by Eric DonderoLeftwing Anti-War activists and media, along with Libertarians from the isolationist wing of the movement who also opposed the War, may have some explaining to do this morning.
The New York Times, no less, reports that 19 Iraqi jet fighters have just been found hidden in a Warehouse in Serbia. The stash includes MIG 21 and MIG 23 jet fighters.
From the Times Aug. 30:
The Serbian government has tentatively promised to make two of the aircraft available “for immediate use,” according to a news release from the ministry. The rest would be restored on a rush basis, the ministry said.
An Iraqi delegation went to Serbia as part of an effort by the government to locate assets stashed abroad by Saddam Hussein to evade sanctions. Serbia had had friendly relations with Mr. Hussein’s government.
During that visit, Serbian defense officials told the Iraqis that Mr. Hussein had sent 19 fighter jets to Serbia for repairs in the late 1980s, during the Iran-Iraq war, but was unable to bring them back after sanctions were imposed on his country.
The article goes on to cite the missing aircraft still in Iran. Continuing:Mr. Hussein’s government, which in 1990 had the world’s sixth largest air force with 750 aircraft, lost many MIGs and French Mirages when the United States bombed them during the first Persian Gulf war; nearly 100 were flown to Iran to escape destruction, even though Iran was then an enemy of Iraq. Iran has still not returned the aircraft...And then this intriguing final note:
Iraqi officials have been hunting for missing financial and military assets in a number of countries where Mr. Hussein did business, including Egypt, Russia, France and Italy.Numerous defense experts, and even former Iraqi high-ranking military personnel have maintained for years that Saddam Hussein had the bulk of his WMD shifted to Syria, weeks and months before the start of the American invasion in 2003.
They have found two naval vessels belonging to Iraq in Egypt and two others in Italy, and other matériel in France and Russia, Mr. Askari, the Defense Ministry spokesman, said in a telephone interview.
Former Iraqi Air Force Two-Star General Georges Sada wrote a book in 2004: Saddam's Secrets - How an Iraqi General Defied And Survived Saddam Hussein. In the book he gave specific details of how Saddam had ordered Air Force pilots to fly parts of WMD stockpiles to Syria, and gave further information on efforts of ground transportation of such weaponry across the Syrian border.
He told Hannity & Colmes in an interview on Fox in 2004:Well, I want to make it clear, very clear to everybody in the world that we had the weapon of mass destruction in Iraq, and the regime used them against our Iraqi people...I know it because I have got the captains of the Iraqi airway that were my friends, and they told me these weapons of mass destruction had been moved to Syria. Iraq had some projects for nuclear weapons but it was destroyed in 1981.In related news, new information being revealed indicates that WMD were found at the semi-autonomous region of northern Iraq which sheltered Zarqawi and Ansar Al-Islam. The blog Musings on Iraq has just run a well-sourced piece: "Why didn't Bush strike Zarqawi and Ansar Al-Islam in 2002"?
During the 2003 invasion, U.S. and Kurdish forces took the Ansar camp after four days of fighting. There they found that Ansar was working on poisons and WMD...Their conclusion seems to indicate that the Bush administration did not want to specifically go after Ansar Al-Islam in the isolated region, for fear it would undermine efforts already underway for a wider conflict targetting Saddam Hussein.
Khurmal turned out to be the only place in Iraq that the U.S. actually found WMD being produced, which was the major justification for the war in the first place.
Note - Photo is of Jet Fighters found buried in the Iraqi desert by US Troops after the Iraqi invasion.
22 comments:
Cindy Sheehan's going to need a paper bag to control her hyperventilation after hearing this. Code Pink and their minions will NEVER admit they were wrong.
Well if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck... AND YOU THINK IT'S A DUCK?
HOW NEOCONSERVATIVE OF YOU ERIC! TAKING FACTS AND LOGIC USING THEM TO FORM A PERCEPTION OF REALITY, BAH! HOW UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
I thought that Saddam had chemical weapons stockpiles before the war, too -- I just didn't see that as a legitimate casus belli.
But the Busheviks didn't just claim that Saddam had chemical weapons stockpiles. They claimed to know what he had, how much of it he had, and where he kept it.
They lied, and so far that lie has resulted in the deaths of more Americans than al Qaeda killed on 9/11.
Supporters of the invasion of Iraq are, objectively speaking, murderous anti-American terrorists.
"Supporters of the invasion of Iraq are, objectively speaking, murderous anti-American terrorists."
Uh, right. Tell that to the victims of 9-11.
Objectively, the marxist/socialist left of this country has proven itself time and again to be the the murderous, anti-American terrorists. I'm certain that in the future, every supporter of the invasion of Iraq will be proven justified, as this posting is already doing. I can tell that this fact is already beginning to cause you lefties plenty of anxiety. :)
We invaded a sovereign country which we had no right to do. So, you will never be able to justify the Iraq war regardless of what's hidden in the hills of Syria.
And if we're so concerned about WMD's then why don't we attack countries that actually have them like N. Korea or (apparently) Syria?
We invaded a "sovereign country..." Really?
