Skip to comments.Buchanan At The Bat: 3 strikes on Iraq, and Pat's out
Posted on 03/29/2013 5:51:00 PM PDT by Daniel Clark
Buchanan At The Bat: 3 strikes on Iraq, and Pats out
by Daniel Clark
If this is the tenth anniversary of the invasion if Iraq, that must be why tiresome defeatists like Pat Buchanan have been filling the editorial pages with completely unjustified I-told-you-sos.
For the most part, Buchanans analysis reads like a transcript from one of the panel discussions during his stint at MSNBC, complete with his sarcastic exclamation, Mission accomplished! The thrust of his argument is a flawlessly executed triple-balderdash, which he has perfected through repetition over the years.
Of the three goals of the war, none was achieved, he gloats. Okay, so lets take these one at a time, and find out if thats true.
No weapon of mass destruction was found
Notice how the rhetoric has evolved as the anti-war narrative has gone unchallenged. Back when small numbers of WMD were being found on a regular basis, the defeatist position was that no stockpiles of WMD had been found, which was true. Saddam Hussein chose to go into hiding rather than stand and fight, therefore he did not keep large stockpiles of WMD at arms length.
With the complicity of the liberal media, the anti-Bushies were allowed to paraphrase this as no weapons of mass destruction, which is an utter lie. By 2006, no fewer than 500 sarin and mustard gas munitions had been found in Iraq. Also found were empty binary warheads specifically designed to deliver sarin gas, and missiles equipped to deliver those warheads.
Our soldiers made multiple discoveries of deadly chemicals hidden in the desert, in camouflaged ammo dumps. Even the UN revealed that Saddam had kept equipment for producing chemical and biological weapons at dozens of missile sites, which he swiftly dismantled and moved before the invasion. In addition, Saddam left a WMD-related paper trail of internal documents, including purchase records and progress reports, which we are now to believe he fabricated in order to fool people within his government, to whom he wasnt accountable anyway.
Even if no chemical weapons had been found, their existence could have been deduced from the mountains of circumstantial evidence. These include satellite photos of caravans streaming toward the Syrian border before the invasion, repeated attempts to bribe the weapons inspectors, the very fact that Saddam had ejected the inspectors after a VX discovery five years earlier, and incriminating statements made on Saddams secret recordings. To dismiss all this is to act as the Butcher of Baghdads defense attorney, not an objective seeker of truth.
While Saddam and his sons paid for their sins, they had nothing at all to do with 9/11. Nothing. That had all been mendacious propaganda.
President Bush has never claimed that Saddam Hussein was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks, which is the phony argument that Buchanan pretends to rebut. To state that Saddam had nothing at all to do with 9/11, however, goes quite a bit further than that.
We have it right from Saddams own mouth, among other sources, that his Iraqi Intelligence Service had repeatedly met with al-Qaeda, although he denied that this established an alliance between them. A 2008 Pentagon report disagreed with him on that point. It concluded, Captured documents reveal that the regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al-Qaeda, as long as that organizations near-term goals supported Saddams long-term vision.
How willing? For starters, Saddam is known to have funded two precursors of al-Qaeda Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the organization created by Ayman al-Zawahiri that would become the nucleus of al-Qaeda, and the Afghani Islamic Party, which controlled that part of Afghanistan where bin Laden established his terrorist training camp. Saddam also funded a group called Army of Muhammad, which his own IIS recognized as an offshoot of bin Laden, as well as al-Qaedas Filipino affiliate, Abu Sayyaf.
Osama bin Laden was considered to be particularly dangerous because of his wealth, but his inheritance was a pittance compared to the steady stream of revenue that Saddam Hussein took in as dictator of an oil-rich nation. Osamas net worth was estimated at $50 million. Saddam is believed to have spent $35 million in bribes to Palestinian families who sacrificed their children as suicide bombers. We can only guess how much total funding he gave to al-Qaeda-related groups, but whatever the amount, it is certainly enough to implicate him in their atrocities. One cannot knowingly collaborate with terrorist organizations, and yet have nothing at all to do with their terrorist acts.
Where there had been no al-Qaida in Iraq while Saddam ruled, al-Qaida is crawling all over Iraq now.
The naysayers like to believe that when bin Laden publicly endorsed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi from afar, it was a superficial contrivance, and that the independent Zarqawi was al-Qaeda in name only. In reality, the connection between the two was far more concrete. In 2006, The Atlantic ran a profile of Zarqawi that depicted him as a two-bit thug who had been blown up into a monster by overzealous American war propaganda. However, it also described his face-to-face meeting with Osama bin Laden in December of 1999.
The two men reportedly took an instant disliking to each other, in no small part because of Zarqawis refusal to pledge allegiance to bin Laden. Nevertheless, the al-Qaeda leader gave Zarqawi the seed money he needed to start a terrorist training camp near the Afghan-Iranian border, for the reason that he agreed with Zarqawis aim of overthrowing the government of Jordan.
