Take The Offer, End The War

The Iraqi government seems as though it may be about to trump both Republicans and many Democrats when it comes to withdrawing troops from Iraq. From the Times Online:
THE Iraqi Government will announce a sweeping peace plan as early as Sunday in a last-ditch effort to end the Sunni insurgency that has taken the country to the brink of civil war.

The 28-point package for national reconciliation will offer Iraqi resistance groups inclusion in the political process and an amnesty for their prisoners if they renounce violence and lay down their arms, The Times can reveal.

The Government will promise a finite, UN-approved timeline for the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Iraq; a halt to US operations against insurgent strongholds; an end to human rights violations, including those by coalition troops; and compensation for victims of attacks by terrorists or Iraqi and coalition forces.

It will pledge to take action against Shia militias and death squads. It will also offer to review the process of "de-Baathification" and financial compensation for the thousands of Sunnis who were purged from senior jobs in the Armed Forces and Civil Service after the fall of Saddam Hussein.

The deal, which has been seen by The Times, aims to divide Iraqi insurgents from foreign fighters linked to al-Qaeda. It builds on months of secret talks involving Jalal al-Talabani, the Iraqi President, Zalmay Khalilzad, the US Ambassador, and seven Sunni insurgent groups.
Now, correct me if I am wrong, but it appears the Bush administration, which has been blasting the idea of a timeline for withdrawal, has actually been involved in negotiations that will propose a timeline after all (notice the US Ambassador was involved in the talks leading to this plan). Now, when the country welcomes this policy, even though it was first popularized in the United States by Democrats such as Senator Feingold and Senator Kerry, and even though it was supported by more than 80% of rank-and-file democrats, there will be very little means for Democrats as a whole to claim victory for our policy because our congressional leadership as a whole did not embrace it. And so our cautiousness leads to our defeat.

There is certainly no telling whether this deal will actually be accepted by all parties involved or not. In fact, many conservatives in America might feel betrayed by this policy. However, I imagine that any policy that leads to a quick end to the war, no matter what flip-flopping is involved, will be quite popular nationwide. As long as the timeline is sooner rather than later, I hope the Bush administration accepts this plan, and we can all look forward to the end of the war. Kerry, Feingold, Murtha and the Democratic rank and file were right. In short, progressive ideas were right on this one. Too bad more of the Democratic leadership did not listen.



Display:


Re: Take The Offer, End The War (none / 0)

Guess what. This proposal sounds almost exactly what I proposed RIGHT HERE ON MYDD almost a year ago.


by Hesiod Theogeny on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 10:12:59 AM EST

Re: You Know, Hes (none / 0)

You are someone so far ahead of his time, such a futuristic thinker, I don't think the Dems will ever appreciate what you're doing.

Don't take it personally, it's our loss.


by zappatero on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 10:21:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Know, Hes (none / 0)

Assumming you aren't being sarcastic (heh), I do often feel like Cassandra.


by Hesiod Theogeny on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 10:31:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Take The Offer, End The War (none / 0)

Did your plan include the amnesty provision?


by del on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 12:46:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Take The Offer, End The War (none / 0)

More or less. It was kind of implicit in the proposal.


by Hesiod Theogeny on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 03:00:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Take The Offer, End The War (none / 0)

There will be very little means for Democrats as a whole to claim victory for our policy because our congressional leadership as a whole did not embrace it.

You couldn't be more correct. We'll have our high-profile, selfish leaders to thank for playing it so goddamned safe: HRC, Joe-nertia, Barack, Salazar in my state, et al. They were looking to 2008, while we may get smashed - once again - in 2006.

When are they going to figure out what we figured out loooooooong ago?


by zappatero on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 10:18:13 AM EST

Re: Take The Offer, End The War (none / 0)

And they say the Democrats are anti troop! Yet another example of chicken hawks talking the talk but sacrificing our nations best for their own political needs. They won't give amnesty to Mexicans but will free the killers of our troops. This is a disgrace.
And BTW the key to the agreement is a scheduled troop pull out. This is what the Repukes have been negotiating in the background while acting like hawks in the public, this is exactly what happened in Viet Nam.

by fat karl on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 10:50:12 AM EST

Re: Take The Offer, End The War (none / 0)

Oooohhhhh, a timeline! I thought you were saying you wanted a timeline!

