The Nigh Seen Creeder

The Nigh Seen Creeder's preeminent pissant mentioned Iraq's "phantom" WMDs recently; and not ten days later I got an e-mail from another pissant ("GebrilWatchG" at a certain "G" mail), who said America invaded Iraq for "diamonds and oil." Now, how many ****in' diamonds did Iraq possess prior to March 2003?

I used to regularly post stuff on a now-defunct blog, TheConservativeTruthSquad.com, that ceased to be in 2004 when the blog's host's stomach cancer did him in. (Lest you think I'm being callous, he often told me that his cancer was "doing [him] in.).

That said, please to enjoy this blast from the 2003 past ... which should've blasted its way into each and every one of the Bush Administration's press conferences in the days and weeks and months following the invasion of Iraq [Note: Newspapers and periodicals are not properly italicized.] To wit:

Joseph Prochaska's letter in the August 16 Tennessean [2003], "Reasons for Iraq war still just don't add up," is long on hyperbole and short on facts. Indeed, a great deal of ignorance can be disguised when one is allowed to vent in 250 words or less.

Liberals apparently were not paying attention when President Bush repeatedly warned Americans that military force might be necessary to finally disarm Iraq. They're now using one comment from Bush's last State of the Union address - Mr. Prochaska's "infamous 16 words" - to suggest that the president deceived us all during the lead-up to the Iraq war. This is the comment that has left's bloomers in a twist: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Coincidentally, the British still stand by that remark.

Prochaska and other libs would have us believe the Bush Administration hyped mythical weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq in order to justify military action. These are interesting facts:

Past Iraqi use of WMDs

1983, Majj Umran, Iranians and Kurds targeted
1983, Panjwin, Iranians and Kurds targeted
1984, Majnoon Island, Iranians targeted
1984,al-Basrah, Iranians targeted
1985, Hawizah Marsh, Iranians targeted (12,000 casualties)
1986 al-Faw, Iranians targeted
1986 Umm ar Rasas, Iranians targeted
1987, al-Basrah, Iranianians targeted
1987, Sumar/Mehran, Iranians targeted
1988, Halabjah, Kurds targeted (3,000 casualties)

-- source, CIA

Amount of WMDs Iraq admitted having when U.N. inspectors were forced out in 1998

VX nerve agent, 3.9 tons
Sarin nerve agent, 812 tons
Mustard gas, 3,080 tons
Anthrax, 2,200 gallons
Botulinum, 5,300 gallons
Aflatoxin, 520 gallons

-- source, CIA

In April 2003, former United Nations chief weapons inspector Richard Butler told the Sunday Times (London), "There is evidence Syria helped hide Iraqi chemical weapons in the past."

Also from the Times, "Mr Butler said he had seen intelligence during his time as chief UN weapons inspector in Iraq from 1997 until 1999 which seemed to indicate Syria had helped keep Iraq's weapons of mass destruction hidden."

Reported in the Jerusalem Post: "General Yossi Kuperwasser, head of research at Israeli intelligence, told the Knesset as early as last October [2002] that Iraq was moving WMDs into and building facilities in Syria."

Iraqi scientists and military officials captured by U.S. forces have stated that Saddam Hussein secretly destroyed and dispatched his WMDs during the lead-up to the Iraq war. His goal was to create tension between the U.S./U.K. and the rest of the world in an effort to stave off an invasion. Since no U.N. inspectors were there to verify the destruction of WMDs, the United States was well within its rights to assume that Iraq was sitting on the same stockpiles it possessed in 1998.

Liberals have used every soapbox opportunity to suggest that no links between Iraq and al-Qaeda exist. It's important to note that Czech intelligence has never wavered from its claim that 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta met with members of Iraqi intelligence in Prague.

Furthermore, Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, a former Iraqi intelligence officer, helped mastermind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Bill Clinton treated the '93 bombing as a criminal act and not an act of terrorism. He refused any intelligence from the FBI that indicated there were Iraqi operatives in on the attack. According to Laurie Mylroie, who served as Clinton's adviser on Iraq during the 1992 presidential campaign, "[Clinton] bombed Iraq under the guise of punishment for the attempt on George [Herbert Walker] Bush's life" in order to mute links between Iraq and international terrorists (National Review, October 2002).

"We care a lot" liberals have been complaining for years that Iraqi citizens were suffering under the weight of U.N. sanctions. However, the supposedly cash-strapped Iraqi government was able to funnel millions of dollars to Palestinian terrorist organizations and the families of suicide bombers. No link between Hussein and terrorists existed, huh? The facts say otherwise.

Joseph Prochaska's letter is indistinguishable from a Molly Ivins rant-and-rave column. The only difference is that Mr. Prochaska lacks Ms. Ivins' cornpone yee-haw musings. What both lack is an appreciation of facts and common sense. When one examines the talking points put forth by a Joseph Prochaska under a factual microscope, his arguments wither like so many unwatered flowers.

