Thursday, November 02, 2006

The mask slips, vol. 2: Iraq's nuclear weapons program, according to the Gray Lady 

The New York Times, today:

Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq had abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.

So, the New York Times is quoting "experts," apparently approvingly, who say that Saddam Hussein was as little as a year away from building an atom bomb. This is offered in support of the proposition that the Bush administration acted recklessly when it published captured Iraqi documents that describe that country's WMD programs, because those documents might be used by any other lame-o country to build WMD.

Wait a minute. Iraq had WMD programs?!? Iraq was "on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away"? You're 'shittin' me! And here I thought Bush lied.

Seems that the New York Times owes Judith Miller an apology. Or at least a hat tip.

Read Jim Geraghty's entire post on the subject.

CWCID: Glenn Reynolds.


By Blogger Gordon Smith, at Fri Nov 03, 01:05:00 AM:

"Some intelligence officials feared that individual documents, translated and interpreted by amateurs, would be used out of context to second-guess the intelligence agencies’ view that Mr. Hussein did not have unconventional weapons or substantive ties to Al Qaeda."

Boy that couldn't have been more right. Intelligence agencies worried that laymen would misinterpret the information into meaning that Iraq had unconventional weapons or Al Qaeda ties? What kind of crazy idea is that.

Oh yeah...they were right about that too...  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Fri Nov 03, 07:55:00 AM:

Uh, dude - these were the documents given, by Saddam, to the UN in 2002. And, uh, experts supplied by Mr Bush assessed them, noted that they showed that Saddam couldn't build a bomb. Didn't have the materials, fo a start. And had given up on it years earlier. The documents were given to the Security Council after the UN officials carefully removed any technical information that could be useful to third parties. And it's this uncensored information that the good old GOP put on the net.
What part of dumb as a bag of hammers don't you understand?  

By Blogger JohnG, at Fri Nov 03, 07:59:00 AM:

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.  

By Blogger JorgXMcKie, at Fri Nov 03, 08:10:00 AM:

uh, dude, so you're saying the NYT is as dumb as a bag of hammers? we already knew that.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Fri Nov 03, 08:11:00 AM:


But who's dumb as a bag of hammers here? According to your take, there's nothing sensitive in the documents, so publishing them was no big deal. But the NYT is trumpeting this as a major blunder by the Bush administration on the front page. So either the NYT is dumb as a bag of (choose your simile) for peddling this story, or the NYT thinks its readers are.

Either this was a screw-up, or Iraq didn't have dangerous WMD programs. Pick one.  

By Blogger go.123, at Fri Nov 03, 08:30:00 AM:

"Wait a minute. Iraq had WMD programs?!? Iraq was "on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away"? You're 'shittin' me! And here I thought Bush lied."

They had one. It was the 'former' weapons program. Did you not get that memo?  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Fri Nov 03, 08:31:00 AM:

Clearly, what happened here was that Bush GAVE them WMD programs during the invasion. So there weren't any WMD program when we invaded, but there are now.


By Anonymous Anonymous, at Fri Nov 03, 08:43:00 AM:

Please don't confuse me with the facts........  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Fri Nov 03, 08:51:00 AM:


You said, " Didn't have the materials, fo a start."

But he did have the materials, they were under UN seal. But Iran had materials under UN seal and broke the seal (so did NK I think). Saddam also had the scientitsts. So he had the knowledge and means in 2002 to restart his nuke program and ramp it up quickly, it turns out.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Fri Nov 03, 09:00:00 AM:

I continue to be impressed with people like drago who KNOW so much about Iraqs WMD. How can this be? Was he/she there? Or is this perhaps specious and selective opinion based on Bush hatred......just askin'  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Fri Nov 03, 09:07:00 AM:

Saddam was lacking in the materials to make the bomb, which is why he gave up. After he was rebuffed in his attempt to get chickpeas and goats from Niger, he just could not possibly build the bomb since he lacked two of the most critical ingredients.