No wonder!


by Kagro X on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 10:56:50 AM EST

Re: Take The Offer, End The War (none / 0)

I'm not optimistic about ANY 28-point plan.

That said, I dont see anything indictating democrats were right on the timeline just because Bush is pushing one privately. Bush says "as the iraqis stand up, we will stand down." and here the iraqis appear to be stepping up.

the white house is pushing this so it can take on Iran and win midterms (pushing "stay the course" with an ace up their sleeve to show they were right, blah blah blah), whether iraq is ready or not. thats wrong, yes, but it'd be a political win for bush and its consistent with his slogan, so good for him.

the thing is, once they do pull out, iraq will inevitably reignite and descend into a new civil war again.... and show how pointless the deaths of all those americans were. So it would help bush in the midterms, but its still a long term problem for the GOP when our efforts prove their futility.

more likely though, is a rejection of this 28 point plan. so dont fret just yet about bush winning in 2006 on this issue.


by AaronE on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 11:10:47 AM EST

Re: Take The Offer, End The War (none / 0)

The insurgents set up their own road blocks in Baghdad yesterday.  I think they have the green zone surrounded and access to and from under control.  What does that say?  But of course, a new milestone, the Iraqi's are doing their own policing now.  See.  Mission accompolished.  Bring the ones still alive and in one piece home now.  They don't need them over there any more.  Let phase 5 begin immediately, "praise and honors for the non participants."


Bill1935
by Bill1935 on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 11:10:53 AM EST

Re: Take The Offer, End The War (none / 0)

Please cross post this on Daily Kos. This is big news and deserves to be the focus of a broad discussion.


"Nothing seems to embarrass the political class today." - Bill Moyers
by joejoejoe on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 11:28:19 AM EST

Re: Take The Offer, End The War (none / 0)

Pardoning insurgents who killed Americans seems to piss some people off.  What about pardoning Americans who killed women and children?  The only thing that will work in the long run seems to be what they did in South Africa, truth commissions. Everyone tells the truth about what they did to the people they did it to and we all forgive each other.  Or we could go back to the killing stuff.  "Forgive your enemies." where did I read that?


Everybody eats, nobody hits and there is no third rule.
by upperleftedge on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 12:09:23 PM EST

What About The Constitution? (none / 0)

My understanding has been that one of the things driving the insurgency is that the Sunni areas really have been given the shaft under the Consitution.  Under the Constitution approved last summer, the Kurds are going to be able to group into an autonomous region around the oil rich north and the Shia are going to create a huge block in the oil rich south, leaving the Sunni areas sand plus alot of poor people.  I dont think the Sunni's will say yest to any agreement unless this is altered.  


Andy Katz
by Andy Katz on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 12:24:12 PM EST

Re: Take The Offer, End The War (none / 0)

The Bushies are involved in this "plan", and we know that everything they do is first-and-foremost political, in order to maintain power. If anything, what we can expect is an over-hyped fake peace plan and an over-hyped partial withdrawal. The beginnings of this fake progress in Iraq would be just in time for our mid-term election, and at that point it will be all hype and talk but possibly enough to maintain Repub power. In the long run I think the Repugs would actually be happy to accept such a plan, but it would
involve a few amendments, ahem... such as redeploying to the permanent bases in Iraq, Iraqis maintaining a semblance of order at US behest, and a nice neo-con power base in the Middle East with minimal US casualties and relying primarily on air power. Lucy is going to pull that football away again, Charlie Brown.
by DeanOR on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 02:38:14 PM EST

The thing is, (none / 0)

it's not our offer to take or refuse. Iraq is technically sovereign . . . We've recognized a legitimate government there and so has the UN, and we've got no quarrel with that government (heck, we set it up).

As such, it doesn't matter what we think of this deal. If conservatives feel betrayed by it, they can piss and moan all they want, it doesn't make a lick of difference. Unless we decide to target Iraq for regime change (again), we're there at their invitation, and our forces are expected to abide by their decisions.

