Obama Praises McCain’s Comments on Iraq

The media? They were rooting for a sandstorm to stop the US troops from going into baghdad within a few days of the start of the invasion. It didn't get any better. I'll jog your memory:

http://www.hickpolitics.com/?p=421

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>CNN is helping set the stage for the Democrats to stand up as the quitters they are, only THIS time Iraqi Soldiers must be declared beaten before the battle is over. Nothing new here, folks…move along now. Two days is enough time to determine that wherever there is resistance from an enemy, the “good guys” need to Tuck Tail and Run™.

The Iraqi military push into the southern city of Basra is not going as well as American officials had hoped, despite President Bush’s high praise for the operation, several U.S. officials said Friday.

A closely held U.S. military intelligence analysis of the fighting in Basra shows that Iraqi security forces control less than a quarter of the city, according to officials in both the United States and Iraq, and Basra’s police units are deeply infiltrated by members of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mehdi Army.

“This is going to go on for a while,” one U.S. military official said.

“Go on for a while” is all the Democrat Media Wing needs to hear; stiff resistance = fight is lost.</div>



globalsecurity.org has a lot of nifty documents. Like the final report of the Iraq Survey Group. The intel reports from around the world may not have been 100% accurate, but they were not without solid foundation. Why cherry pick the UN inspectors' reports, when their inspections were obstructed all along the way. How about the ISG, which had all the time they needed and without Saddam and his cronies there to impede the inspections?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/...vol1_rfp-03.htm

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Executing Illicit Procurement in Iraq: Ministries, Commissions, and Front Companies
Overview

Saddam used his complete control over the Iraqi Government to facilitate his illicit procurement programs. Almost every Ministry in the Regime assisted with procurement in some way. Directed by Saddam, the Ministries of Foreign Affairs, Oil, and Trade helped the former Regime orchestrate its primary foreign objective of ending UN sanctions (see Annex H: UN Security Council Resolutions Applicable to Iraq).

* The MFA curried favors at the UN. Among other techniques and tactics used by the MFA, it bestowed oil allocations to nationals of the UNSC permanent members to influence and divide the council in order to erode sanctions. For additional details on the MFA role in influencing the UNSC, see the RSI chapter.
* The MoT established bilateral trade Protocols that were used to hide prohibited trade. The ministry used commercial attaches to pay for illicit procurement.
* The MoD developed requirements, hosted and conducted foreign visits, and procured conventional military goods, the export of which breached UN sanctions.
* The banking system established foreign accounts to hold illicit hard currency until it could be used for procurement or smuggled into Baghdad.
* The Ministry of Higher Education an Scientific Research (MHESR) conducted dual-use research; procured and developed technical expertise in WMD-related fields and procured key technologies through university systems.

Saddam, however, relied on three organizations in particular for the procurement of prohibited materials to include potentially-WMD related or dual-use items (see Annex I: Suspected Iraqi Dual-Use Procurement Transactions):

* The MIC, headed by Huwaysh since 1997, and its associated front companies led Iraqi efforts to obtain prohibited military hardware and dual-use goods.
* The IIS was directed by Saddam to assist the MIC with procurement in 1998.
* The Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission (IEAC) pursued its own illicit procurement goals, occasionally with MIC assistance.</div>


http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/...1_rfp-anx-i.htm

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Suspected WMD-Related Dual-Use Goods and Procurement Transactions

The following is a list of procurement transactions, contracts, attempted transactions, or contract tenders of products of suspected dual-use goods. The section below lists terms used by ISG throughout the report and this particular annex, as well as summarizes specific UNSCR affecting member states’ obligations in exporting dual-use and military goods to Iraq.

The goods described below appear to be dual-use as specified by the 1051 or the GRL, and consequently could have been of use to Iraq for the development, production or use of WMD. However, without full technical specifications of the items or knowledge of whether UN approval was granted for these exports, ISG cannot determine whether UN sanctions were actually breached with the procurement transactions summarized below. Investigating possible breaches of sanctions relating to the export of dual-use goods is outside the scope of ISG.

Possible Violations of UN Sanctions by French Companies
2002—French Company Carbone Lorraine Supplied the MIC with Chemical Warfare Raw Materials

As of August 2002 the former Iraqi Regime and the French company Carbone Lorraine had been cooperating for many years in the procurement of high-tech industrial equipment, some of which had WMD applications.
2001—Attempt To Procure Mobile Laboratory Trucks

A French firm known for violating UN sanctions submitted a request for bids to a South Korean and a German company for 20 mobile laboratory trucks in August 2001. The end-user for the trucks was purported to be the Iraqi General Company for Water and Sewage.

