


Yes, "IF" is the captivating fantasy.

"Syria has arrested 10 intelligence officials following the assassination of Hizbullah terror chief Imad Mughniyeh."

Ah, that elusive butterfly, 'credibility'
is fickle. It bobs and floats just out of reach of hope's eternal flame.

'arresting 10 intelligence officials' reminds me of the endearingly corrupt Captain Renault as he coos his order;

'Round up the usual suspects'.


ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials.

How much did we pay for this report? I would have done as much for half.


The same thing we pay for all the other useless reports.


So they're saying 10 officials of the Mukharabat were involved; or is it more
likely that they were tied to the Hariri, Tueni, Gemayel, hits and the WMD concealment
at Deir er Zeir; and other locations


Or the chinless optometrist is offering up a few burnt offerings in a thinly veiled attempt to pull his own chestnuts from the roasting flame.


Why not set the JOM investigation team to work? Apply some of those forensic skills.

Rick Ballard

"If Bush thought there was something there, wouldn't he be shouting it to the rooftops?"

I wouldn't think so. Consider the possibility that the anthrax attacks were wholly successful. The perpetrators had a political objective that involved the blackmail of the USG into dropping the Iraq WMD assertions because they led back to Moscow.

I could see the President acceding to such blackmail given the panic generated by the anthrax attacks. I can also see him spending a few moments explaining to Putin that we finally had nailed down irrefutable proof of the origin of the anthrax and assuring dear Pootie that we will treat any further use in the same manner that we would treat a missile launch.

Pure supposition (aside from the fact that the Russians were up to there necks in Iraq) - let's see how the joint report works out.


If Bush thought there was something there, wouldn't he be shouting it to the rooftops?

I agree with Rick. That seems so contrary to everything this President has done in the past, often to his detriment. Bill Clinton, he isn't.


"...explaining to Putin that we finally had nailed down IRREFUTABLE proof of the origin of the anthrax....."

Indeed. Because his notion of proof would never be suspect.


Your hackneyed bias, Cleo, is always suspect. Even Joe Wilson thought Saddam had WMD.


his notion of proof would never be suspect

Huh? If Putin had a hand in the anthrax and Bush claimed he could prove it ...

Why would Putin consider the proof suspect? Is Bush so discredited that Putin doubts his own memory of what he did?


There you go again, boris, trying to make sense of Cleo's snark.


Saddam DID have WMD, he used it on his own people and the Iranians. The fact none has been found (yet) doesn't void that irrefutable fact. The question is did he dispose of it while pretending he didn't, or did he transfer it to Syria or elsewhere, or has it just not been found?

Rick Ballard

Pointing out gibberish is more accurate. It's not a bad thing - some "history began at sunrise" dope could have been passing by and would have nodded at the profundity of the observation had Boris not pointed to the absolute lack of rationality involved.

How many people actually understand that Iraq is part of a continuum of conflict that has existed for 1400 years? How many have the minimum intellectual capabilities to reflect upon the fact that Syria, Iran, Iraq and Egypt all are still dependent upon Russia for much of the armament which they do not need for any reason other than to play seize the flag with Saudi Arabia (which never fell into the USSR's client state category)?

I think that smacking simpletons is deserving of praise. It's a Sisyphean task which our educational system seems bent upon making ever more difficult.


We'll have to wait and see but to me it's a classic case of "The Dog That Didn't Bark".



Here is a longish piece about the Anthrax Attack?

Found this curious article about the paintball jihadis and Al-Timimi trial. Interesting corner of the world Northern Virginia and DC seems to be...


It is my belief that the anthrax was not produced domestically, but I know for a fact that this statement in the article Rich cited is true:
"Jacob Weisberg in the 2008 The Bush Tragedy writes. “Inside the administration, the October bioterror attacks had a greater impact than is generally appreciated — and in many ways greater than 9/11. Without the anthrax attacks, Bush probably would not have invaded Iraq.” He explains: “The anthrax attacks in New York and Washington created a sense of vulnerability that was in many respects greater than the mass murder at the World Trade Center and Pentagon. As horrific as September 11 was, it was a discrete crime, whose perpetrators were quickly identified and pursued. The anthrax letters, by contrast, killed only a few people, but remained unsolved.”


I'm of the opinion that the most important reason (among many) to invade Iraq and remove Saddam is that he could have been responsible for mounting the anthrax attacks.

Not that he did mount the attacks -- he's not the most-likely suspect -- but that he could have. What the attacks showed is that anyone with anthrax, envelopes, stamps and the desire to use them could mount a WMD attack in the US. There's lots of folks who fit into one, two, or three of those categories, but Saddam was unique in fitting all four. Or, perhaps, of the ones who fit all four, he was the one we could most-easily knock off as an example to the rest of them.

Danube of Thought

"...his notion of proof would never be suspect."

Suppose Bill Clinton's DCI called it a slam dunk. Would that suffice?


If Bush thought there was something there, wouldn't he be shouting it to the rooftops?