And that's what this boils down to: Despite the calls from all sides to articulate a strategy for victory in Iraq, the administration has stubbornly refused to do so. And now the Iraqi government is backing a cut and run policy which is apparently more severe than the Kerry-Feingold Amendment.

They're "inviting" us to GtFO so they can try to fix things. You couldn't ask for a more ringing endorsement of the Murtha position.


Yeah, I'm cynical.
by catastrophile on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 05:27:19 PM EST

Re: The thing is, (none / 0)

"Despite the calls from all sides to articulate a strategy for victory in Iraq, the administration has stubbornly refused to do so."

Bogus - they've said clearly for a very long time that the measure of victory in Iraq is a permanent, elected government able to defend itself.  That is exactly the course that this sometimes messy situation has taken.


by Sleepless in Seattle on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 05:47:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

A goal is not a strategy. (none / 0)

More to the point, this plan being pushed now is pretty much what the Reep propagandists warned would happen if Kerry won in 2004. It's basically an acknowledgement that our presence as presently constituted is an obstacle to peace and stability.


Yeah, I'm cynical.
by catastrophile on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 06:02:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A goal is not a strategy. (none / 0)

What part of 'defend itself' is not measureable, attainable and strategic by ordinary extrapolation?

"It's basically an acknowledgement that our presence as presently constituted is an obstacle to peace and stability."

No, it isn't - it's a signal of progress in Iraq.  The Iraqis are taking charge of their own security...they are wishing, as are all Americans of goodwill, for a drawdown of MNF in Iraq.  Without 'our presence as presently constituted' Iraq would be under Saddam, etc, etc..there would be absolutely no freedom nor peace there...

Read Mayada, Daughter of Iraq for more about how things were under Saddam if you doubt that comment.


by Sleepless in Seattle on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 07:26:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A goal is not a strategy. (none / 0)

"What part of 'defend itself' is not measureable, attainable and strategic by ordinary extrapolation?"

Let me try this again. A goal -- such as "an Iraqi government capable of standing on its own" is not a strategy -- as in "a course from here to there".

"Without 'our presence as presently constituted' Iraq would be under Saddam, etc, etc..there would be absolutely no freedom nor peace there..."

Saddam has been out of power for quite some time now, etc, etc . . . perhaps you should go look up the word "presently" (as well as "strategy") before attempting their further use.

There was a big difference between the usefulness of military force in removing the Saddam regime -- that part was a cakewalk -- and in pacification of a hostile population, which is what the administration has been using our troops for ever since, hence, the presently constituted part.

We had no business rewriting the political and economic laws of an occupied nation and imposing a constitution on them -- there's a reason that kind of behavior is considered illegitimate.


Yeah, I'm cynical.
by catastrophile on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 07:35:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A goal is not a strategy. (none / 0)

"Let me try this again."
Try what again - some little lecture?  Goals and strategies are inter-related.  The MNF and the popularly elected Iraqi government have had both and I've mentioned the 'goal' of an Iraqi government being able to defend and sustain itself.  The strategy, in part has been to not define the exact time table from A to B - since you seem to be into simplism - but to keep the terrorists and Saddamists off balance and demoralized to understand that we're going to stand by the Iraqis for 'as long as it takes.'  That in itself - to demoralize and outlast the insurgents - is now paying extreme dividends and al-Maliki and crew are moving forward decisively.

So what would have been your strategy to a 'safer' world, since it's part of your mantra?  Has it been messy and difficult - absolutely.  Bringing people back from a totalitarian society is no easy chore.  Making the world a safer place after the mass murders of 9/11 is no easy chore.
====

"We had no business rewriting the political and economic laws of an occupied nation and imposing a constitution on them -- there's a reason that kind of behavior is considered illegitimate."