After fighting alongside the Taliban against the United States in Afghanistan, Zarqawi and his followers fled to Northern Iraq, where they joined the Kurdish terrorist group Ansar al-Islam, which not surprisingly was partially armed and funded by Saddam Hussein. Well before the U.S. invasion, a subsidiary of al-Qaeda had relocated to Iraq, with the intention of toppling one of the most benign governments in the Arab world.
In addition, Saddam had operated no fewer than three training camps, at which thousands of foreign jihadists received instruction from his Fedayeen paramilitary irregulars who specialized in guerrilla warfare. After Saddams ouster, the foreign fighters who became known as al-Qaeda in Iraq helped the Fedayeen wage what will forever be mislabeled the insurgency. Is AQI the al-Qaeda that Buchanan says is crawling all over Iraq now, and if so, are none of them the same people who had trained in Saddams camps beforehand?
Never for a single day did Saddam honor the terms of the treaty that ended the 1991 Gulf War. This gave America a standing justification to remove him at any time since. For President Bush to decline that opportunity, during a war on terror that was not of our choosing, would have been a dereliction of his duty to the American people.
None of the evidence cited here has been fished from the murky fever swamps of the twittersphere. All of it is easily available from government reports and mainstream media sources, although Buchanan would surely find excuses to dismiss it all the same. Mind you, if he could ever scrape up one billionth as much support for his contention that a dastardly cabal of neoconservatives had seized control of the Bush White House on behalf of their Israeli overlords, he would blather about it incessantly.
Oh, wait a minute. He does that anyway.
-- Daniel Clark is a writer from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He is the author and editor of a web publication called The Shinbone: The Frontier of the Free Press, where he also publishes a seasonal sports digest as The College Football Czar.
If the government of Iran controlled the U.S. military and was responsible for running a military campaign in the Middle East that would serve their interests, they probably would have done exactly what we've done over the last ten years.
Just think about that one for a moment.
I think the cheerleaders should hike up their big girl panties and lead the way in the next middle eastern mess they want to send troops into.
Its pretty bad when Ozzy Osbourn made sense in saying “If we’re going to go, then lets go, get it done and get the hell out.”
George W Bush 4459 dead Americans, Pat Buchanan 0
American blood is too precious to be sacrificed in far away regional conflicts. Not only that, the Iraq War diverted effort at the time from the fight against our real enemy in Afghanistan.
The entirety of the middle east is not worth one drop of American blood.
Iraq was a catastrophe from almost every imaginable angle.
And it was entirely W’s fault, for which WE have had to pay a horrible price.
Oh I don’t know, this _resident might just find some unlucky relative to send in first.
Going into Iraq was an utter disaster, looting the U.S. treasure, killing and maiming thousands of Americans with Bush's compassionate wars...
The tax payers lost big, we won zip...
The pacifist on this site are a real joke. Iraq was a great success, it won’t be long before Syria and Iran will be degraded to irrelevancy. We lost more solders in 8 years of Clinton than the 8 years of Bush. We can thank Pat for Clinton.
Hey amigo, you wouldn't know a critical thinker from a taco.
I don’t get it. What does your mother have to do with this topic? Please tell her Love the hat for me please.
Nice evasion, but no sale slick.
And I don't think anybody here is forgetting Bill Clinton's needless blood spilling either.
Please, define success for me.
All I know is that people get pretty damn tired of war after a decade with virtually nothing to show for it but names on memorial markers and mounting costs.
Iraq is apparently allowing arms shipments into Syria and Karzai is accusing us of working with the taliban in Afghanistan.
My pleasure. Success is destroying the anti American forces in the critical middle east. Bush defined the axis of evil (in the ME) as Iran and Iraq. We did this to the Bath Party in Iraq and we and Israel will take down down Iran in short order. Not easy, not fast, not for the faint of heart.
When that happens let us know slick.
Hey junior, Israel wasn't even part of the coalition. Yet you're suggesting they will fight along side the U.S. in a war with Iran?
I hope everyone is Florida is not as stupid as you seem to be.
Can you send me some video of the parades the Mideast held for our armed forces? You can start with Saudi Arabia.
That point is completely irrelevant to the discussion here, isn't it? What do you say to all of those soldiers who were NOT "lost," but who came back completely destroyed and will never be the same?
I'm no pacifist, mind you. In fact, the next time the U.S. is involved in a military campaign I'll be right behind you on the battlefield -- OK?
I am so sick of these neocon shills serving foreign powers.
Section I (Fundamental Principles)
Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation . . . No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.
Section II (Rights and Liberties)
Work is a right for all Iraqis so as to guarantee them a decent living.
The state guarantee to the individual and the family -- especially children and women -- social and health security and the basic requirements for leading a free and dignified life. The state also ensures the above a suitable income and appropriate housing . . . The State guarantees the social and health security to Iraqis in cases of old age, sickness, employment disability, homelessness, orphanage or unemployment, and shall work to protect them from ignorance, fear and poverty. The State shall provide them housing and special programs of care and rehabilitation. This will be organized by law.