Bush has played down the discovery of any small cache of anything that even resembled WMD simply because unless they found an operating nuclear device, it wouldn't be enough to change any minds.


Besides the issue of convincing those who don't want to be convinced, you run into the issue of ... what now? And are you prepared to do something about it?

Immediately publicizing this kind of evidence would force an Administration to take concrete action at that point, despite the fact that that might jeopardize other efforts or strategies in play, or compel us to take premature action before we're fully prepared to go to the next step.

I've often been frustrated by the Bush Administration's seeming reluctance to defend itself against bogus charges from the Left, but remind myself that they have greater access to intelligence information that, as unbelievable as it may sounds, has not been leaked by the NYT or other partisan hacks in the FBI, CIA, or State Dept.


defend itself against bogus charges ...

When faced with conditions where facts and reason are useless as defense sometimes the only way to deal with any sense of integrety is to act natural but careful and discrete. Of course that just gets spun as sneaky, devious and secretive.


David Corn is so beside himself right now. He is mad that the Democrats on the committee gave 10 minute speeches and asked disjointed questions and failed to change the debate with Petraeus. And he is really worked up that Sadr threated to break the truce! Seriously this man is deranged. A crawler on the screen about a threat from a weasel who got thrashed and quickly called off his dogs just a week ago. Its to laugh.


fdcol63, if that information exists, then not releasing it makes it impossible, politicaly, to sustain support for your policy. It also makes it difficult for your successor.

"Immediately publicizing this kind of evidence would force an Administration to take concrete action..." In other words, the American people would demand action and support your effort.


didn't we ride this bus about 10,000 times already in early 2003, with conservatives jumping on every initial report of a new WMD find (which turned out not to check out)? By this time, we should have learned to get it STRAIGHT before coming to the party with more self-serving "news".


we should have learned ...

Not the least bit interested in what TCO says "we" should do. That's because TCO spelled backwards means Obnoxious Craven Troll.

Les Nessman

"In other words, the American people would demand action and support your effort."

Well, not all Americans would support your effort. And some that initially did support your effort would un-support it if it took longer than a season of American Idol to complete.

Danube of Thought

Who is this buffoon?


Once in the not too distant past, I asked myself who was going to be able to bridge the obvious gap and help bring conservatives onboard for McCain, it never occurred to me that it would be approximately 50 members of the Senate all with a D after their name in the rollcall. Lieberman is officially an Independent who caucuses with the Ds and is excepted from my taunt. Congratulations Democrats you have done what some had considered the impossible. Now return to your own civil war, thanks very much.

M. Simon


Most interesting election season I have ever experienced.

It appears that the Ds are panicked and making both forced and unforced errors.

"An the tar baby he say nutin."

M. Simon


I had a commenter over at Classical Values go on about how much he hated McCain. And the coda?

"But I'm going to hold my nose and vote for him just this one time."

And Rush fans? They could handle the RW but BHO scares them to death.


I dont hear many even kvetching any more. And when the dumbass party trots out their warmonger and children bomber smears, like they have in the last few days they just cement the bond.

No party is better at figuring out how to snatch defeat from the jaws of assured victory than the Democrat Party.


"I dont hear many even kvetching any more."

Hi. I was a "Kvetcher" and still am to some extent. No, there is no way in Hades that I could vote for O or RW. But, I am hoping that McCain will have the good sense to pick a VP candidate who pulls conservatives back together.

The more the Libs grab the spotlight, the more negative and frightening they appear. That is good for McCain. But . . . he still needs to seal the deal enthusiasm-wise, which he hasn't, judging by his fundraising.

M. Simon


So true.

It is like they are tone deaf. How did they figure they could cover Kerry's antiwar stuff from '71? It boggles the mind.

And Obama the race healer with his G D AmeriKKKa schtick? What were they thinking. It is like a rerun of '04 with a worse candidate.

I look forward to them clearing the Denver convention center due to a self inflicted NBC (nuclear, biological, chemical - see tear gas) attack.

Reminds me of boot camp where we got NBC training with tear gas. Fun stuff.


What you are seeing is the last brain fart of the dying boomer generation.The last twitch and spewing forth of their teenage glory days.


It is like a rerun of '04 with a worse candidate.
Republicans are often derided for religious belief, but I don't see how else to explain our tremendous good fortune in opponents.


Exactly, bgates. It's sad (and yet pleasing) to think that Al Gore, loser of his home state, may turn out to be the most formidable Dem candidate in three cycles.

Les Nessman

"Who is this buffoon?"

Is that directed at anyone in particular?


Done with ***. Term limits work.


People are asking "why now".
Maybe this is our answer. Congress has forced the administration to give them the details of the operation, and we all know once the Congress gets the info it will be leaked!