And THIS:

Where are the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? This is the question being asked by a slew of liberal pundits, politicians, and laypeople across North America. According to the New York Times editorial board and every Democrat seeking the U.S. presidency, Iraq was not a threat to the United States or the world community; and each and every person in the free world was misled and deceived by the Bush Administration during the lead-up to the Iraq war.

However, when one digs for information beyond what's been offered by the mainstream media, which presents a skewed Upper West Side/Paliament Hill view of the world anyway, it is apparent that Iraq not only had WMD, but these weapons were dispatched in a most disturbing fashion.

We know that Saddam Hussein's regime possessed large quantities of chemical and biological weapons when U.N. inspectors were kicked out in 1998. According to a report released by the CIA in late 1998, Iraq possessed 3.9 tons of VX nerve gas, 812 tons of sarin nerve agent, 3,080 tons of mustard gas, and 2,200 gallons of anthrax.

In a 1999 New Republic article, former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter, whose last paying gig was an appearance in a pro-Hussein documentary financed by the Iraqi army, confirmed Iraq's ongoing weapons program: "Iraq is not … disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, [U.N. weapons inspectors] suspect that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. And Iraq has significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production."

So, where are Iraq's WMD? Captured Iraqi officials have indicated that all of Iraq's WMD were destroyed in the weeks prior to the U.S.-British invasion. This theory simply begs another question: Why would Saddam Hussein secretly destroy his deadliest weapons knowing that a massive force was ready to overthrow him if he didn't show evidence that he had completely disarmed? Again, to learn what happened to Iraq's WMD, one must search beyond the conventional headlines.

In March 2003, the Jerusalem Post reported, "General Yossi Kuperwasser [head of research at Israeli intelligence] told the Knesset as early as last October that Iraq was moving WMD into and building facilities in Syria."

In April 2003, former United Nations chief weapons inspector Richard Butler told the Sunday Times (London), "There is evidence Syria helped hide Iraqi chemical weapons." The Times added, "Mr. Butler said he had seen intelligence during his time as chief UN weapons inspector in Iraq from 1997 until 1999 which seemed to indicate Syria had helped keep Iraq's weapons of mass destruction hidden."

On August 25, 2003, the World Tribune announced, "U.S. suspects Iraqi WMD in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley." Apparently, the CIA had evidence of large numbers of tractor-trailer trucks moving from Iraq to Syria to Lebanon in January, but "the significance of this sighting did not register at the time."

And on October 29, 2003, the Washington Times reported, "Air Force Lt. Gen. James Clapper, head of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, said vehicle traffic photographed by U.S. spy satellites indicated that materials ... related to the arms programs were shipped to Syria."

We're now learning that streams of foreign fighters are entering Iraq through Iran and Syria. Earlier this year, the Bush Administration was criticized when it issued stern warnings against Syrian interference in Iraq. President Bush was on to something though. Syria may play nice when the international press comes calling, but there is enough evidence to suggest that Syria is actively aiding subversive elements in Iraq. It is highly possible that Iraqi chemical and biological weapons will remain hidden in Syria and Lebanon until Hussein - or his sympathizers - decides to unleash a deadly attack against U.S., British, or U.N. officials in a final display of force.

The daily attacks on U.S. and British troops in Iraq should convince us all that the war on global terrorism shows no sign of abating. As it becomes clear that other nations are subverting American efforts to rebuild Iraq, the Bush Administration should make it known that it has the resolve to do what's necessary to protect U.S. and British interests - even if that means combat operations beyond Iraq's borders.

Finally, the bloviated ranting of leftist naysayers who are convinced that there were no WMD in Iraq should be ignored. Ample evidence exists to suggest that Iraq had active weapons programs prior to the U.S.-British invasion. Coalition forces should use all means necessary to discover what actually happened to Hussein's weapons of terror. Failure to do so will indeed have deadly consequences.

As for Forrester's assertion that no "meaningful connection between Iraq and the terrorists responsible for 9/11," I must wonder how he would define "meaningful?" There are some on the left who spit through gritted teeth their belief that there were absolutely no links between Saddam's Iraq and al-Qaeda. Is Mark Forrester one of them?

According to Laurie Mylroie, who served an adviser on Iraq early in the Clinton Administration, President Clinton's decision to hit Baghdad with cruise missiles on June 26, 1993, was made in part because he believed Iraq had been involved in the first World Trade Center bombing four months earlier. Indeed, Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, a former Iraqi intelligence officer, was among those arrested following the al-Qaeda-sponsored attack.

"He said publicly that the U.S. strike on Iraqi intelligence headquarters was retaliation for Saddam's attempt to kill President [George H.W.] Bush," Mylroie told WABC Radio's Steve Malzberg. "[But] he also meant it for the Trade Center bombing. Clinton believed that the attack on Iraqi intelligence headquarters would deter Saddam from all future strikes against the United States. It was hopelessly naive."