Good thing we had Joe Wilson to verify that Saddam couldn't get those precious goats and chickpeas. We owe Joe Wilson and the NYT an apology for their aggressive pursuit of the truth in exposing the lies of GW Bush.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Fri Nov 03, 09:07:00 AM:


Okay, let me accept your premise. For whatever reason, Saddam himself didn't have the present capacity to use the info he had disclosed to the UN in 2002 to build a bomb. Yet some other dangerous parties can use that same info to build a bomb.

So, why couldn't Saddam have given or sold that same info to those dangerous "other parties" himself in the interim if we let him be?

Only two things scare me, baby: nuclear war and NYT's international affairs reporters. Small hands, you know.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Fri Nov 03, 09:07:00 AM:

would be used out of context to second-guess the intelligence agencies’ view that Mr. Hussein did not have unconventional weapons

Let's borrow a page from the Clinton Language Parsing Handbook. No, Iraq did not have unconventional weapons, but then again I don't have a bag of peanuts. I could get one easily enough, though, that the fact that I don't currently have them is fairly moot.  

By Blogger C. JoDI, at Fri Nov 03, 09:10:00 AM:

Isn't getting worked up about pre-1991 Iraqi weapons programs a bit like getting worked up about, say, the 1938 Wehrmacht as a justification for bombing Berlin today?  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Fri Nov 03, 09:20:00 AM:


I forgot to ask you why couldn't Saddam trade that critical information to those "dangerous parties" that do have access to the needed materials in exchange for those needed materials...in exchange?

Allow myself to introduce...myself. I'm Richie Cunningham and this is my wife, Opra.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Fri Nov 03, 09:27:00 AM:

I tried to trade Saddam my bag of peanuts for a nuke (I got the peanuts from Jimmy Carter), but he wanted me to throw in an RC cola too. Couldn't go that far, even for some nukes.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Fri Nov 03, 10:33:00 AM:

Isn't getting worked up about pre-1991 Iraqi weapons programs a bit like getting worked up about, say, the 1938 Wehrmacht as a justification for bombing Berlin today?

It would be if the NAZI party was still in control of Germany and it's army today.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Fri Nov 03, 10:44:00 AM:

Did you notice the dates in the Times, idjit?

"Iraqi reports written in the 1990s and in 2002"

pre-1991 wouldn't be the 90's; neither would 2002.

You don't have enough brains to tan the hide of a pygmy shrew.


By Anonymous Anonymous, at Fri Nov 03, 11:01:00 AM:

Saddam was lacking in the materials to make the bomb, which is why he gave up.

So where did the 1.5+ tons of enriched uranium we removed from Iraq's nuke weapons research facility in June of 04' come from?

The easter bunney perhaps?  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Fri Nov 03, 11:23:00 AM:

Well gosh, it could be that the NYTimes just admitted that Saddam was a year away from building an atomic bomb in 2002. Or it could be that they botched that paragraph with poor writing skills. Let's see, how can we find out which it might be...I know, let's see what other news agencies have to say about this story.

Let's try the Washington Post, here's the first paragraph in their story:

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence said yesterday that it shut down a public Web site after complaints from U.N. weapons inspectors that the site included sensitive details about constructing nuclear and chemical weapons. The documents were collected in Iraq after the March 2003 invasion but predate the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

Hmm... that doesn't sound like a year away to me.  

By Blogger tarpon, at Fri Nov 03, 11:27:00 AM:

The New York Times has a John Kerry moment. Pushed to the obvious conclusion, suffers of BDS now need to get some rest.

Looks like Bush didn't lie after all ... how is the left going to spin that?  

By Blogger D.E. Cloutier, at Fri Nov 03, 11:48:00 AM:

"You don't have enough brains to tan the hide of a pygmy shrew."

Pygmy shrew? Did you mean the little animal in Alaska or a short wife in Africa? You can expect accusations of racism at any moment.  