Would that be the same country that invaded Kuwait in 1990? And the same country that lobbed scud missiles over to Israel?
And are we talking about the same country that attacked the USS Starke killing 37 US Sailors?
And the same country that harbored terrorists and terrorist leaders like Zarcawi who were involved in the 9/11 attacks on the United States?
Golly gee, I was always taught as a child if someone punches you in the face, you punch them back.
That pesky Dad of mine. I should tell him, that all these years he was wrong; that if someone punches you in the face you just take it and thank them for it, and then ask them for another.
Thanks for clearing that up for me "traveler in time."
Notice you all, how Knapp just completely skirted by the issue of the NY Times story. Kind of "inconvenient" for him and his side, that a liberal news source like the NY Times just reported on these Jet Fighters.
Thus the avoidance on the issue, and the bringing up of side issues not related to the post.
I'm not sure if you're even worth debating with since you can't seem to spell both Stark and Zarqawi.
Yes, we really invaded a sovereign country in 2003. However, the Persian Gulf War WAS justified with Iraq's invasion of Kuwait (since they are our allies).
The attack on US Stark was never proven to have come from the leaders of Iraq. So you can't justify the war with that.
According to the CIA, Zarqawi or his camps were never linked to Saddam or the Iraqi government. Again, you can't justify the war with that. In fact, Zarqawi's allegiance to al-Qaeda is pretty weak so you can't even use the 9/11 arguement.
"Golly gee, I was always taught as a child if someone punches you in the face, you punch them back."
Wow! That's similar to "An eye for an eye". Maybe there's a future terrorist in you after all.
This is all BS. We were attacked on 9-11 by citizens of Saudi Arabia using 99 cent box cutters. We responded by attacking Afghanistan and Iraq that had nothing to do with anything.
But it gets better. The Baath Party was sectarian and socialist. By getting rid of the sectarian and socialist Baath Party we removed a buffer state against Iran and have nearly bankrupted the USA.
We cannot even pay our soldiers without borrowing money from the Communist Chinese. Way to ge neocons.
"Thus the avoidance on the issue, and the bringing up of side issues not related to the post."
YOU are the one who attempted to tie Iraqi airplanes in a warehouse in Serbia to chemical weapons.
Saddam buried what was left of his air force (after he sent part of it to Iran, who decided to keep it) in the desert and hid it in warehouses abroad for a very simple reason: He couldn't use it. The US had air supremacy and was able to shoot down anything he was able to put in the air.
Chemical weapons, not so much. They constituted a credible deterrent to invasion, they could be delivered from various platforms (artillery, mines, missiles, air), and they could be disguised to a degree to be passed off as regular munitions when being transported.
Like many people, including most supporters of the invasion, I assumed that he DID have them for precisely those reasons. And our "leaders" in DC claimed to know that he did, to know what they were, and to know WHERE they were.
Those "leaders" lied, and useful idiots like you continue to help them excuse their lies with fairy tales about "convoys to Syria" and such. To date since the invasion, not so much as an iota of credible evidence has emerged to indicate that Saddam had retained so much as a moldy sarin shell or banged-up mustard mine.
Whenever you bring up the Stark incident, you always leave out two elements of the story:
1) That you and your shipmates were fighting FOR SADDAM when it happened; and
2) That the Iraqi government said, and the US government agreed, that it was a tragic "friendly fire" accident.
Ummm, excuse me, but the Stark was the sister ship of my ship the USS Luce DDG-38. I was there in the Persian Gulf when Saddam's forces locked onto our ship twice, ready to fire missiles.
My shipmate right now is receiving treatment right now for an illness he received in the Gulf during that conflict, resulting from the burned out oil tankers we were escorting.
So, don't you dare tell me about the Stark and what did and what did not happen to the US Navy by way of Saddam in the 1980s.
Eric Dondero Rittberg, USN (hon.)
1981-86
USS Luce DDG-38
USS Kittyhawk CV-63
the evidence indicates that Saddam Hussein and Iraqi intelligence were not only behind the attack on the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995, but may very well have been behind 9/11 and other direct attacks on US citizens throughout the 1990s INCLUDING! the bombings at the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
I think you boys - most likely yellow-bellied non-servers in the US Military - need to do a little research and stop drinking the kool-aid from the Daily Kooks, Michael Moore and Moveon.org.
Knapp, if we were "fighting for Saddam" at the time of the attacks, than why was it our Captain and our Operations Dept. concerned themselves only with Saddam Hussein and attacks from the Iraqi Navy, Air Force, and marine units? There was no discussions or worries about attacks from Iran at the time.
My shipmate is receiving medical treatment right now - I had to testify recently on his behalf - for injuries sustained during Operation El Dorado Canyon, in 1984, when our ship - a Guided Missile Destroyer - went on a secret mission into the upper Persian Gulf in the heart of the War Zone. We weren't going to the Iranian Coastline, trust me. We were wholly within Iraqi waters, attempting to save burned out oil tankers that Saddam's forces had fired on.
BTW, my ship made it into Time Magazine that year - 1984, photo and everything.
Knapp, don't take my word for it on WMD. Read the Gen. Sada book. He outlines in detail what happened to the WMD. But alas, the book went entirely against the liberal media template when it was released in 2006, so it received little attention.