Apr 7,2008 21:31|Updated Apr 8,2008 9:28
Covering for the Enemy
By Caroline Glick

It has taken seven months, but it appears that the Bush administration has finally buckled under Congressional pressure and is ready to give US lawmakers a full briefing on the September 6 IDF bombing raid against the North Korean-built nuclear installation in Syria. Sunday it was reported that Congress has forced the administration's hand on the issue by making its approval of the administration's intelligence budget contingent on receiving a full briefing on the raid.
Israel, which initially was upset with the administration's insistence on silencing all discussion of the Sept. 6 operation, is now reportedly unhappy with the administration's decision to release its details. The administration is expected to provide the information at Congressional hearings later in the month and Israeli Defense Ministry officials are beside themselves.

Article continues at:



Excellent, SW. Caroline thinks it was nuclear proliferation, and fears that the revelation will push Assad to intemperance. I hope it pushes Joe Wilson over the edge, too. Watch him say something that will cause Clinton to dump him

Danube of Thought

The buffoon in question was the one who identifies herself as TCO.

Danube of Thought

I'm gonna go out on a limb and venture the guess that Hillary doesn't drag this thing out all the way to the convention. Regardless of her present inentions, she'd be crazy to say anything else at this point, so her declarations mean almost nothing.

At some point she's going to come to grips with the question of what is in her long-term best personal interest (she recognizes no other best interest), and conclude that she should leave gracefully and hope that Obama loses in November. If she lingers, and is perceived as a cause of his losing, she is permanently finished. She and Bubba have to know this.


Via Memorandum

Report: Jimmy Carter to Meet With Hamas Leader in Syria


To head off any concession that they were housing WMD because it's DEM damage control time?

Seriously, What's Jimmah's RUSH? Dems in panic?

Jimmah needs to be dusted off and sent because Pelosi can't politically manage it right now?

Bet dollars to doughnuts Jimmah not going to meet about the left's beloved Palestine.


I'm gonna go out on a limb and venture the guess that Hillary doesn't drag this thing out all the way to the convention.

I'd guess you are correct, but I'm not sure. I suspect the two weeks between now and the 22nd will be kind to Clinton. I believe the candidates have agreed to debate in Pennsylvania. That debate will get a lot of attention and Obama should be asked about Wright, giving Clinton the chance to go on the attack. If she capitalizes, overtaking Obama in the popular vote may be back on the table.

I do think, though, that following the primaries, Obama could ratchet up the pressure on Clinton to withdraw by announcing that he wants the Michigan and Florida delegations to be seated with no penalty assessed to them.

Kristol is right that there will be a media lovefest, but the VRWC needs to be ready to persuade the electorate that John S. McCain is the far better choice to lead this country than the 2/3 term Senator from Chicago as soon as the media says he's got the nomination. Failing to define Obama early was a key mistake the Clinton camp made.

If the VRWC is on its game*, I'll be looking forward to the poll taken in early August** showing presumptive dropout Clinton outperforming presumptive nominee Obama by 5-10 points against McCain in a general election matchup. The Super Ds are going to loooove that one.
*Lots and lots of talk about the possibility of a Obaman volte-face on public financing would be a good way to start in my view.
**Paging Benjamin Landless. Mr. Benjamin Landless, please contact your editor.

Ralph L

If she lingers
If I'm going to steel myself to vote for her on May 6, she'd better hang on that long, or I'll always think ill of her! If she stays, I'll miss the chance to vote for a black man for President (in a primary), and rubbing it in the faces of a couple of racist Dems I know.



I agree with you that withholding this information makes it more difficult to sustain public support. But I think you missed the larger point I was making when you said: "In other words, the American people would demand action and support your effort."

This is a danger in itself, if some of the "other efforts and strategies in play" that I mentioned are quiet, behind-the-scenes efforts to resolve a crisis through diplomacy and other economic and political pressures.

i.e., just because we felt compelled to use military force in Iraq because umpteen UN Security Council resolutions failed, does not mean that we would necessarily find it necessary or advantageous to confront Syria militarily if we could isolate Assad through economic and political pressure and convince him that it's in his self-interest to divest Syria from the Iranian sphere of influence and become less hostile to US interests and less supportive of Hezbollah terrorist actions against Israel.

I think we saw great promise of this in the aftermath of the Harirri assassination and in the "Cedar Revoltuion" in Lebanon, when even Chirac and the French supported a strong UN investigation and sanctions against Syria and it apeared that democracy had a real chance to spread in the region.

Had the Bush Administration seriously promoted evidence of Saddam's movement of WMD into Syria AT THAT TIME, it might have - like you said - created enough public sentiment inside the US that may have compelled them to take concrete military action when, in fact, other efforts appeared to be accomplishing our goals without opening another military front on Iraq's western border - potentially further "inflaming the Arab street", yata yata yata.


Posted by: Les Nessman | April 08, 2008 at 11:27 PM I'd bet a lot on Posted by: TCO | April 08,2008 at 05:33 PM
It is like a rerun of '04 with a worse candidate. Posted by: M. Simon | April 08,
2008 at 09:40 PM Worse than that vile, despicable POS, Jon Cary? NFW! Neither RW nor BHO has treated with the enemy, yet.

The comments to this entry are closed.