By Blogger Gordon Smith, at Fri Nov 03, 12:54:00 PM:


"Wow. Andrea Mitchell just reported that the Secretary of State went on Laura Ingraham's wingnut propaganda show and said the "Army of Davids" documents proved that Saddam was working on a nuclear program. Lucky for us that Mitchell pointed out that the documents were from before the first Gulf War.

I understand that hacks like Limbaugh and Instapundit would try to pass this nonsense off to the neanderthal base, but for the Secretary of State to lower herself and her office to say such a thing is shocking. Even for these people.

Update: Dan Bartlet's out there right now saying exactly the same thing. Mitchell corrected him, but this looks like the official party line. They really do think their base is completely braindead. They would know."


You may want to UPDATE or retract this post. It's disinformation.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Fri Nov 03, 01:28:00 PM:

You people can read, I assume?

"Iraq had abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war."
After the Persian Gulf War.
Get it?
After the Persian Gulf War.


Get it yet?

Reports showing evidence of this (including the technical information this whole thing is about) were prepared in the 1990s and 2002 (that's the one that went to the UN).

"Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away."

At the time.
Before the Gulf War.
Mr Bush invaded Iraq in 2003.
This is 2006.

My apologies to the bag of hammers.  

By Blogger skipsailing, at Fri Nov 03, 01:42:00 PM:

My goodness the reliable left is back on its heels this week.

Its fun to watch, really it is.

Watch the anger expressed by these folks ratchet up several notches as people analyze the news and reach conclusions that are at odds with the anti victory crowd's cherished notions.  

By Blogger Pudentilla, at Fri Nov 03, 01:43:00 PM:

"They really do think their base is completely braindead. They would know."

I'm not sure this is a fair description. Rather, their success depends on the absence of doubt, the capacity for skepticism. To suggest that the base's devotion to the party's leadership is one of unreasoning faith, is not to suggest that the base is "braindead." Rather, it is to note that faith operates in a different arena of human experience than reason.

Should the party leadership admit any error at all on any issue, it is possible that they will create a space in which the base will submit their claims to the analysis of reason rather than submit to their claims in the obedience of faith.

So we are confronted with an uncomfortable situation. Party leaders insisted that the documents (which do not show that Saddam had WMD in the period between Gulf War I and the President's invasion of Iraq, but which do show any parties in the world interested in obtaining nukes, how to do so) be made readily and widely available to the world.

A priori, party leaders cannot admit that it a mistake to publish a "cookbook" for nukes on the web, since they can't deny that they did indeed publish the cookbook for nukes on the web.

If it is not a mistake to publish cookbooks for nukes on the web, how can we explain the decision. Let us think...Blame Clinton? Hmmm, unfortunately no factual nexis between Clinton and the unfortunate publication of nuke plans has yet been fabricated. Hmmm, blame queers? Unfortunately, the current Foley/Haggard environment makes this a risky political move.

Ah yes. Blame the NYT. Because we wouldn't have had to explain away the appearance of doctrinal error had the NYT not revealed the fact that we were publishing nuke plans on the web.

Besides, we all know that the perfidy of the NYT in all matters is an article of doctrinal truth. And that the Emperor's clothes are magnificent.

Now, can we get back to dissing John Kerry again? That was so much more fun than reality.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Fri Nov 03, 03:26:00 PM:

Bush had absolutely no right to publicize classified information that could compromise our national security.

That's the New York Times' job. It's called Freedom of the Press, folks. The American people Have a Right to Know., despite how much the Bush junta thinks it can hide the truth from them.  

By Blogger Cardinalpark, at Fri Nov 03, 03:57:00 PM:

Hey TH - good to know somebody else can get in Screwy's grill:)

Ain't it fun?

By Blogger skipsailing, at Fri Nov 03, 04:27:00 PM:

Yes, this must be a significant source of concern for the anti victory crowd. We have twice the number of usual suspects.

Further, all of their posts amount to the same damned thing:

Move along, move along. Nothing to see here, move along.