. . .
So there you have it, dude. If having the United States send several hundred thousand troops halfway around the world in 1990 to restore a royal family to one throne (Kuwait) and protect a second royal family on another one (Saudi Arabia) didn't convince you of the idiocy of that debacle, then I would hope that having 3,000+ Americans lose their lives for the express purpose of establishing an Islamic state -- and a Marxist one at that -- in the Middle East would do the trick for you.
All you and Bush's compassionate war did was loot the American treasure to the tune of multiple trillions...A decade later, America is in total decline, with the U.S. government eying Americans for even greater punitive control...
Anyone home ether in Floriduh junior?
I really don’t mean to ring your bell so hard, but you seem extra stupid..
History as already absolved Buchanan and other anti-IRQ critics.... we have very little to show for our near 10 yrs in Iraq.
Worse of all...we gave Barack Obama an excuse to continue Us involvement in the Mid East....supporting pro-terrorist regimes
GW Bush lacked the comittment to win wars in the Middle East. His “Islam is a Religion of Peace” mutterings gave comfort to the enemy. Can you imagine the US leaders muttering “The Nazis are a party of peace” during WW II
Someone gets it.
Your not a pacifist? Really? Maybe not at DU your not but I can see right through you. For you everything the USA does is a failure. If you don’t get immediately you want to cut and run, long term plans are out of the question for slow learners like you.
Man, you really are stupid aren’t ya?
Iraq was an absolute catastrophe. And I say that as someone who completely supported W’s effort. I was wrong. The “liberation” of Iraq was not worth one precious drop of American blood. All we accomplished was setting up a Shiite ally for Iran and the near extinction f one if the world’s oldest Christian Churches. Bravo.
Being a California Conservative means knowing how to lose. You accept failure. Victory is a notion so far out of your vocabulary it never crosses your mind. In your land of fruits and nuts you have had to live as a prisoner of war. We here in Florida will give America it’s next great leader and there are plenty more coming. Quit your whining and get out of that hellhole, move to Texas or something. Get back in the fight or go all the way and join the other side, you’re 3/4 of the way there anyway.
Put the bong down and go to bed.
Stop sniffing glue junior.
You are completely wrong. If you thought we were leading a new Crusade to make the Middle east Christian you were sadly mistaken. Just like we had to use the army we had, which had no experience in fighting a modern war but by the end, had mastered it; we had to remake Iraq with the people who were there. Of course, if Iran is allowed to stand with nuclear weapons then there will be no victory, no peace, and that will be a real catastrophe.
Really, I’m sure your trailer, I mean mobile home, has wheels, USE THEM! You and your friends sound like the weekend crew on MSNBC!
Iraq was as much a success as recent adventures in Libya and Egypt - replacing more or less friendly if thuggish dictators with committees of thugs. That’s Democracy in the Middle East for ya!
ya never served one single day in the military did ya junior?
Crap, is this John Kerry?? I respect your service Sen/Sec Kerry and since you are a decorated war hero I guess I should not argue with you. Idiot. You are out of ammo, go away, you’re missing the replay of the Rachel Madcow show. They talk your language.
We went into Iraq on an honest basis. I don’t believe that George Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction that Saddam had. I am amazed that Iraq has turned out half decent and mostly stable, so let us admit some success. But it was not worth all the dead and injured Americans and the trillions spent. Muslims are too crazy to spend a trillion or two on nation building efforts for them.
If we had to go in -— We should have killed Saddam, destroyed his army and killed his Baathist party leaders and left. But none of this nation building bullshit it does not work with crazed Muslims
What we did wrong was nation build.
You are so right.
I’ll give you a pass on this one because you obviously don’t know a thing about me.
In 2003, that same Dick Cheney was the Vice President of the United States, and he telling people that an invasion of Iraq would not be difficult at all. I believe he used the term "cakewalk" in at least one media interview on the subject.
I guess it's not unusual to see men get dumber with age, but not in that age group. I'm still wondering what facts -- if any -- helped changed Mr. Cheney's mind between 1990 and 2003.
How in the hell do you assume from my comments that I expected a new crusade? You’re in over your head here...by ANY objective standard Iraq was a complete disaster.
ynotjjr: Iraq was a great success
Beginning in 2003, the ISG had uncovered remnants of Iraq's 1980s-era WMD programs. On June 21, 2006 Rick Santorum claimed that "we have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons", citing a declassified June 6 letter to Pete Hoekstra saying that since the 2003 invasion, a total of "approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent" had been found scattered throughout the country.
The Washington Post reported that "the U.S. military announced in 2004 in Iraq that several crates of the old shells had been uncovered and that they contained a blister agent that was no longer active." It said the shells "had been buried near the Iranian border, and then long forgotten, by Iraqi troops during their eight-year war with Iran, which ended in 1988." Wikipedia
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.