As I was flying into Minneapolis last week, the lady sitting next to me mentioned that while people often drive five miles over the speed limit in the northwest, they commonly drive 10-15 over the limit in Minneapolis. Not having driven in Minneapolis, I couldn’t vouch for the validity of her statement, but I’ll accept it at face value. But either situation is an example of pushing at a declared boundary.

In Washington state, the highway speed limits are typically 60 or 70 miles an hour. I know from past experience that the flow of traffic often clicks along above this speed, and the police do nothing to stop it. 65 and 75 have become the new boundaries for highway speed. If the Washington state troopers announced that they wouldn’t stop anyone doing 10 miles an hour over the speed limit or less, the new boundaries would become 70 and 80 miles an hour.

It’s not surprising that people often test and push at the boundaries placed on us. Anyone who has raised a child knows that they push at every boundary paced on them. They don’t do it to be bad, but because it is human nature to want to know our limits. And speaking of limits, President Obama will announce today a limit on the use of our nuclear weapons.

President Obama will today announce that he is to dramatically narrow the conditions under which the United States will use nuclear weapons, even for self-defence.

In an interview with The New York Times ahead of the unveiling of his much anticipated revamped nuclear policy, Mr Obama said an exception would be made for “outliers like Iran and North Korea” that have violated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

But in a striking departure from the position taken by his predecessors, he said that the US would explicitly commit for the first time to not using nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states that adhere to the nuclear treaty, even if they attack with biological or chemical weapons.

What is the blindingly obvious response to this by terrorists and rogue states, including Iran and North Korea? If you say that they will test these new boundaries, you understand basic human nature. If they don’t already have plans in place for developing and deploying chemical and biological weapons against the U.S., they will be as soon as they read the news.

Terrorists and rogue states are anti-social children with rage issues, so of course they will push at any boundary given them. Since President Obama has two little girls of his own, I’m surprised that he doesn’t understand this aspect of human nature already.

UPDATE (4/9/2010 6:43:19 AM): And once again Michael Ramirez nails it:

Beware of Dog...   No more.

Iran has been working on nuclear power for years now, but they tell us it is just for peaceful purposes like generating power. Never mind that they are sitting on a lake of oil. And never mind that Iran has lied and admitted to their lies about their nuclear plans before.

But this news article will really make people sit up and notice. Oh, but who am I trying to kid? This will slip past unnoticed by most people.

Iran has met a key demand of the U.N. nuclear agency by delivering blueprints that show how to mold uranium metal into the shape of warheads, diplomats said Tuesday, in an apparent concession meant to stave off the threat of new U.N. sanctions.

But the diplomats said Tehran has failed to meet other requests made by the International Atomic Energy Agency in its attempts to end nearly two decades of nuclear secrecy on the part of the Islamic Republic. [emphasis mine - CM]

Did you catch that? Iran’s “peaceful” nuclear program included blueprints for making nuclear warheads. Who wants to bet that those blueprints were Iran’s only copies of the plans? *cricket chirp* Yeah, I didn’t think I’d get any takers on that.

Thanks to Little Green Footballs for pointing out this story. I’m sure you won’t hear about it on the nightly news programs.

If you ever get in a debate argument with a liberal about WMDs at the level of “Bush Lied, people died,” there is a simple question to ask them:

If the U.S. military were to find deadly WMDs in Iraq with a note attached saying “To America with love” and signed by Saddam Hussein, would you support the war in Iraq to remove him?

If you get an answer of NO like I have, stop the conversation right there. There is absolutely no reason to discuss Iraqi WMDs when the presence of WMDs doesn’t matter to the liberal.

If the answer is YES, then you have two options: point out the WMDs that have been found in Iraq, or point out how the entire world, including the Democratic party leaders, were worried about WMDs in the hands of Saddam Hussein. Here is a video put together by the GOP about Democrats and using their own words against them. I bring this up because people are quick to forget what others say unless they are reminded.