I wonder what website Pundentilla snatched that exposition from. I'm guessing "pseudohighbrowleftietalkingpointsdotcom"  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Fri Nov 03, 04:34:00 PM:

Wow. Even though I'm not an English speaker, I can still read English and it's quite obvious that the "at the time" part of the sentence refers to the part that immediately precedes it : "after the Persian Gulf war". Which is a decade before Irak War part II.

I can smell panic from right-wingers when they try to twist plain English into a Rovian early November surprise. Pathetic.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Fri Nov 03, 04:48:00 PM:

I freely admit I also have no idea how to even start tanning the hide of any animal, no matter what size. And I admit when it comes to the WMD debate I can only know what I read. But in terms of what this particular article says, while it's not very well-written, it's pretty obvious that it says that around the time of the first Gulf War, Iraq was one year away. So let's say they would have had a bomb by 1992. Then they abandoned their program. That's what it says. It does not at all say that they were one year away in 2003.

To be honest, there is some ambiguity about what "abandoning" means in this context. I suppose it could mean that they froze things the way they were and continued to be "1 year away" for the next 12 years. Others could speak better as to what it would have taken Iraq to get started up again (was it simply a matter of "breaking the seals"?) or how long it would take.

All and all though, I think an honest conclusion would be that the first Gulf War was a good thing. Score (a very big) one for Bush 41.


By Blogger Dawnfire82, at Fri Nov 03, 09:12:00 PM:

I'm not privy to all the details of the Iraqi programs but bio-weapons existed at least up until 1996.


Chemical weapons existed up until 2003, where our troops captured some (I personally know a sergeant who was present upon their discovery) and there were a few isolated instances of their use against us by Baathist guerillas.  

By Blogger Dawnfire82, at Fri Nov 03, 09:28:00 PM:

Just spotted this too.


The existence of a highly placed compartmentalized source doesn't necessarily mean that the information about nuclear ability is accurate (HUMINT is very hit or miss) but it does lend the idea credence. At the very least, the idea that Saddam has such ability was not made up by over-eager analysts misinterpreting crappy photos.

Note: This article directly refutes a number of you pithy little people above.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Fri Nov 03, 11:48:00 PM:

The cite to Little Green footballs yields these gems:

From the Senate Committee report on Saddam and WMD:


"In September 2002, the CIA obtained, from a source, information that allegedly came from a high-level Iraqi official with direct access to Saddam Hussein and his inner circle. The information this source provided was considered so important and so sensitive that the CIA’s Directorate of Operations prepared a highly restricted intelligence report to alert senior policymakers about the reporting. Because of the sensitivity, however, that it was not disseminated to Intelligence Community analysts.

Concerned that something may have been missed in our first Iraq review, the Committee began to request additional information from the Intelligence Community and to question current and former CIA officers who were involved in this issue. As noted above, the Committee has not completed this inquiry, but we have seen the operational documentation pertaining to this case.

We can say that there is not a single document related to this case which indicates that the source said Iraq had no WMD programs. On the contrary, all of the information about this case so far indicates that the information from this source was that Iraq did have WMD programs."

So what did Saddam’s foreign minister tell the US government? From the report: [emphasis LGF's]

The intelligence report conveyed information from the source attributed to the Iraqi official which said:

• Iraq was not in possession of a nuclear weapon. However, Iraq was aggressively and covertly developing such a weapon. Saddam, irate that Iraq did not yet have a nuclear weapon because money was no object and because Iraq possessed the scientific know how, had recently called meeting his Nuclear Weapons Committee.

• The [Iraqi] Committee told Saddam that a nuclear weapon would be ready within 18-24 months of acquiring the fissile material."



* The date when "the source" gave his info: 2002. Note the "recently".

* The "source" : very likely Tariq Aziz, Iraq's Foreign Minister.

So, there was NEW information about Saddam's nuclear capabilities and INTENTIONS in 2002.

Next, note that the UN had long demanded that Saddam destroy "all vestiges" of his nuclear program. If the docs in question were found by the US after we invaded, he OBVIOUSLY did not destroy "all vestiges".