Possible Breaches of UN Sanctions by Austrian Companies
2001—Negotiations To Procure Autoclaves

AGMEST and the Al Rafad Scientific Bureau for Promoting Drugs and Medical Appliances, both located in Baghdad, negotiated a contract for the Iraqi Ministry of Health for autoclaves from an Austrian firm in early 2001.

* Two of the autoclaves were reportedly intended for the Vaccine and Serum Institute in Baghdad, a probable reference to the Amiriyah Serum and Vaccine Institute (ASVI).
* In July 2002, Sabah N.M. Ali of AGMEST in Baghdad, Iraq, Firas Kadhum of the Iraqi Al Rafah Scientific Bureau for Promoting Drugs and Medical Appliances, and an official from a Jordanian firm negotiated a contract for autoclaves, sterilizers, and vacuum pumps from the Austrian company with the end user being SDI.

Possible Breaches of UN Sanctions by German Companies
2001—Attempts To Acquire Biotechnology and Biological Weapons-Related Technology and Expertise

The Amman, Jordan office of the Iraqi front company Winter International forwarded offers for dual-use laboratory equipment from a German firm to the Winter International office in Baghdad, in March 2001. The end-user of this equipment was purported to be the Iraqi MoI. The equipment offered included:

* An electrophoresis system including a special atomizer with rubber bellows for producing reagent mists. This system can be used for recombinant DNA process-cloning and many other molecular biology applications.
* A refrigerated ultracentrifuge, a microcentrifuge, a low temperature freezer (between -30 and -80 degrees Celsius), and an automatic DNA-analysis system with mono-laser. This equipment is on the UN dual-use monitoring lists and would have required verification.
* A moisture purging vacuum pump and electroporator. This equipment is used for plasmid cloning.

2002—Attempts To Procure a DNA Synthesizer

From August 2002 through February 2003 representatives from a Jordanian trading company with links to Iraq attempted to purchase a DNA synthesizer from a German based company. This equipment was restricted under the UN GRL.

* An official claiming to be the managing director of the Jordanian firm Al Theker forwarded the information to Iraq. The report stated that it appeared that the Jordanian firm’s official was forwarding information back to the Baghdad-based Wateera Company.

Possible Breaches of UN Sanctions by Italian Companies
2002—Attempt To Procure Biotechnology and Bio Weapons Related Technology and Expertise

In January 2002, the Al-Mazd Group for Medical and Engineering Systems and Technology (AGMEST) in Baghdad requested a quotation for 10 freeze dryers through the Iraqi Ministry of Health from an Italian firm.
2002—Attempt To Procure Dual-Use Autoclaves

In March 2002 the Iraqi firm Al Mutasem Engineering used a Jordanian intermediary company, to contact an Italian firm and receive a price quote for dual-use autoclaves.

* Autoclaves are commonly used in laboratories to sterilize equipment. They are not a vital part of a BW program as there are other means to sterilize equipment.

Possible Breaches of UN Sanctions by Turkish Companies
2002—Procurement of CBW Protective Equipment

A Turkish firm sold and transferred atropine autoinjectors to the Iraqi government starting in August 2002. The company also provided coordination in response to Iraqi requests for chemical protective equipment, unspecified laboratory chemicals and biological growth media.

* In December 2002, the same firm continued to work with the Iraqi government on a new order for atropine autoinjectors and was also working to fill Iraqi orders for additional CBW protective equipment; specifically 600 microbial decontamination systems, 600 CBW protective kits including protective masks and garments, and 10 sterilizers.

Possible Breaches of UN Sanctions by Indian Companies
2002—Attempt To Procure Biotechnology Equipment

According to reports, an Indian export company provided a quotation for a dry powder injection-filling project at the Al-Anaam Pharmaceutical Company packaging plant in Baghdad.
2002—Attempt To Procure Biotechnology technology

According to reporting, in late 2002, Iraq’s State Company for Vegetable Oil issued tender no. 649/2002 to several different Iraqi trading firms in an attempt to procure detergent production facilities that included high-capacity spray drying equipment and cyclone filters. An Indian firm was the only supplier to present Iraq’s State Company for Vegetable Oil with an offer.
2003—Attempt To Procure Dual-Use Drugs

In January 2003, an Indian firm offered to deliver 10 metric tons of bulk Ciprofloxacin to the Iraqi State Company for Manufacturing of Drugs and Medical Appliances, Kimadia’s Samarra Drug Industries.

* Ciprofloxacin is a widely used antibiotic that could also be used to treat Anthrax infection. It was specifically added to the UN Goods Review List (GRL), pursuant to UNSCR 1454.
* Iraq’s procurement and stockpiling of Ciprofloxacin would have facilitated the country’s employment of BW against coalition forces, Iraq’s neighbors, and/or its own citizens.
* There is insufficient data available to confirm the completion of this deal.