Thanks to Instapundit for linking to the video in the first place.

It’s 6:40pm PDT as I start to type this. And there is news being reported that should be 72 point font in size and above the fold, if people actually read newspapers any more. Let’s take a look at the cover web pages of the major news outlets. Here are screenshots taken seconds ago of ABC News (266k), MSNBC News (254k), CBS News (342k), and CNN (271k). None of them feature the key international news story reported today. But here is the front page of Fox News (355k). The news story in question is right there in the top left corner, just under the Fox News logo.

Report: WMDs Found in Iraq

Here are the first three paragraphs of the news story on Fox News.

The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003, and more weapons of mass destruction are likely to be uncovered, two Republican lawmakers said Wednesday.

“We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons,” Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said in a quickly called press conference late Wednesday afternoon.

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.”

That’s 500 weapons of mass destruction, boys and girls. But it’s not press-stopping headline news to ABC, NBC, CBS or CNN. I believe they are not all over this report and trumpeting it to the world because it validates the Bush administration’s decision to wage war in Iraq, and that has to be a bitter pill for the liberals in the mainstream media. I guess they will eventually find their “happy place” and publish the news on the front page, but not before giving it their own spin.

Want to see the liberal spin on this news? Here’s the first three paragraphs of the story as written by Liz Sidoti and published buried on the ABC News website.

Less than five months before congressional elections, Republicans and Democrats maneuvered for political advantage Wednesday as the Senate debated the Iraq war and the future of 127,000 U.S. troops in the war zone.

“Drawdowns must be based on conditions in country, not an arbitrary deadline rooted in our domestic politics,” Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said, deriding Democratic calls for redeployments.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., countered by saying, “It is time to choose what is more important, a strategy to win in Iraq or a strategy for Republicans to win elections here at home.” She accused Republicans in charge of Congress of “blindly following” President Bush.

Not until the eleventh paragraph does one get the news about WMDs announced by Sen. Santorum and Rep. Hoekstra.

Santorum and Hoekstra released a newly declassified military intelligence report that said coalition forces have found 500 munitions in Iraq that contained degraded sarin or mustard nerve agents, produced before the 1991 Gulf War.

Here’s my liberal media impression as borne out by the media itself: “WMDs in Iraq? Ho-hum. *yawn* Next topic.”

It’s now 7:24, and I’m going back to my dinner that was interrupted by this post. Oh, and the four news outlets still haven’t put this news story on their front pages.

I should be packing right now, but since the wife is asleep from her late night Disneyland trip with Little Miss V (also snoring), I am revelling in my unchallenged access to the laptop. I was reading over some news items and catching back up with the world, since Disneyland is far from being connected to the world. And I saw a link from Little Green Footballs to a new article by Victor Davis Hanson titled “Betting on Defeat?”. You should read the whole thing, but here are several excerpts that I liked:

First, those who undergo the opportune conversion often fall prey to disingenuousness. Take John Kerry’s recent repudiation of his earlier vote for the war in Iraq. To cheers of Democratic activists, he now laments, “We were misled.”

Misled?

Putting aside the question of weapons of mass destruction and the use of the royal “we,” was the senator suggesting that Iraq did not violate the 1991 armistice accords?

Or that Saddam Hussein did not really gas and murder his own people?

Perhaps he was “misled” into thinking Iraqi agents did not really plan to murder former President George Bush?

Or postfacto have we learned that Saddam did not really shield terrorists?

Apparently the Iraqi regime neither violated U.N. accords nor shot at American planes in the no-fly zones.

Senator Kerry, at least if I remember correctly, voted for the joint congressional resolution of October 11, 2002, authorizing a war against Iraq, on the basis of all these and several other causus belli, well apart from fear of WMDs.

… there is a fine line to be drawn between legitimate criticism of a war that is supposedly not worth American blood and treasure, and general slander of the United States and its military. Yet much of the Left’s rhetoric was not merely anti-Bush, but in its pessimism devolved into de facto anti-Americanism.