Note further that the docs in question were technologically just as "good" in 2002 as they were in the 1990's, in that they were plans/processes/blueprints etc. for making a nuclear weapon.

There is NO REASON to pooh-pooh the docs on the basis that they are "old". According to the "source", Saddam believed he had the scientific know-how. The docs show that he did. What he lacked was uranium 235.

But those docs could have been secretly given to others who had the fissile material, or the means to get it, the same stuff Iraq unsuccessfully tried to get in Niger in the late 1990's.

So, if you lib drones think you can wave away the evidence that Saddam was still trying to make a nuke in 2002, you have quaffed gallons of bleach-laced Kool-Aid.

Its effects will hit you round about Election Day.

Bush lied, eh?

Saddam not a threat, eh?

No WMD, eh?


By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sat Nov 04, 08:53:00 AM:

Please stop insulting hammers or you will get a call from the Hardware Anti-Discrimination Mogouls who Machinate Emergency Reactions to Slams  

By Blogger Cassandra, at Sat Nov 04, 09:58:00 AM:

Bush had absolutely no right to publicize classified information that could compromise our national security.

That's the New York Times' job.

Larry, I hate you... I just snorted an entire mug full of coffee :)  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sat Nov 04, 12:10:00 PM:

Let's see, Saddam would have liked to possess or build a nuclear weapon.

That's a terrific reason for killing at least 100,000 civilian Iraqis. After all, they can't matter much, they are brown aren't they? And so far away.

And Iraq had been locked down under economic sanctions, fly overs, (building a nuclear weapon does require some infrastructure,) bombing missions, satellite surveys, no navy, no air force, Vietnam era equipped foot soldiers, and a barely equipped armored division, 60% of its people living in penury, C.I.A./ IAEA weapons inspectors, and Iraqi defectors so that it made the country barely able to defend itself against its neighbors let alone launch a suicidal single nuke attack against the U.S. with a missile that couldn't reach the U.S., so that following such a failed attack its entire population would be wiped out, and its land turned into contaminated glass, sounds like a choice that any leader of a nation would make. Doesn't it?

Saddam Hussein was many things, but suicidal was not one of them. He liked his daughters, brandy and Cuban cigars too much. He also knew that there were not 72 virgins waiting for him in a pie in the sky fantasy.

There is a long road between wanting to have a nuclear weapon capable of reaching the U.S. and having them. Witness North Korea's laughable attempt at building a small weapon that could barely reach South Korea.
Mr. Perfect Leader is just angling for foreign aid from the U.S.

Iraq did not want Israel to be the only nation in the Middle East with nuclear weapons, (at least a couple hundred of them.)

Iraq was effectively crippled through U.S. efforts, which, of course, was the reason it was attacked, proving Mr. Hussein not so paranoid after all.

Now any smaller and weaker nation rich in a needed natural resource should consider itself a potential target. Of course, this would lead them straight toward becoming a trusted ally. Don't you think?

Imagine the insanity of any leader living under Roman law, (guilty until proven innocent,) who would kill people complicit in his assassination attempt. It's so hard to get people to play fair any more.

The "strong on national security" people made another enormous blunder, (9/11, (couldn't be bothered while celebrating tax-cuts for the their richest supporters,) Katrina, (couldn't be bothered because weren't most of those people democrats,) Medicare, (insurance companies need somebody stupid enough to pay their ridiculous premiums,) Social Security, (Wall Street can't wait to gamble with money that was intended to protect seniors from penury, but hey, who needs them, they're old,) Dubai ports, (is the UAE an Arab nation?) outing a covert C.I.A. operative, (didn't need her prying into the movement of weapons of mass destruction, did they?) spying on innocent Americans without a warrant, (trust us, you people are fools anyway,) and now so desperate to find anything that would justify attacking a nation that wasn't a threat that they gave nuclear bomb making information away on the internet, proves conclusively that Clinton did it. Did what? Everything wrong that has happened over the last terrible six years.  