'an occupied nation' - don't you mean a nation that had been hijacked by a mass murdering, rapist Saddam?  You forgot about the 16 Chapter 7 (the worst kind) UNSCResolutions levied against Iraq under Saddam, et al.  No, that's not important for you to review, just the 'illegitimacy' of what the MNF did there to ultimately free Iraq for all posterity.  As I implied before, if you were in charge they and the ME, and the world would have suffered under this despotism and totalitarianism for untold generations...and you would have done NOTHING?


by Sleepless in Seattle on Thu Jun 29, 2006 at 07:33:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A goal is not a strategy. (none / 0)

"imposing a constitution on them"

Oh yeah, that consititution that 10 1/2 million Iraqis approved - you mean that 'imposed' constitution, right?
by Sleepless in Seattle on Thu Jun 29, 2006 at 07:38:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Take The Offer, End The War (none / 0)

"Kerry, Feingold, Murtha and the Democratic rank and file were right. In short, progressive ideas were right on this one. Too bad more of the Democratic leadership did not listen."
=======

This assumes that progressives wanted to fight this war to begin with - which they clearly did not, by and large.  If the progressive ideas had prevailed Saddam would be in power today, pushing against sanctions and ready to reactivate chem and bio weapons when possible and to whatever extent needed, and ready also to continue his documented and nefarious associations with Islamic radicals throughout the region - in short a rogue state sitting atop billions of dollars of oil that the UN proved could corrupt important people, agencies and companies.

No, instead progressives have screamed and yelled and protested the very actions that resulted in Saddam the mass murderer being removed and replaced by a democratically elected permanent government with a constitution in Iraq.  That is the truth about where progressives ideas really stood.  Progressive ideas on this one were not right, and thankfully, they did not prevail.


by Sleepless in Seattle on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 05:45:12 PM EST

So many false assumptions (none / 0)

it's hard to decide where to start. The conclusion of our very own Iraq Survey Group was that Iraq was disarmed. There's not a shred of evidence that Iraq had any desire to reactivate its weapons programs once it became clear that the US government would no longer provide political cover for Saddam's crimes. It's amazing how much we can accomplish simply by withdrawing our support.

That link also tells you all you need to know about why roughly half of the Swamp Dems were unwilling to give this administration a free hand to "liberate" Iraq, assuming all the misrepresentations about WMDs and links to terrorism weren't enough.

And, in point of fact, the administration's policies in Iraq have changed time and time again -- they simply refuse to acknowledge the fact, and pretend the final result is what they were going for the whole time. Now the Iraqis are deciding they'd rather have peace with those the administration calls terrorists than more of what the administration calls liberation. In the meantime, a whole new generation of Iraqi children are learning to hate America. And, of course, it remains to be seen whether this new government will be able to rise above the sectarian fighting and militia infiltration, or simply fall back into the same sort of strongarm tactics that made Saddam's Iraq so peaceful and stable.

And while this goes on, the same people who were just screaming and yelling and protesting anybody who suggested it was time to talk withdrawal, are undoubtedly going to praise this, yet again, as what they were going for all along.


Yeah, I'm cynical.
by catastrophile on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 06:18:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So many false assumptions (none / 0)

"There's not a shred of evidence that Iraq had any desire to reactivate its weapons programs"
========    

* In early 2004, Dutch officials discovered five pounds of yellowcake uranium ore in scrap metal imported from Iraq.
    * In subsequent months, the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) found parts of banned al-Samoud 2 (SA2) missiles shipped around the world as "scrap."
    * In April 2004, Jordanian officials seize 20 tons of WMDs from al-Qaeda containing 70 different chemical agents, including Sarin and VX gas. King Abdullah announced on April 17 the stockpiles originated in Iraq. If detonated as planned, they would have killed at least 80,000 people.
    * The following month, Saddam loyalists fired a "chemical binary projectile" filled with Sarin gas at U.S. troops in Iraq.
    * In early 2006, Gen. Georges Sada, the number two man in the Iraqi air force, told American media outlets that Saddam Hussein buried some WMDs in concrete underground bunkers in Iraq; others he shipped or airlifted to Syria with Russian assistance.