Senator Durbin compared Guantanamo Bay to the worst excesses of the Nazis. Senator Kennedy suggested that Abu Ghraib, where thousands perished under Saddam Hussein, had simply “reopened under new management: U.S. management.” Democratic-party chairman Howard Dean confidently asserted that the Iraq war was not winnable. John Kerry in his youth alleged that Americans were like Genghis Khan in their savagery; in his golden years, he once again insists that we are “terrorizing” Iraqi civilians. With friends like these, what war critic needs enemies? Americans can take disapproval that we are not fighting “smart,” but they resent the notion that we are somehow downright evil.

… the old twin charges — no link between al Qaeda and Saddam, no WMDs — are also becoming largely irrelevant or proving untrue. It must have been difficult for Time, Newsweek, and the New York Times, in their coverage of the death of Zarqawi, to admit that he had been active in Iraq well before the end of Saddam Hussein, along with a mishmash of old killers from Abu Nidal to Abdul Rahman Yasin, the Iraqi American who helped plan the first World Trade Center bombing.

In addition, most abroad were convinced before the war that the CIA was right in its pre-war assessments. The publication of the Iraqi archives points to a real, not a phantom and former, WMD capability — in line with efforts elsewhere in the Islamic world, from Iran to Libya, to reclaim something akin to the old Soviet deterrent.

Again, read the whole thing. I’m off to pack.

Little Green Footballs linked to a post by Melanie Phillips about a meeting she had with General Georges Sada, a former Air Vice Marshal in Iraq under Saddam. He has written a book about his experience titled “Saddam’s Secrets: How an Iraqi General Defied And Survived Saddam Hussein.” In this book he outlines what he knows about the weapons of mass destructin in Iraq.

Everyone in the international arms community knew that Saddam had them and that he was spending like a sailor to buy more…The point is that when Saddam finally grasped the fact that it was just a matter of time until Iraq would be invaded by American and coalition forces, he knew he would have to take special measures to destroy, hide or at least disguise his stashes of biological and chemical weapons, along with the laboratories, equipment and plans associated with nuclear weapons development…

I have written about Iraq’s WMD program here and here, among others. Phillips continues about the meeting with General Sada.

He has listened to the tapes that recently surfaced of Saddam’s discussions with his top brass about the problems being caused by the UN weapons inspectors. He says the translations that have so far been made of these tapes are inadequate because the translators, who are of course Arabic speakers, do not however speak Tikriti Arabic, the dialect in which these discussions were conducted. Sada does speak Tikriti. He has translated a crucial three and a half minutes of these tapes, he says, in which Saddam and his generals are discussing how to outwit the UN inspectors; in which they say that the problem of the chemical weapons is solved but the biological are still causing a problem; that this problem will probably be solved with the help of the Russians and the French; and in which Saddam says: ‘In the future the terrorism will be with WMD’.

For those people who love to claim “Bush lied – people died” about the charge of Iraqi WMDs, nothing will be sufficient proof to them that Iraq had WMDs. Not even the chilling comment by Saddam’s son-in-law, Hussein Kamel, talking about how Iraq fooled the U.N. inspectors as caught on tape talking to Saddam:

“We did not reveal all that we have,” he says. “Not the type of weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct.”

I don’t believe these WMD deniers will ever believe that Saddam had WMDs until there is smoking gun proof. But the problem with a smoking gun is that you don’t find it until after it has gone off. Here are the final three paragraphs from Phillips’ account with a link added by me.

In April 2004, a group of al Qaeda terrorists was caught in Jordan with 20 tons of Sarin gas. When Sada heard of this, he says, his blood ran cold. There was only one place which was capable of producing 20 tons of Sarin: Saddam’s Iraq. To his horror, he says, he realized at that moment that Saddam’s WMD had got into the hands of al Qaeda.