By Blogger skipsailing, at Sat Nov 04, 12:12:00 PM:

an anonymous poster in support of Saddam Hussein.

Now that's courage, eh?  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sat Nov 04, 12:45:00 PM:

No, not supporting Saddam Hussein, just making fun of the "strong on national security" blunderers, the "we are innocent of everything," liars, the, "there are no republicans in the closet," fools, the, "corruption? what corruption? thieves, and the, "trust us," con men.

What was the purpose of your post? Oh, that's right - to lie. Typical.  

By Blogger Dawnfire82, at Sat Nov 04, 12:48:00 PM:

You are a poster child for spouting ignorant leftist talking points. You bend over backwards to accomodate Saddam's behavior, but deliver rigidly hostile (and factually wrong, if you'd kept up with the news and used your brain) interpretations of President Bush.

And anyone who thinks that Plame was a 'covert CIA operative' has no idea what they're talking about, and is quite possibly a jackass.

You're a tool. Way to go.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sat Nov 04, 12:52:00 PM:

I'm just curious. How does being brainwashed feel?  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sat Nov 04, 01:06:00 PM:

fulldroolcup seems to have forgotten that the documents that claimed Iraq attempted to purchase uranium in Niger were forged.

A simple question. If the attempt was a fact, why was it necessary to forge the Niger government documents concerning the attempt?

It is also interesting that a Nigerian government office was broken into, and only blank documents taken on New Years Day of the same year that the documents appeared. It must have been synchronicity or coincidence, or possibly the influence of the spirit world.  

By Blogger Dawnfire82, at Sat Nov 04, 02:40:00 PM:

The forged documents were supplied through a cut out by a private individual with unofficial links to Italian intelligence.

The British mag, 'Eye Spy,' was following that story for quite a while.  

By Blogger skipsailing, at Sat Nov 04, 07:56:00 PM:

how does lacking the courage to get a screen name feel?

Life on your knees suiting you OK?  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sun Nov 05, 07:32:00 AM:

"Life on your knees suiting you OK?"

I don't know, I'm not down on the floor in abject fear of weapons of mass destruction that didnt exist.

Now I have got a throwaway blogger name, but clicked "Anonymous" just to illustrate a cheap point about something or other.

And I love all the "left must be scared of this story" faux bravado, like children telling each other they really arent afraid of spending the night in that haunted house, nuh uh, going to go there right now... Listen folks, if you want to know what the "Left" are really saying, why not simply go to one of their webpages and read up on it? Here's one for you:


The reason so many are coming to your webpages is because they literally cannot believe how STUPID these claims of yours are. The above link reposts exactly the NYT's original comment that got you all excited, then points out all the exciting logical consequences of this. Like how GWB's own handpicked post-invasion weapons inspectors for some reason ignored the documents they were given in 2002 which apparently proved Iraq was a threat then!

Still, your party HAS delayed Saddam's death penalty until the weekend just before the midterms. Maybe this news story will work out for you, eh? Unless you think the left really DOES sympathise with the Butcher In Baghdad, in which case you'll be hardening "Bush Derangement Syndrome", ahahaha... God almighty, how do you guys even manage to tie your shoelaces in the morning, with all these ideological knots you have to tie yourselves in to get through the day?  

By Blogger Some Schmuck, at Mon Nov 06, 03:40:00 AM:

OK, Saddam was less than a year away from building a nuclear weapon in 1991. His scientists had spent years doing research and trial and error to find out how to make it. They committed their knowledge to paper.

Post 1991 the UN inspectors fan out over the country looking for Saddam’s nuclear weapons program. They do not find these papers and in fact the Iraqis gain some of the papers of the IAEA giving them additional knowledge of nuclear technology.

1998 the inspectors are kicked out.

After the 2003 invasion the papers showing the results of the years of research are captured in Iraq.