Mylroie said that Martin Indyk, White House National Security Council Advisor on the Middle East, had revealed Clinton's true motivation for the June 1993 missile attacks during a private conversation in December 1994. "Indyk believed that the strike on Iraqi intelligence headquarters had stopped Saddam," she recalled. Mylroie said the suspicion that Iraq was involved in the 1993 attack was widely believed in federal law enforcement circles. "Particularly New York FBI, then headed by Jim Fox, believed that Iraq was behind that bomb," she told Malzberg.

Based on information provided by Iraqi defectors, U.S. intelligence suspected for many months prior to 9/11 that the Salman Pak military camp, located near Baghdad, was being used to train foreign terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda.

Here's what the New York Times said about the camp six weeks after 9/11:

"New information does suggest that [Saddam] Hussein was actively training terrorists to attack American interests throughout the 1990s. One example is the testimony of Sabah Khodada, a captain in the Iraqi army who emigrated to the United States in May after working for eight years at what he described as a terrorist training camp at a bend in the Tigris River just southeast of Baghdad."

According to the Times, Khodada described the camp as "a highly secret installation" where "non-Iraqi Arabs from Persian Gulf countries, including Saudi Arabia" received training in "assassinations, kidnapping, hijacking of airplanes, hijacking of buses, hijacking of trains, and all other kinds of operations related to terrorism." In comments unmentioned by the Times but covered by PBS's Frontline, Khodada said that when he saw the WTC fall he thought to himself, "This was done by graduates of Salman Pak."

Here's how National Public Radio characterized Iraq's link to the 9/11 attacks in a report the same month:

"The case against Iraq is based on three things. First, Mohammed Atta, believed to be the key organizer of the September 11 attacks, met earlier this year with an Iraqi agent in Prague. Second, Iraq's stockpiled anthrax as a biological weapon. And third, recent allegations that there's a camp in Iraq where foreign terrorists are trained. The allegation about the terrorist training camp comes through a recent Iraqi defector. According to this story, the camp is located near the town of Salman Pak, southeast of Baghdad, and it contains a Boeing jetliner that could be used to train hijackers how to seize a plane."

Charles Deulfer, former Deputy Head, U.N. Special Commission for Iraq, told NPR, "There were lots of places in Iraq where training of non-Iraqis, or things, which by our lexicon would be considered terrorism, was taking place. That's why Iraq is on the terrorist list. Having a large aircraft, a 707, in a peninsula, completely visible from the air or from satellite, with no airline runways nearby, that's not there by accident."

Last year, NBC's Tim Russert stated on a broadcast of Meet the Press that "no one" believes in an Iraq-9/11 link. However, interviewing Vice President Dick Cheney in December 2001, Russert cited the then-recent comments of former CIA Director James Woolsey:

"We know that at Salman Pak, on the southern edge of Baghdad, five different eyewitnesses - three Iraqi defectors and two American U.N. Inspectors - have said - and now there are aerial photographs to show it - a Boeing 707 that was used for training of hijackers, including non-Iraqi hijackers trained very secretly to take over airplanes with knives."

Russert then displayed satellite imagery of Salman Pak for his audience, saying, "And we have photographs. As you can see that little white speck – and there it is, the plane on the ground in Iraq used to train non-Iraqi hijackers." Then the NBC newsman asked the Vice President, "Do you still believe there's no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?"

In late October 2001, New York Times columnist William Safire detailed the extensive ties between Osama bin Laden, his henchmen and Saddam's intelligence service leading up to 9/11:

"Faruq Hijazi, in 1994 Saddam's secret service director and now his ambassador to Turkey, has had a series of meetings with bin Laden. These began in Sudan, arranged by Hassan al-Tourabi, the Sudanese Muslim leader, and continued in Afghanistan. The conspiracy was furthered in Baghdad in 1998 between bin Laden's No. 2 man, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and Saddam's vice president, Taha Yasin Ramadan."

"To strengthen Saddam's position in the Arab world during his 1998 crisis with the U.N., bin Laden established the 'World Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Jews and the Crusaders.' The Muslim-in-name Iraqi dictator reciprocated by promising secure refuge in Iraq for bin Laden and his key lieutenants if they were forced to flee Afghanistan.

"Bin Laden sent a delegation of his top al-Qaeda terrorists to Baghdad on April 25, 1998, to attend the grand celebration that week of Saddam's birthday. It was then that Saddam's bloody-minded son Uday agreed to receive several hundred al-Qaeda recruits for terrorist training in techniques unavailable in Afghanistan.

"That Baghdad birthday party, according to an unpublished spying report, celebrated something else: Uday Hussein's agreement with bin Laden's men to formally establish a joint force consisting of some of al-Qaeda's fiercest 'Afghan Arab' fighters and the covert combatants in Iraqi intelligence unit 999."

With the exception of Mohammed Atta's meeting with Iraqi intelligence in Prague, none of the above information has ever been disputed. Not only have William Safire's earlier claims been corroborated by information uncovered by U.S. forces in Iraq, in May 2003, Manhattan U.S. District Judge Harold Baer ruled that Iraq played a material role in the 9/11 attacks in a case brought against Baghdad by families of two World Trade Center victims.