Earlier this year, Sada was interrogated about his claims by the American House Intelligence committee, to whom he gave the names of the Iraqi pilots. Subsequently, he says, the Committee went to Iraq and spoke to the pilots. The result, he says, is that a major American investigative and diplomatic effort is now under way to finally locate the missing WMD.

But in Britain, I say, people now firmly believe that there were no WMD and that we were taken to war on a lie. Sada looks utterly flabbergasted. ‘How can they possibly think that?’ he asks in bewilderment and anger, and puts his head in his hands.

If you listen to the mass media pound the drum of “no WMDs,” then you know exactly how people could think that.

Investors Business Daily ran a very interesting article on February 24th, 2006, but I’m sure you’ve heard all about it on the nightly news for days now, right? Oh, who am I kidding? The liberal news shows have no desire to air any information that would show that President Bush was right to stop Saddam Hussein and his WMDs. This article, and the underlying information it brings us, is news, but not anything you’d expect to hear in the mainstream press anytime soon.

So, on with the article.

Yes, the linchpin of opposition to the Iraq War — never really strong to begin with — has taken some real hits in recent weeks. And Bush lied — the anti-war mantra about the president, Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction — looks the most battered.

Inconveniently for critics of the war, Saddam made tapes in his version of the Oval Office. These tapes landed in the hands of American intelligence and were recently aired publicly.

The first 12 hours of the tapes — there are hundreds more waiting to be translated — are damning, to say the least. They show conclusively that Bush didn’t lie when he cited Saddam’s WMD plans as one of the big reasons for taking the dictator out.

Unless you believe that Saddam and others spent hours faking up tapes just to vindicate President Bush, this is a major news story. And these tapes show that Saddam was active in procuring and using WMDs after Operation Desert Storm kicked him out of Kuwait in 1991. Here is a comment by Saddam’s son-in-law, Hussein Kamel, talking about how Iraq fooled the U.N. inspectors:

We did not reveal all that we have, he says. Not the type of weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct.

Boy, sure sounds like the International Atomic Energy Agency and Mohamed ElBaradei were effective in stopping Iraq. But nothing will make liberals stand up and clap like a failure, and so both the IAEA and ElBaradei were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. See also President Carter getting the Nobel Peace Prize for drafting the Agreed Framework with North Korea (among other acts) only to have North Korea announce five days later that it never lived by the Agreed Framework.

But I guess it’s the intent that counts with liberals.

OK, so I’m getting off the topic at hand. Two parts of Hussein Kamel’s comment really jumped out at me. The first was not the volume of the materials we imported. Imported? Imported from where? The article doesn’t say, but based solely on the three nations who were most vocal against taking down Saddam, I would hazard a guess at France, Germany, and Russia. The second phrase that jumped out at me and chilled me to the bone was not the volume of use. We know Iraq used WMDs on the Iraqi city of Halabja and against Iran, but what else don’t we know? What exactly was the volume of chemical and biological weapons used by Iraq?

And don’t think that Saddam didn’t have his finger in nuclear plans. I wrote back in May 2004 about 408 Iraqi scientists working on a nuclear bomb in Libya. More from the IBD article:

Indeed, as late as 2000, Saddam can be heard in his office talking with Iraqi scientists about his ongoing plans to build a nuclear device. At one point, he discusses Iraq’s plasma uranium program — something that was missed entirely by U.N. weapons inspectors combing Iraq for WMD.

The more I find out about what Iraq, North Korea and Libya have done to hide their WMD works, the more I see the IAEA as the U.N. equivalent of the Keystone Cops. If you gave them a map, Sherpas, and the use of both hands, I doubt the IAEA inspectors could find their own butts.

So if Saddam had WMDs, where are they now? It’s a fair question. Multiple people have come forward to say that Saddam moved them out of Iraq.

The short answer to the question of where the WMD Saddam bought from the Russians went was that they went to Syria and Lebanon, said John Shaw, former deputy undersecretary of defense, in comments made at an intelligence summit Feb. 17-20 in Arlington, Va.