Question: What does it matter whether the papers were from pre 1991? They contain the knowledge to build a nuclear device. That knowledge is just as useful in 2002 as it was in 1991.

The only thing keeping Saddam from building a nuclear device was material. He had the raw uranium but not the technology to refine it. He was prevented from obtaining the technology by the sanctions.

In 2002, the sanctions were crumbling. The Oil-for-food program had allowed Saddam to bribe a number of UN members allowing him to obtain more and more military equipment.

The opponents of the sanctions, which are many of the same people that oppose the war, were claiming that the sanctions are killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians. One estimate said that 5,000 Iraqi children were dying each month.

Fast-forward to 2003. Saddam obviously has the knowledge to build a bomb. That is shown by these documents that were captured after the invasion.

We are in Afghanistan fighting al Qaeda and the Taliban. Opponents say we don't have enough troops there.

Question: How should the question of Iraq been handled if not by invading?

We commit to maintaining sanctions by stationing our troops in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait? But we need these troops in Afghanistan, if critics are going to be believed.

How long would we have to keep our forces there? Whenever the sanctions are allowed to lapse there will be no shortage of countries eager to sell Saddam the technology he needs to refine his yellowcake. And we already know he can build a bomb within months after obtaining the fissile material.

Do we stay, providing a rallying point to al Qaeda and killing thousands of Iraqi women and children? How long do we intend to stay? Saddam has been in power for thirty years and he is not showing any signs of dying. Even if he did, Uday and Qusay are there to pick up the slack. Not to mention various other Baathist big shots.

The presence of our troops in Saudi Arabia, the land of the two holy cities, is a major rallying point of al-Qaeda.

Our sanctions are killing Iraqi civilians and are not hurting the leadership a bit. Stiffening the sanctions is a non-starter because Saddam has corrupted the UN members who would have had to approve it.

Where should we have gone from here?

Should we walk away, allowing the sanctions to lapse? Saddam will use that opportunity to build a bomb as quickly as he can.

What’s the answer? The lady or the tiger?  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Mon Feb 26, 12:56:00 AM:

The Internet Marketing Genius, Carael Knight The source for information on internet classified advertising and the cheapest advertising method to boost "ANY" business online or off! Think targeted classified ads. Make Money Online using unique state-of-the-art classified advertising strategies.............................  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Mon Feb 26, 08:41:00 PM:

"TOP Rated" Money Making Program Online The source for information on internet classified advertising and the cheapest advertising method to boost "ANY" business online or off! Think targeted classified ads. Make Money Online using the most profitable state-of-the-art business classified advertising strategies. Profitable Home Based Business  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thu Mar 01, 11:14:00 PM:

"Slaving For Peanuts-vs-Graving For Walnuts"

Let me tell you a story about me..............................Carael Knight
(TRUE STORY........)

When I first started building my company, MajorEnterprise,
I had started at the bottom. For years, I had worked SO hard "busing-my-hump" for a worthless salary. I mean
No Benefits At All........................................What kind of stability is this? And now, that I look back, the only thing
that comes to mind is, "Man, I worked for some complete "Dummy's" (a.k.a "Bosses.").

The majority of "J-O-B-S" that I have ever worked, I been fired from. I have never been really good at
working for somebody else. I guess one of the main reasons would be that they knew I was humble. Or maybe they
feared me being so intelligent that I would possibly take over the company or something.

They would say stuff to me like "your not being productive enough" or "we need
to talk about your work ethics". It had been times where I wanted to literally laugh in there face! Why? Well, one reason
would be...........................................

1. I have been commented on my "work performance" so much that it would feel strange NOT to be questioned about my work ethic.

2. What benefit will it be to me if I worked "twice as hard" and doubling my workload for still the same pay rate???

3. If I was to get a raise on a "J-O-B", it wouldn't be much because most "J-O-B-S" only give a person cents on the dollar.

4. In life, if I work hard at something, I would rather "bust-my-hump" doing something I love to do rather than wasting my time doing something to make another man richer!