"Reading from a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, Santorum said: "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist...Hoekstra and Santorum lamented that Americans were given the impression after a 16-month search conducted by the Iraq Survey Group that the evidence of continuing research and development of weapons of mass destruction was insignificant. But the National Ground Intelligence Center took up where the ISG left off when it completed its report in November 2004, and in the process of collecting intelligence for the purpose of force protection for soldiers and sailors still on the ground in Iraq, has shown that the weapons inspections were incomplete, they and others have said."
======

Yeah, not even a shred man!  Tis a shame you trust Saddam more than governments in the free world..I am not saying that the US has been perfect in its approach to Iraq - however, I will not impugn them carte blance either and it's foolish to think that Saddam, who desired Pan Arabic Nationalism - wouldn't have reasserted himself onto the scene - given the chance.  

He most certainly would have!  All the evidence pointed to that megalomania.

======

"assuming all the misrepresentations about WMDs and links to terrorism weren't enough."

You're kidding right?  You do know about the $25,000 per suicide bomber Saddam provided to those blowing up Israeli civilians - just 'collateral damage', I suppose?  Or what about the long and littered litany of his connections with al Qaeda and AQ figures?  I have a 400 point time line that stretches back to 1990 - would you like to see it?  Or do you deny that such a connection existed because it's convenient to do so?


by Sleepless in Seattle on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 07:40:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm not taking (none / 0)

Saddam's word for anything, but thanks for the gratuitous smear.

And a bunch of degraded buried chemical shells from the Iran-Iraq war aren't proof of an ongoing program or future intent, no matter how furiously the Reep apologists spin it. They can polish that turd all they want, it's not gonna shine.

You're now going to cite things found in 2004 -- things that almost certainly left the country after Saddam was toppled, since we were "carefully monitoring all suspect sites" for several months before we went in, though we wouldn't tell the UN inspectors where they were I guess -- as evidence of Saddam's intent? Because I suppose anything that took place during the chaos after the regime fell is part of his master plan, right?

"All the evidence pointed to that megalomania."

There's a difference between megalomania and sheer insanity. If Saddam was as nutty as you seem to think, he would have been a lot easier to take out without resorting to invasion.

"Or what about the long and littered litany of his connections with al Qaeda and AQ figures? I have a 400 point time line that stretches back to 1990 - would you like to see it?"

The long and tired litany doesn't seem to add up to much. Do any of your 400 points indicate operational cooperation, or are they all on the order of "Zarqawi set up a camp in the effectively-lawless northern no-fly zone"?

At the end of the day, all of your apologia is irrelevant. Yeah, Saddam was bad. He was bad when he was gassing his people, and he was bad after we stopped backing him as well. But these swindlers in the administration don't get a free pass, because their history tells us they can't be trusted either -- and what do you know, their handling of the occupation and reconstruction has been so fubar that whatever credit we might have earned by toppling a tyrant has been swallowed whole. "Freedom" is the boogeyman that Iraqi parents use to scare their children.

You can write it off to mere incompetence if it makes you feel better, but this is the same bull$#!+ we see every time these same people decide to inflate a threat and invade a nation. Economic restructuring. Total privatization. Throwing open the doors to unrestricted US investment, which is like dropping a shark into a fishtank. Permanent military presence. This is what the invasion was about, not some perceived threat posed by a tinpot tyrant.


Yeah, I'm cynical.
by catastrophile on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 08:30:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Incidentally, (none / 0)

if you do feel the urge to show me anything as lengthy as a 400-point timeline, I suggest you either make it a diary here or click on my name below and send it to the e-mail address listed there, rather than flood the comments here. No salesman will call.


Yeah, I'm cynical.
by catastrophile on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 10:14:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Take The Offer, End The War (none / 0)

"a bunch of degraded buried chemical shells from the Iran-Iraq war aren't proof of an ongoing program or future intent"

Sure sarin gas that can be reconstituted in minutes and one drop of which can kill an adult, can't be bothered with by you?  Nor the Jordanian officials estimates that these measly degraded WMDs would have killed 80,000 if the attacks had been carried out...no big deal, huh?  And you dare to ask the question in your mantra 'are we safer yet?'  Well, you answer your own question - if you or your ilk are in charge what's your grand plan - thank God we don't have to find out..