They were moved by Russian Spetsnaz (special ops) units out of uniform that were specifically sent to Iraq to move the weaponry and eradicate any evidence of its existence, he said.

Thanks to the very long ramp-up it took to get the U.S. Legislature and the U.N. behind taking Saddam down, Saddam had plenty of time to move any incriminating evidence out of the country. If I had many months to hide metric tons of materials in a area the size of California, or I could smuggle some of it into neighboring Nevada, how easy do you think it would be to find my stashes without assistance? But this news will not convince the liberals who chant Bush lied — People died at candlelight vigils that Iraq was indeed a threat and certainly did have WMD plans and programs. At this point, I don’t think videos of Saddam digging up WMDs in Iraq with his own two hands would convince the Left.

Read the whole article. And if you are still interested, here are some previous articles I’ve written about WMDs.

Weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) are in the news again. If you believe the subject of WMDs is a dead horse that doesn’t need to be flogged any more, then I suggest you read some things in a lighter vein. But for the two of you who plan on reading this, break out your whips. This here dead horse is getting a good whuppin’!

On March 31st, 2005, the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction issued a report to President Bush saying that the intelligence agencies were “dead wrong” about Iraq and WMDs and that “this was a major intelligence failure.” Aha! This is vindication for all those people who said we were wrong to go into Iraq, right? Wrong. Mike Talley expressed his opinion that we had reasons to go into Iraq other than WMDs. Talley wrote “Oh Crap, My Intelligence Sucks!” just before the Iraqi elections:

I believe that the Iraq war was the right thing to do for the following reasons: the perceived threat of Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD’s), Saddam’s willingness to work/fund terrorism, the oppression of the Iraqi people, the hope that a democratic Iraq would help change the region and the eroding support for continuing sanctions. I also believe that the world is a better place and that the Iraqi people are better off with Saddam out of power and in prison.

WMDs were never the reason put forward by President Bush for removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq; they were merely a reason. But because the idea of an Iraqi nuke going off in New York or some chemical or biological attack at the Super Bowl was so easy to grasp, the press pushed the idea of WMDs as the single best reason to remove Hussein from Iraq. WMDs became such a good reason to invade Iraq because everyone could agree on it. Let me say that again: everyone agreed that Saddam Hussein had plans for WMDs.

My brother, who is in a position to follow and understand numerous governmental issues, doesn’t like the fact that we invaded Iraq and removed Hussein because we haven’t yet found any WMDs there. In his eyes, President Bush is an idiot. Well, if Bush is such an idiot for believing the findings of U.S. intelligence agencies, then so are all the other leaders of the world, who likewise were being told by their intelligence agencies about Hussein’s plans for WMDs. Years before President Bush was elected, President Clinton used Hussein’s WMDs as a reason to go before Congress and ask for authorization to enforce the U.N. resolutions passed after Hussein’s defeat in 1991.

So it seems the U.S. intelligence was mistaken, and Hussein didn’t have any WMDs when we invaded. Talley agrees with others that Hussein may not have had WMDs since 1991, but no one on his staff was willing to tell Mr. H that his beloved WMDs were gone. “It seems his scientists and weapons manufacturers feared telling Saddam that they no longer had the capability to produce WMD’s. After all, if you spill the beans that you can no longer do your job, well then, your position is no longer needed,” wrote Talley. Let’s assume for the nonce that Talley is correct, and Hussein was WMD-less when we booted him out of power in 2003. Does that change the need to remove him from power? I say no. Let’s go over the reasoning:

  • Hussein had WMDs.
  • Hussein used WMDs. Truckloads of dead Kurds and Iranians, some caught on videotape, attest to this fact.
  • Hussein wanted more WMDs.
  • Hussein couldn’t be allowed to get more WMDs.