"Supporters of the invasion of Iraq are, objectively speaking, murderous anti-American terrorists."
Objectively speaking, of course, that comment was a lie. Spoken like a true bullshevik.
There were various elements beyond the "neo-cons" in support of the take-down of the Hussein regime, for reasons other than WMD and beyond the regime itself. Not that Knapp has done his homework.
Eric, don't let Knapp's puerile shit get under your skin. I hope your shipmate does well. Thanks to all of you for your service and your risks.
Ran, you are so correct. What these Leftists don't understand is that there were far more people and groups in favor of the War in Iraq, than just "NeoCons."
Shitloads of Libertarians supported the War, as did Moderate Democrats, Defense Conservatives, and just plain old Pro-America Patriotic Americans.
Nothing "NeoCon" about it. If the NeoCons supported the War, great. We'll take it. But they're in the minority of Pro-War in Iraq supporters.
Hey Mr./Mrs. NeoCon, we're happy to have your support, now get in line.
Eric,
I hope your shipmate gets whatever help is available. Having spent a month under the smoke of the burning al Burgan oil wells (and having got close enough to one of them to get a first-degree burn on one side of my body), I suspect that I know a little about the environmental conditions you're alluding to. Not sure if it was that, the alleged sarin and mustard exposure, a combination of the two, or something else responsible for my symptoms (including but not limited to a violent physical reaction to pesticides since returning from Saudi/Kuwait). Had a great time, though.
The fact remains that the US Navy was there to keep Iran in check on Saddam's behalf while he slaughtered them by the hundreds of thousands on land. That your captain knew that he was a perfidious SOB with a substandard air force and navy is immaterial to that fact.
Tom, I was there. I know why we were there.
We stayed on the Iraqi side of the Gulf. Iran wasn't even in the picture for us. We were there to protect internationally owned oil tankers from Saddam Hussein. We were there to keep the flow of oil open in the upper Persian Gulf.
I know for a fact, that we went to General Quarters twice, when it wasn't a drill. And both times it was Saddam Hussein's forces that were threatening us, not the Iranians.
I fail to see how you can surmise that we were there to protect Saddam, when it was Saddam who was threatening us.
Perplexing position you have.
I guess this means that all of those chicken-hawk College Republican types will run down to the nearest military reruiter's office and enlist, right?
"the evidence indicates that Saddam Hussein and Iraqi intelligence were not only behind the attack on the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995, but may very well have been behind 9/11 and other direct attacks on US citizens throughout the 1990s INCLUDING! the bombings at the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania."
Show me the evidence Dondildo. "may very well"... sounds like some solid stuff. With that kind of logic anyone could be involved... even you. And don't give me links that require aluminum foil helmets.
To be non-interventionist is simply applying libertarianism to foreign policy. There's nothing "left" about it, except what is claimed by followers of the neo-"conservatives" who are now and have always been intellectually in favor of statism and the leftist kind in particular.
In re this story: It shows Saddam had an air force and dispersed the surviving remnant rather than have it totally destroyed.
It shows NOTHING of the bogus claims of the war party that he had ABC weapons. He admitted he didn't, Bush admitted he didn't, the US Congress controlled by the Republican party admitted he didn't, etc.
Also Saddam had no link to 9/11. That claim is based on a bogus report that links a group in US-controlled Kurdistan between the first and latest Iraq wars.
Here's the clue as to what happened to Saddams ABC weapons & programs. They were destroyed circa 1991-98. In 1998 Clinton ordered bombing of Iraq and at that point Saddam's government dropped the ABC weapons programs.
Bush & his administration lied, leapt to conclusions based on bogus documents, etc. to make the false claim that Saddam had ABC weapons.
Bush lying is hardly a new sort of thing. All war presidents have lied in US history. JFK's press secretary even claimed a "right to lie," which is handy for showing my point.
Bush lied to get the US to invade Iraq. We are coping with that disaster in both the economy and foreign policy. The biggest disaster and legacy of Bush in this context is Barack Hussein Obama as US President.
One might hope that the war party would someday have integrity and admit the falsity and folly of their ways. But that requires integrity.
your most faithful and obedient servant
Alan Turin
PS
At Antiwar.com and first at yahoo.com was this interesting story of how Obama is keeping so many Bushites in foreign policy roles. Libertarians understand this: Obama is continuing in Bush's ways.
ART
Alan - "neo-"conservatives" who are now and have always been intellectually in favor of statism and the leftist kind in particular." - Yes, which is quite why lightweights such as Brooks and Frum are being ejected from conservative respect as hijackers, poseurs. The American Spectator and Stacy McCain are examples of the revolt.
To a growing number of modern conservatives, the fundamental argument of conservatism is that it must first and always be classically liberal in intent.
"Obama is keeping so many Bushites in foreign policy roles." Yeah, no shit - any guess how many of them were Clinton hold-overs?
BTW, Eric: Israel had some interesting experience with Syrian and Lebanese "gas" equipment in squib car and truck IED's. The captured assets had been Iraqi.
Post a Comment