Marines Find Huge Weapons Cache in Falluja

[Nickdfresh]

CNN is also reporting that a lab for making chemical weapons was also found. Story to follow when available:


U.S., Iraqi forces find Falluja's 'largest weapons cache'
Thursday, November 25, 2004 Posted: 9:00 AM EST (1400 GMT)


BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iraqi insurgents in Falluja were storing a huge amount of weapons and explosives in a mosque, U.S. Marines said Thursday.

A statement from the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force called the find the city's "largest weapons cache to date."

The Marines said the Saad Abi Bin Waqas Mosque compound was also being used as a suspected safe house and planning site for insurgents in Falluja, according to the statement.

The statement didn't provide specific numbers of the weapons -- which were discovered by U.S. and Iraqi forces on Wednesday.

The statement did say that the mosque compound was "heavily laden with small arms, artillery shells, heavy machine guns, and anti-tank mines."

"Other buildings within the compound had mortar systems, rocket-propelled grenades, launchers, recoilless rifles and parts of surface-to-air weapons systems. Marines also found the barrel of an anti-aircraft gun outside one of the buildings."

Weapons and explosives also filled the mosque's main prayer building, the mullah's residence and, adjacent to the residence, a small shed that had been "rigged to explode," the statement said.

In addition, Iraqi forces and Marines found a vendor's truck full of explosives, grenades and bomb-making materials. The truck may have been used as a mobile bomb-making factory, the Marines' statement said.

Also, the mosque's rectory contained documents detailing "insurgent interrogations of recent kidnap victims," according to the statement.

Alleged Sunni Muslim rebel supporter Sheik Abdulla al-Janabi also had been using the mosque to preach anti-coalition rhetoric, the statement said.

U.S. and Iraqi forces have been mopping up remaining insurgents in the stronghold city after a two-week offensive. U.S. forces said the assault destroyed resistance command operations there.

Insurgents have used mosques as safe havens across Iraq and have launched attacks from the holy sites, taking "advantage of Multi-National Force-Iraq's respect for these sites," the Marines said.

Throughout the Iraq war, the U.S. military has said mosques are considered holy sites and are not targeted unless they are used in the insurgency.

Many mosques in Falluja lost their protective status after insurgents fired at U.S. and Iraqi forces from the mosque towers -- called minarets.

Elsewhere in Iraq, more than 5,000 troops, including Iraqi SWAT forces, the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit and British military are conducting anti-insurgent operations in Iraq's Babil province, south of Baghdad. (Full story)

The operations in Babil, Falluja and elsewhere are aimed at putting down anti-American fighters and rebels against Iraq's interim government in advance of the nation's first, free Democratic elections since the fall of the Saddam Hussein regime. Iraqi elections are scheduled for January 30.

Iraqi and U.S. forces found explosives and ammunition in a Falluja mosque compound Wednesday.
Image:

[Nickdfresh]

Iraqi forces find chemical materials in lab
Official: Top al-Zarqawi aide arrested
Thursday, November 25, 2004 Posted: 11:40 AM EST (1640 GMT)


BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iraqi soldiers have discovered chemical materials in a Falluja lab, while a top aide of wanted terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has been arrested in Mosul, Iraq's interim national security adviser said Thursday.

The reports came as U.S. and Iraqi forces conducted anti-insurgency operations in Falluja, Mosul and south of Baghdad in the province of Babil.

Iraq's interim National Security Adviser Kasim Dawood announced discovery of the lab with chemical materials which he said was "manufacturing death, intoxication and assassination."

"We have also discovered in this laboratory a pamphlet and instructions showing how to manufacture explosives and toxins," Dawood said. "And they also talk about the production of anthrax."

Dawood said alleged al-Zarqawi aide Abu Said was arrested on Tuesday in the northern city of Mosul. An audio message purported to be by the Jordanian-born al Qaeda associate was discovered on the Internet on Wednesday. (Full story)

On Thursday, forces in Mosul detained three suspected insurgents, the U.S. military said. Two of the detainees were arrested in a cordon-and-search operation in the west-central sector of the city. One detainee was identified as a member of a terrorist cell. A detainee who was arrested in eastern Mosul was wanted for "anti-Iraqi activities," the U.S. military said.

South of Baghdad, Iraqi, U.S. and British forces Thursday arrested 81 suspected insurgents during a third day of their anti-rebel offensive in Babil province, the U.S. military said.

The arrests were made in the early morning near Yousefiya by Iraqi SWAT personnel, elements of the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit and the 1st Battalion of Britain's Black Watch Regiment, according to a military statement.

Black Watch rounded up 26 people. Iraqi forces and Marines detained 43. Elsewhere in the area, Marines arrested 12 others, the statement said, raising the total arrests of suspected insurgents since Tuesday to 116.