Steven Den Beste wrote extensively about the need to remove Hussein from power during the run-up to the war. He listed four reasons why he believed Hussein should be removed from power, any one of which would be a sufficient reason by itself:

First, we are moved to urgency by the fact that Iraq may be close to developing nuclear weapons. We cannot permit that to happen because of the unacceptably high likelihood that such weapons will eventually be used against us, or that they will support a threat against us. If Iraq has nukes, it won’t be possible for us to apply sufficient influence within that part of the world to begin the process of reform we require to be safe.

Second, we need to conquer Iraq so that we can rebuild it and make it more prosperous so that all the other Arabs around it will see that it isn’t just heathen Americans who can become successful, and that Arabs can do it too. We need to make Iraq a better place, with people who are happier, more free, and more prosperous while still being Arab and Muslim. And in particular, we must free the women of Iraq, to show the women in neighboring nations that they don’t have to be treated as animals.

Third, we need to conquer Iraq to put the “fear of God” (as it were) into governments of all the neighboring Arab nations where the traditionalists still hold sway, so that they will be much more likely to permit the few initial reforms we require from them which will start the process of cultural change moving. When we have substantial military forces right on their borders, it will be much harder for them to say “no” to our demands.

Fourth, we need to conquer Iraq because the “Arab Street” only respects power. We have to prove to them that we actually can do it and that we’re willing to do so. That’s their culture and it’s different than ours, but that is how they think and we have to take it into account. (That, by the way, is the reason there was no rising of the “Arab Street” after Afghanistan; it’s because we won convincingly.)

So although the commission said that Hussein didn’t have WMDs, that doesn’t change the necessity of not allowing Hussein to gather more. The second reason is coming true now, as Iraq has had free elections and women were free to vote in those same elections. Likewise, the “fear of God” has been effective in convincing Libya to change, and it can be seen in how Syria is retreating from Lebanon. And the Arab Street has seen the Taliban spanked out of Afghanistan and the strongest military might in the region crushed within three weeks. The fears of an uprising in the Arab Street have gone unfulfilled.

But I’m still not all that sure that Hussein was completely without WMDs in 2003. There remained enough WMDs for thugs in Iraq to detonate IEDs created from their remains — shells with mustard gas and Sarin in them. Plus there was the foiled bomb plot that came out of Syria, that other nation controlled by the Ba’athist party. I think we may yet find more of Hussein’s WMDs. I just hope that they don’t fall into the hands of people who are willing to use them. But whether he had WMDs in his possession or only thought he did, Hussein had to be removed as a necessary step in President Bush’s War on Terror. Again, Steven Den Beste does a grand job of summing up why:

I can’t explain the reasons for attacking Iraq in a vacuum because Iraq is part of a bigger picture, and the attack there will be one battle in a much longer war. Trying to understand one particular battle without the context of the larger war is an exercise in futility. (By analogy: what excuse is there in 1942 for the US to attack Vichy France in Morocco? Vichy France wasn’t our enemy; Germany and Italy were. Taken out of the context of the larger war, the Torch landings in Africa make little sense. It’s only when you look at the bigger picture of the whole war that you can understand them.)

We must attack Iraq. We must totally conquer the nation. Saddam must be removed from power, and killed if possible, and the Ba’ath party must be shattered.”

Four out of five ain’t bad.

On May 23rd, American author E. L. Doctorow was booed while he gave the commencement address at Hofstra University. Rather than using this opportunity to talk to the graduating class about their accomplishments or what they could expect in the near future, Doctorow used his time to bash President Bush and call him a liar.

One story he [Bush] told was that the country of Iraq had nuclear and biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction and was intending shortly to use them on us. That was an exciting story all right, it was designed to send shivers up our spines. But it was not true.

Another story was that the Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, was in league with the terrorists of al-Qaida, And that turned out to be not true. But anyway we went off to war on the basis of these stories.

Loud boos erupted at these words. At one point, Doctorow stopped speaking and just stood there at the podium. Hofstra president Stuart Rabinowitz stepped up to the mike and asked that the crowd allow Doctorow to continue, but some people continued to boo the author nevertheless. While this is one of the latest examples of commonly-held leftist ideas about the war in Iraq, this certainly won’t be the last time they are brought up. So let’s look at the “stories” that Doctorow claims Bush told.