2003—Transfer of Hormone Tablet Production Manufacturing Technology

An Indian firm working through representatives of the Syrian Group Company (SGC) Baghdad offices, provided an offer for a hormone tablet facility to Iraq in late January 2003. The client for the facility was identified as “M/S Al-Amin” which is very likely the Al-Anaam Pharmaceutical Company.
Nuclear Dual-Use Related Procurement
Possible Breaches of UN Sanctions by Belarusian Companies
2001—Contract for Ferrite Materials Including Magnets

The MIC company Al-Tahadi had a contract with the Belarusian company, Balmorals Ventures, for ferrite materials, including permanent ferrite magnets.

* Some of the equipment was received from this contract, to include, a press machine and a mixer.
* The MIC initiated direct contact with the Belarusian company and therefore neither Al-Sirat nor Al-Najah were involved in this procurement attempt.</div>

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/...vol1_rfp-04.htm
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Supplying Iraq With Prohibited Commodities
Overview

Despite UN sanctions, many countries and companies engaged in prohibited procurement with the Iraqi regime throughout the 1990s, largely because of the profitability of such trade.

* Private companies from Jordan, India, France, Italy, Romania, and Turkey seem to have engaged in possible WMD-related trade with Iraq.
* The Governments of Syria, Belarus, North Korea, former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Yemen, and possibly Russia directly supported or endorsed private company efforts to aid Iraq with conventional arms procurement, in breach of UN sanctions.
* In addition, companies based out of the following 14 countries supported Iraq’s conventional arms procurement programs: Jordan, the People’s Republic of China, India, South Korea, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Cyprus, Egypt, Lebanon, Georgia, France, Poland, Romania, and Taiwan.
* The number of countries and companies supporting Saddam’s schemes to undermine UN sanctions increased dramatically over time from 1995 to 2003 (see figure 54).
* A few neighboring countries such as Jordan, Syria, Turkey, Egypt, and Yemen, entered into bilateral trade agreements with Iraq. These agreements provided an avenue for increasing trade coordination and eventually led to sanctions violations.

The countries supporting Iraq’s illicit procurement changed over time. These changes reflected trends based on Saddam Husayn’s ability to generate hard currency to buy items and the willingness of the international community to criticize those countries selling prohibited goods to the Regime. The following sections addressing each country have been grouped according to when evidence indicates they began supporting Saddam’s illicit procurement programs</div>

 

I hate to use analogy to try and prove a point. It's poor rhetoric. But a hypothetical isn't a bad way to go.

A well known bad guy is caught with dynamite, wiring, timers, fuses, and all the things needed to make a bomb. They're all laid out on a workbench in his garage ready to be assembled. The police raided his house and found all this, but no actual bomb.

Is he a threat?

 

OK, so when the facts aren't in your favor, attack the source. Fine.



Remember this?

http://www.mrc.org/realitycheck/2003/fax20030331.asp

Peter Arnett was fired by NBC Monday morning for doing an interview with Saddam-controlled Iraqi TV. NBC News President Neal Shapiro said Arnett was wrong to grant the interview, and wrong to “discuss his personal observations and opinions in that interview.”

In an apologetic interview on this morning’s Today, Arnett regretted the appearance of the “impromptu” interview with the enemy government’s propaganda outlet, but insisted his opinions about how the first U.S. war plan “failed” were in line with the media establishment.

Today co-host Matt Lauer insisted, “Peter, at the risk of getting myself in trouble, I want to say I respect the work you've done over the last several weeks and I respect the honesty with which you've handled this situation. So good luck to you.”

But did Arnett’s performance deserve the respect of media professionals? Recent reporting for NBC suggests a repeat of his performance in Gulf War I, with unverified repetition of incredible Iraqi propaganda claims:

• March 26: Arnett asserted in the 8:00 a.m. hour on Today: “The Information Minister, Mr. Al-Sahaf complained that the U.S. has started using cluster bombs in the area.” An hour later, he repeated “The Iraqi peoples are complaining that two cruise missiles or cluster bomb units did land in a residential area.”

But Katie Couric alerted viewers “The Pentagon is refuting that cluster bombs have been used in Baghdad.” Pentagon reporter Jim Miklaszewski later maintained that “as far as we know, there were no plans to use cluster bombs inside Baghdad,” and that “if you look at pictures, so far, outside of Baghdad, a cluster bomb would create a Swiss-cheese effect – thousands and thousands of holes in the target – and we don't see that quite yet.” Arnett’s dispatch for the MSNBC Web site revised the line: “Iraqi officials later blamed the attack on two cruise missiles.”

