Skip to comments.A Mystery in the Middle East (Did Israel Really Find Saddam's WMD's & Bomb A Nuclear Reactor?)
Posted on 04/08/2008 7:04:26 PM PDT by fight_truth_decay
click here to read article
You don’t have to be a genius to realize that Bush’s total reluctance to discuss this matter at all is reason enough to conclude that all possibilites exist as to what really happened and why...suffice it to say that for a President to respond that way is “The matter is so important to our security that you don’t ever want to know anything about this, trust us, and a hundred years from now, you will still only be able to find out that we saved the world’s ass...so forget about it!!! You can’t read it any other way!
I hope you’re right but there’s been so much apparent reluctance to fight back/support own ideas - example, the option for putting some FICA money into private accounts. Never even got a serious debate.
Very Credible....Corporations pay for their knowledge.
And it would not surprise me one bit with the 'oil' cartel headquarters having shifted that there is a whole lot of 'covert' operating going on these days. I remember some Russian advisers hightailing it out of Iraq on the road to Syria, in the very early days of this present battle. Now a whole lot of the Iraqi oil has already been paid for and I do expect those expenditures have been forgotten.
Suffice it to say that WAR MAKES FOR STRANGE BEDFELLOWS l-) :-)
Stratfor is excellent.
You don’t want to miss reading this Stratfor document...
I have somewhat the same view of the Kosovo situation. I just don’t think the Bush administration is “that dumb.” So I’m watching for some clue as to what really is/was going on behind the scenes.
I agree. Thanks for your good post.
And I do think that the Bush administration is particularly adept at resisting the temptation to trumpet its own successes and to fight back against its critics when doing so would jeopardize larger goals than simple political popularity.
I think it could turn out to be one of his major strengths.
Personally, I can’t wait for the “behind the scenes” shows on the Dubya administration that’ll be on the History Channel is about 20 years.
That was the author’s point-—that rumors of war in the region were NOT unusual; they are an almost daily occurrence.
Stratfor is not written for the general news reader. It’s specifically targeted to people who are heavy into geopolitics, etc. Therefore, it’s sometimes written like a technical manual.
Now that’s the best and most spot on summation ever! Thanks.
But I do hope it’s not 100 years. I’d like to see the “behind the scenes” documentaries at least in my lifetime.
Fascinating, thanks for the ping.
As I said, there are any number of reasonable and believable explanations, all of which come down to the logical conclusion that Saddam had WMDs; that other powers did not want this publicly proven (whether because of French, German, Russian, or whatever connection to the production/storage/transfer of these); that Bush thought it better to take a PR hit on this rather than follow through with the necessary foreign policy steps should such info become public. My guess is that Bush got some private assurances from a number of parties-—Russia, France, even Syria, that if this remained secret, they certain actions would follow (destruction of the WMDs, quiet arrests of all Saddam sympathizers inside their countries, certain info on al-Qaeda contacts in the countries).
Sometimes you hold your cards close to your chest.
I have been reading them for quite a period of time. In this case, they are just reporting events which open up questions when their parts might lead or be linked to a whole. You can check their bio.
Dr. George Friedman
Today, everything written and voiced is suspect, isn’t it?
That’s why there is a need for FreeRepublic.
You might be right but I lay some of the losses we had in the 2006 mid-terms at his feet. Furthermore, would we have ended up with McCain as our candidate if W would have done a better job of defending his positions?
Lieberman may also be close to the cuff.
Note (slightly off topic) JPost:While his Judaic social conservatism appeared to draw gentile votes to the Democrats in 2000, it can help move some Jewish ones into the Republican column in 2008, or at least make Obama invest a lot of time and money into holding on to what is normally an assured constituency. (He has already been doing just that in his battle against Clinton for the nomination.)
IT DOESN'T take much of a Jewish realignment to make a significant difference, given the high turn-out rate for Jews and their presence in swing states like Florida. When Ronald Reagan won slightly more than 40% of the Jewish vote in 1980 against Jimmy Carter, that shift of traditionally-reliable Democrats was vital to his victory. Although Reagan had a landslide in the electoral college, his share of the popular vote barely exceeded 50%.
National security still becomes the major issue to future thinking minded people when the curtain is pulled at the polling booth, and who is the closest to Bush in that regard? McCain, as so stated by Clinton and Obama; and yes, earlier on; they may have thought of him as the easiest of the lot. But McCain has collected backers from all different breeds.
Bush has not ducked; therefore, stuck to his positions. Whether we agree or we do not. That can take courage, or others can call it something different. Obama has no truthful positions, that's why he is famous for voting "present". He says he wants a time line for withdrawal. Yet, Barry's military adviser Gen. "Tony" McPeak is on record (YouTube) saying a time line is dangerous for obvious reasons, we've discussed. Clinton watches the polls and ducks whenever she is under "snipper" fire.
Just my opinion.
I believe it is due in great part to others and their scandals (they become a blur after a while) played up by the Media - the public being performed to by a tribal media drum beat: "It's all George Bush's fault".
The borders play an important role, sure; but also non- border states believe it is up to those states and land owners to secure their own borders. That comes from border state and local governments elected by the people of that said state choosing to live with this ongoing problem for decades; then suddenly wanting Bush to fix a bucket that had an ongoing leak, when the hole got too big, as logic would expect, the whole bottom rusted out; and now those people (define those people as you wish) want to be given a whole new shiny bucket. And now is there really a bucket that can prevent an over run?
The Minutemen volunteered to do their "duty to country" often under the charges of prejudice, by local and border state taxpayers accompanied by the ever popular APPEARING ON A STAGE NEAR YOU.. "dancing media bears". Inhabitants most effected in those states, never actively joined the cause, only talked and talked and talked about it over the years-pro and con.
Lots of shared blame to go around, I would say.
Reagan’s “only” 50.7% of the vote in 1980 greatly understates his popularity that year. The Demodog was beaten by nearly 10%, gaining only 41.0%. Meanwhile, classic, very well known, “popular”, Rockefeller Republican Anderson pulled a lot of vote strength primarily from Reagan.
In 1984, Reagan managed 58+%, to 40+%.
Both years, Reagan was clearly a run-away favorite of the people.
I'm with you there - except I hope it doesn't take 20 years - which would put me into my 90's!
I'm wondering if we'll ever find out what he was really doing during the 'where was he' phase when a fighter pilot.
I saw a report once where it was thought he was one of the pilots flying covert, clandestine missions in Vietnam and area - which would totally fit his profile...
Hadn’t heard that one, but it wouldn’t surprise me, either.
There’s going to be so much about the WOT that will come out in the future. I always think of Tony Blair saying that “history will vindicate” this war; it seemed to me he had something particular in mind.
Personally, I don’t see W as having had any effect at all on how people voted in the primaries (and, therefore, on whether McCain was the nom).
But that’s just me.
If W could have kept his favorability north of 50%, it would have had a huge effect on both the mid-terms and our nominee for 2008.
.....Ive never understood Ws resistance to fighting back....
What evidence do you have that he is not fighting back? You really don’t know what he is doing.
Like Roosevelt, he is not saying anything except precisely what he wants to be known.
Rather than weakness, it is strength
That is the correct answer. Quaddify was Saddam’s nuclear subcontractor.
One interesting thesis was that our sole ambition was to chase Mig 29s out of F.Y.R. (even though at the time the Russians and the Serb head of state could have been bought off much cheaper).
Could be it was just a stupid move.
Thanks C from E.:)
Could be, but I doubt it.
Okay bert if you think an approval rating in the low 30’s demonstrates “strength” then we’ll just have to agree to disagree.