Weapons of Mass Destruction

A common claim by the liberal left is that President Bush lied to us about Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction. Leftists often claim (as does Doctorow) that President Bush said that “Iraq had nuclear and biological and chemical weapons,” but what President Bush really said was that “[Iraq] possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.” That is what President Bush said on Oct. 7, 2002. The President also didn’t claim that the threat was imminent:

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

What did we know before we toppled Saddam’s regime? We knew that Saddam had both biological and chemical WMDs. How did we know this? Because Saddam had used them. This is not conjecture, nor is it speculation. This is a historical fact. Saddam had such weapons, and he was willing to use them. Since Saddam couldn’t account for these WMDs, nor would he allow inspectors to verify their destruction, the only logical conclusion is that Saddam still had them.

Fast forward a year after the overthrow of Saddam, and liberals are calling out, “Where are the WMDs? Bush lied!” But let’s look at a little bit of what has come out in the news recently. In May 2004, Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt said, “The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found.” This round of (all together now, kids) sarin nerve agent was hooked up as an improvised explosive device, or IED. But this wasn’t an isolated event — two weeks earlier, terrorists had exploded an IED that contained mustard gas. The servicemen were fortunate in that the shell had been stored improperly, making the mustard gas ineffective; the sarin shell was exploded incorrectly, reducing the threat from it as well.

But when you find two dead cockroaches, it is foolishness to claim that is the extent of the infestation.

“Gazi George, a former Iraqi nuclear scientist under Saddam’s regime, told Fox News he believes many similar weapons stockpiled by the former regime were either buried underground or transported to Syria. He noted that the airport where the device was detonated is on the way to Baghdad from the Syrian border.” (Fox News)

In April, Jordan broke news of a planned bomb plot that could have killed tens of thousands of people in the city of Amman. At least three trucks came over the border from Syria laden down with detonators, explosives and the raw materials to create more explosives. Amid these “raw materials” were VX, sarin and 70 other chemicals. Could Syria have created the VX and sarin? Sure, but only Iraq had the facilities to create them in the quantities that were found. Is it a coincidence that military convoys were seen heading from Iraq into Syria before the war, and now we are capturing terrorists leaving Syria with chemical WMDs? Not according to Jaffar Jaffar, regarded as the father of Iraq’s nuclear program, who recently surrendered to American forces.

But what about Iraq’s nuclear program? On Sunday, May 23rd, 2004, former Justice Department prosecutor John Loftus talked about the nuclear program in the Middle East. This is transcribed from my recording of his interview:

“Now the British discoveries date back to just after September 11th, when British intelligence wiretapped a frantic phone call from North Korea to Libya. The North Koreans were saying, ‘Oh my God! If the Americans do go into Iraq, they’re going to find all the documents about our nuclear weapons program.’ ‘And who’s going to pay,’ the Libyans inquired, ‘all the nuclear scientists from Iraq in Libya once Saddam falls?’”

We now know that Libya had an ongoing nuclear program, but why was Iraq paying Libya to house nuclear scientists there? The simplest answer is that Libya’s nuclear program was really Saddam’s nuclear program outsourced. Loftus continued:

“Well, that tape was played to the North Koreans. They said, ‘Yeah, we have a nuclear program. So what? Bribe us.’ We played that tape to Kaddafi and he said, ‘Let’s make a deal.’ So Kaddafi has secretly confirmed that there was this Arab consortium on nuclear weapons. That Saddam decided because he knew where the blind spots were in Hans Blix’s staff to move his key nuclear scientists into Libya. 408 were transferred into that country. Kaddafi provided a hollowed-out mountain…. Some of these guys were actively working on Saddam’s payroll. He knew where the blind spots were. That’s how they knew to hide the entire weapons of mass destruction program. Blix is going to go down in history as a bloated bureaucrat whose arrogance was only exceeded by his incompetence. The spread of nuclear weapons took place right under his nose.”