• March 25: Arnett relayed the tender mercies of Saddam toward U.S. prisoners of war on Today: “Now last night we saw on television pictures of the two more American POWs, the pilots of those Apaches, making seven prisoners. And this morning the trade minister, Mohammed Salih, told us in a press conference that President Saddam Hussein had personally ordered that these prisoners be treated well. The Iraqis are aware that there is increasing American concern about the treatment of their people that are being held, a total of I believe seven now. The trade minister said Saddam wants them given the best medicine and the best food.”

• March 19: Arnett told Today co-host Matt Lauer from Baghdad: “The government here maintaining a very strong pugilistic position, you might say. In fact, the National Assembly met this morning in special session and [was] criticizing the U.S. One other aspect, Matt, the Foreign Minister Naji Sabri has called the UN's act of completely leaving Iraq, all its aid workers, he called that ‘shameful' and he suggested it would leave 10 million Iraqis possibly starving in a few weeks if the war does continue.”

• February 28: “Peter Arnett's Baghdad Diary” for National Geographic Explorer aired as part of MSNBC’s Countdown: Iraq. Arnett showcased an Al-Jazeera broad-ast of U.S. and Iraqi students denouncing U.S. treatment of Iraq. One Iraqi student charged that “my mother, sister and brother were burned to death in the Ameriyah shelter. I want to ask the American people is this the human touch and love letter your government has sent to other people?!” After an American student worried about the “pain” the U.S. caused Iraq, Arnett lamented that “it's a pain some Iraqi students might have to suffer again.” At least Americans won’t have to suffer through Arnett’s sloppy and slanted reporting for the war’s duration. -- Tim Graham

 

ROTR,

Our nation has a sorry history of overthrowing governments and installing and propping up dictators who've been friendly toward our big businesses. Especially in our own hemisphere - google United Fruit Company for some good reading. You seem to realize Saddam was one of those despots. The Shah was another; look at our issues with Iran almost 30 years later.

If we really do want a change in foreign policy, and to be seen in a better light by people around the world, our foreign policy had to change. Instead of propping up the dictator in Iraq, we took him out. Instead of leaving the people there to fend for themselves, we've shared their pain of rebuilding.

Isn't "change" great?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 28 2008, 09:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 28 2008, 09:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I hate to use analogy to try and prove a point. It's poor rhetoric. But a hypothetical isn't a bad way to go.

A well known bad guy is caught with dynamite, wiring, timers, fuses, and all the things needed to make a bomb. They're all laid out on a workbench in his garage ready to be assembled. The police raided his house and found all this, but no actual bomb.

Is he a threat?</div>

Denny, dynamite is already a bomb, so that can't be used in your example. Break all these items you listed down into more basic components, couple that with the fact that all elements are "dual use", add to it that the person could just as easily been building a new battery with patent pending or merely making his home energy self sufficient, I can see it both ways. - and your case won't hold up in court, other than he doesn't have a permit for certain materials.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Private companies from Jordan, India, France, Italy, Romania, and Turkey seem to have engaged in possible WMD-related trade with Iraq.
* The Governments of Syria, Belarus, North Korea, former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Yemen, and possibly Russia directly supported or endorsed private company efforts to aid Iraq with conventional arms procurement, in breach of UN sanctions.</div>

I think that there are multiple parties to blame here, and the word "possible" is used more than once.

How many WMD's does the US have? What does the UN think about that? Could Iraq, even with the worst possible scenario, actually launch a weapon that could hit the US and do any kind of damage? Could the US do this to Iraq (yes). Who puts the United States in check? We are far more dangerous than any country, and I don't see what we have to worry about.
</div>

You can't change MY hypothetical because you don't like the answer you might be compelled to give. However, I can change MY hypothetical. The guy not only possessed all the makings of a bomb, but he's been widely known to have used similar bombs to blow up things and kill people for decades.

How many WMDs does the US have? Too many, and for the most part we've gotten rid of them and been the force behind ridding the world of them.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 29 2008, 08:13 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 29 2008, 08:51 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You can't change MY hypothetical because you don't like the answer you might be compelled to give. However, I can change MY hypothetical. The guy not only possessed all the makings of a bomb, but he's been widely known to have used similar bombs to blow up things and kill people for decades.

How many WMDs does the US have? Too many, and for the most part we've gotten rid of them and been the force behind ridding the world of them.</div>

The guy with the bomb things is half way around the world. Not interested.

The US has had nuclear weapons for many years, among other things. In Bush's second term, he began development on smaller discharge nukes. I think if we used the smaller nukes on countries we wish to take over, everything would be fine.
</div>

There you go again. Even if the guy is half way around the world, he's on our payroll. His victims are going to come after us because they know it.

And there you go again. Who wants to take over countries? That's the Wilsonian Diplomacy way of thinking of things that has gotten us into this mess in the first place. Change is only a good thing if it's "Change the war to one in Afghanistan" for some reason I don't get.