A lot of people won't tell you these things because there "scared" that they may get laid off or have someone think
differently about them. But as for me, I'm my own individual. I'm taking the gloves off! I'm taking a stand to let any individual that feels
like there isn't hope, know that if I can be successful, so can you! Hear my clear, "The only way to truly be happy in life and be successful
is to do what interest you"! Find your niche. Get out and explore new things and opportunites. Find something that you love to do and pursue it.
"NEVER, EVER, EVER, GIVE UP". This is one of the formulas of success! I've always looked at things in clear view in terms of business and personal


The road was never easy for me but if there are people out there that have overcame hardships ten times as worst as mine, then this should be
a piece of cake for me! That's how I've always looked at it. This is the game of life. Just because a person starts ahead in the race doesn't mean that he
will always finish first. Statistics show that just about every person who is "self made" had to start from the "bottom of the barrel" and "work there way up the ladder". You can too. Being successful and become a shining star in life is not going to be easy "BUT" it isn't impossible either......................................

This has been my true story that I felt I should share with the world..........................................................................

"A Person Never Understands The Sun, Until They've Came Through Rain"........................................Carael Knight

For More About Me And My Company, Visit:


By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sat Mar 03, 11:10:00 PM:

The Internet Marketing Genius, Carael Knight

Information powers our world. The more information you have, the more money you make. It used to be you had to go to an expensive business school or spend years becoming a doctor or lawyer to have valuable information people would pay big money for.

Not anymore. Today ANYONE can use FREE classified ads to sell information demanded daily by MILLIONS of people. Think about it. These days when somebody wants to know how to do something, they GO ONLINE and look for INFORMATION to tell them how to do it.

My name is Carael Knight. I started Major Enterprise about seven years ago with a vision and a plan.

The vision was to show people how to start, run, and operate their own profitable online business. Now that led me to create the plan, which was the process of carrying out the vision!

Click Here for more information:

The Internet Marketing Genius, Carael Knight  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wed Mar 07, 02:57:00 PM:

Hey love the blog!

I switched from blogging to squidoo, don't know if you tried it yet but I think it is a little easier.

Here are some examples of some squidoo lenses:

Burn The Fat Feed The Muscle Review
Fat Loss 4 Idiots Review

Well hope you like and I'll stop by again.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Fri Mar 09, 12:26:00 AM:

Nice Blog. I will keep reading. Please take the time and visit my blog about: Internet Marketing and Making Money Online


By Anonymous Anonymous, at Fri Apr 06, 12:20:00 AM:

Work at home opportunites For people who are smart enough to go after there own dreams

Work from home opportunites

Women who have children will love it...  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Tue Apr 10, 07:46:00 PM:

Anyone looking for a great home business opportunity needs to check out a recently launched program called the Global Abundance Program or GAP. We are having tremendous success with this program. You can check out the program at http://www.globalabundanceprogram.com/GlobalHBRC/ In addition, we also provide a guarantee of success with this program for member of our FREE website called the Global Home Business Resource Center . You can check out this website at http://www.globalhbrc.com  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wed Apr 11, 03:01:00 AM:

Home Based Business When it comes to home based business, Global Domains International is #1  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Tue May 08, 11:55:00 AM:

Home Business That Works We Have Found The The Work At Home Business That Actually Work.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sun Apr 20, 06:17:00 PM:

buy sex toys buy sex toys
doubledong doubledong
sextoys sextoys
dual penetrators dual penetrators
edible sex toys edible sex toys
eggs bullets eggs bullets
condoms condoms
sex toys display sex toys display
sex toys store sex toys store
sextoy sextoy  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sun Nov 16, 01:26:00 PM:


By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sun Nov 16, 01:28:00 PM:


I really love your blog. It appears that the war in Iraq will remain in controversy for a long time.

You should also do some squidoo lenses on your topics of interest. It can get your a lot of traffic.

I've seen some great examples like:
Fat Loss 4 Idiots Reviews.

Try it, I think you'll like it.  

Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?