So Saddam had and used biological and chemical weapons, and these weapons have turned up in Iraq and surrounding countries. While it appears that Saddam may not have been active inside Iraq with a nuclear program, he had outsourced such a program into Libya with the assistance of North Korea. President Bush’s claims were true when he said that “[Iraq] possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.”

Any liberal who tells you otherwise either has his head buried in the sand, or is outright lying to you for his political gain.

Iraqi ties to al-Qaeda

So is Doctorow correct when he claims there is no connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda? Well, let’s look at what we know.

Czech intelligence reported in October 2001 that Mohammad Atta, the terrorist who flew the first plane into the World Trade Center, met with Iraqi Counsel Ahmad Al-Ani. Why would Atta break his cover a few months before the September attack to meet with an Iraqi in Prague? Could this meeting have been related to the plane hijacking training provided by the Salman Pak training camp in Iraq? According to Sabah Khalifa Khodada Alami, an Iraqi military officer who defected from Iraq in 1999, Salman Pak was a training site for the Fedayeen Saddam in airline hijacking and sabotage. Also training in this camp were non-Iraqi groups, who received similar hijacking training using the Boeing 707 plane parked in the camp.

But there is another link between Iraq and al-Qaeda. The Jordanian bomb plot mentioned above was planned by Abu-Musab al-Zaqawi, a close follower of al-Qaeda. The people captured in this plot confessed on Jordanian television that the plot was hatched by al-Zaqawi in 1999, while he was in Iraq, as an al-Qaeda attack. The attack was attempted with Iraqi WMD supplies, but fortunately was stopped before thousands died.

Does the name al-Zaqawi ring a bell? He’s one of the ghouls who chopped off Nick Berg’s head. Know where he is right now? If you say Iraq, go to the head of the class. So here we have al-Qaeda: trained in Iraq, supplied with weapons from Iraq, plotting attacks in Iraq, launching attacks now in Iraq and, thanks to the corruption of the U.N.’s “oil for food” program, funded by Iraq. But if you listen to people like Doctorow, there is no connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq.

Yeah, right.

Addendum (5/26/2004): Al Gore has stepped forward and bloviated about the war in Iraq. He is calling for the resignation of the Secretary of Defense, two deputies, the intelligence chief, the National Security Advisor, and the head of the CIA. If a bomb were to claim the lives of these six people, it would be a terrible blow to the American government. But Gore is calling for them to fall on their own swords. He is also calling for the removal of President Bush at the ballot box this November. Yep, Al Gore, the sore loser, is calling on America to cringe and crawl before the terrorists and piss on themselves, much as Spain did after the March 11th bombings in Madrid. Thanks, Al.

Lemme clear up one simple thing that Gore missed when he said “[Bush] decided not to honor the Geneva Convention.” The GC specifies how soldiers, prisoners and civilians are to be treated. But there are three basic caveats to the GC. First, the GC only applies to the nations who sign it. Second, if a signatory nation violates the rules of the GC, the other nation(s) are no longer bound by it. Third, the rules about treatment of soldiers apply only to people wearing uniforms, insignia or other clear indications of military membership. Clearly, al-Qaeda does not fit the last category since they are not a clearly identified military. Nor have they shown that they will honor the GC, setting off IEDs with mustard and sarin gas in them. And they are not signatory members of the GC. So how exactly do al-Qaeda and the other terrorist rabble attacking Coalition soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan fit with the Geneva Convention? They don’t, but this won’t stop liberals like Al Gore from beating their breasts over it.

This speech by Al Gore will be translated and broadcast throughout the Muslim world, and it will strengthen the resolve of those who delight in the shedding of American blood. With this speech, Al Gore is giving real aid and comfort to the enemy. This is treason. But because Gore is a Democrat, nothing will happen to him.