By the way does the fact that Iraq used WMDs at least 8 times indicate a willingness to use WMDs and future intent?  Please!  AQ and other groups have shown a willingness to wait long periods of time (1993 to 2001 ring any bells for ya?) before striking again...but you want to write all of this off as some sort of Reep ploy...step back into reality man - Sarin and Anthrax and other weapons like this will kill tons of innocent people - what are you going to do about it?  Apparently NADA.  Or if you have a plan - bring it forth now or quit complaining.

"every time these same people decide to inflate a threat and invade a nation."

What exactly are you referring to by this statement?


by Sleepless in Seattle on Thu Jun 29, 2006 at 07:51:01 PM EST

Re: Take The Offer, End The War (none / 0)

catastrophile:
"a bunch of degraded buried chemical shells from the Iran-Iraq war aren't proof of an ongoing program or future intent"
=========

http://www.dod.mil/news/Jun2006/20060629 _5547.html

WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 - The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.

"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.

======

Sorry Charlie - Sarin gas is EXTREMELY lethal even in degraded forms...


by Sleepless in Seattle on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 03:02:05 PM EST

You sound pretty angry. (none / 0)

Take a deep breath.

Sarin gas can be very lethal even in degraded forms, but David Kay seems pretty sure that 15-year-old sarin wouldn't even be worth the effort of digging up and smuggling away. Easier to cook up something new.

You seem unable to distinguish between toppling Saddam and imposing a US-created legal system on an occupied nation. Or maybe you're just unwilling to address the latter, so you have to keep going back to the former. So, on the topic of how bad a guy Saddam was, why don't you read this and let me know why, absent any acknowledgement by folks like Rummy of their complicity, exactly I'm supposed to trust their intentions in Iraq. (I've blogged it here.)

"By the way does the fact that Iraq used WMDs at least 8 times indicate a willingness to use WMDs and future intent?"

It indicates that Saddam thought he could get away with it, as the US Army War College article linked above demonstrates in terms much starker than the wildest liberal claims. So far, every Bush-backer I've pointed at that article has failed to offer an answer to my question.

"Oh yeah, that consititution that 10 1/2 million Iraqis approved - you mean that 'imposed' constitution, right?"

The one the DoD hired an American law prof to write.

That the CPA set an impossibly high bar to amend.

That the administration put a good deal public pressure on the Iraqi assembly to approve.

And that was then billed to the people of Iraq as the best way to get rid of the Americans.

Yeah, that one.

Jay Garner wanted to hold elections within 90 days then let the elected representatives draft a constitution for their own country. He was canned and replaced with somebody who did it the other way around. Why do you suppose that happened?

How long was it between the fall of Saddam and the beginning of the attacks?

(Hopefully, that gives you a better idea of how I would have handled Iraq. Step one: Don't put people who gave tacit support to Saddam's crimes in charge of "liberating" his victims . . .)

"'every time these same people decide to inflate a threat and invade a nation.' What exactly are you referring to by this statement?"

History. Look into it.

Then, from your DoD link: "I do believe the former regime did a very poor job of accountability of munitions, and certainly did not document the destruction of munitions," he said.

That's a far cry from intent to use. Sounds like he's saying the regime probably didn't even know what was and wasn't destroyed. For Pete's sake, with all the months of notice they had that we were coming in, they never got around to deploying or destroying the stuff.

Some chemical shells stashed here and there during the Iran-Iraq war, this is your "proof."

This is what you use to justify all this -- the notion that if al-Qaeda had managed to locate and dig up all these shells spread across the country, smuggle them across Lord-knows-how-many borders, repackage them into something useful without killing themselves in the process, and then deploy them all for maximum effectiveness without being detected and stopped -- they could potentially have killed as many as 80,000 people. (Assuming the stuff was any good -- there's a long way between toxic and serious damage. Mercury is toxic, but that doesn't keep them from filling teeth with it.)

Hey, guess what . . . I can make the same case about the WMD program they found at the bottom of that lake in Maryland. Shall we invade ourselves next?


Yeah, I'm cynical.
by catastrophile on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 05:46:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.