The Babil operation, the U.S. military has said, differs from the recent mass assault in Falluja. It is surgical rather than sweeping -- more of a focused hit-and-run operation.

In Falluja, the former rebel stronghold west of Baghdad, U.S. Marines said Thursday that U.S. and Iraqi forces had discovered a huge weapons cache inside a mosque compound.

A statement from the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force called the find the city's "largest weapons cache to date."

The Marines said the compound -- the Saad Abi Bin Waqas Mosque -- was also being used as a suspected safe house and planning site for insurgents in Falluja.

The statement didn't provide specific numbers of the weapons -- which were discovered by U.S. and Iraqi forces on Wednesday.

The statement did say that the mosque compound was "heavily laden with small arms, artillery shells, heavy machine guns, and anti-tank mines."

"Other buildings within the compound had mortar systems, rocket-propelled grenades, launchers, recoilless rifles and parts of surface-to-air weapons systems. Marines also found the barrel of an anti-aircraft gun outside one of the buildings." (Full story)

The operations in Babil, Falluja and elsewhere are aimed at putting down anti-American fighters and rebels against Iraq's interim government in advance of the nation's first, free Democratic elections since the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime. The elections are scheduled for January 30.

Other developments

This month's U.S.-Iraqi assault on insurgents in Falluja has resulted in the deaths of 2,085 "fighters" and more than 1,600 detainees, Iraqi interim National Security Adviser Dawood said.


An Iraqi Red Crescent humanitarian aid team of 56 staff members arrived in Falluja Wednesday with seven ambulances and three trucks loaded with food, water, and medical aid, the group's chairman, Said Ismail Hakki, said Thursday. Two Falluja aid centers have been set up in the city, Hakki said.


Iraq's interim foreign minister said Thursday his government will meet with tribal leaders and Iraqi opposition groups in an attempt to help broaden Iraq's political base for the upcoming elections. Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said the meeting will take place in Jordan sometime before the election. Zebari also said interior ministers from neighboring countries will meet Tuesday in Tehran, Iran, to discuss security matters.

CNN's Ayman Mohyeldin, Kianne Sadeq, Cal Perry and Kevin Flower contributed to this report.

Iraqi and U.S. forces found explosives and ammunition in a Falluja mosque compound Wednesday.
Image:

[Big Train]

Are we still so willing now to say it is an IMPOSSIBILITY of finding WMD'S?

[DEMON CUNT]

If these weapon cashes were as prevelant as Dumsfeld and Colin claimed, they would have found them a long long time ago.

Pop Quiz Twat-Shot:

If your home town was invaded, what sorts of things would you hide?

A. Flowers to throw at the invaders.
B. "Twix" brand candy bars and some weed.
C. Weapons to defend your home town, family, county.

[Big Train]

Not excluding that they could be mobile, destroyed or moved easily? C,mon now..

[LoungeMachine]

All that comes to mind is.................


" Mission Accomplished"


I guess it was all worth the 200 billion, 1,100 USM dead, 10K wounde, and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians dead.

I feel better. And safer.


Where's the "grave danger" and "mushroom cloud" Condi/Shrub warned us of?

Were the tubes used as bongs after all?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Big Train
Are we still so willing now to say it is an IMPOSSIBILITY of finding WMD'S?

Yes! At least of any on the kind of scale that the Administration said existed on the eve of war.

This was a terrorist lab designed to experiment with and create toxic chemicals, hell you could make some pretty toxic stuff by using stuff you'd find in an everyday garage and under the kitchen sink.

This has nothing to do with WMD's.

[Big Train]

What I'm asking is, given the hundreds of miles of deserts and miles and miles of underground caves (foundr recently in Fallujah for example) that it is COMPLETELY beyond the realm of possibility that either the agents or the components are not there or buried in the sand? Obviously we gave them enough time...I'm just saying, there is NO possibility in your mind?

[Nickdfresh]

No, at least nothing of anything significance. I think somebody would have talked by now. According to Time Magazine, the investigators sent into Iraq have come up with a theory as to why there may have been some indications given by the Saddam regime.

The short answer was that he was playing a game with the U.S. and Iran. He was telling the West that Iraq no longer possessed chemical weapons (true) in order to get sanctions lifted.

But he was giving indications to the Iranians that he still had WMD's because he regarded a second war with Iran to be far more likely and wanted to deter them.

If Iraq had chems. I think they would have used them on the U.S. troops advancing into Iraq. And somebody would have talked by now as to where they were hidden.

[BigBadBrian]

Various organizations are still "tripping" over discarded chemical weapons from GWI from 1991. Were saying Chem Weaps from the Saddam era still can't have existed? :rolleyes:

[John Ashcroft]

All of which leads me to wonder why the "international community" is so concerned with us blowing up mosques...

Could anyone seriously consider such a place a mosque anymore? It became a military compound, by the terrorist's own choice. And I say level the fucker (and any other like it).

[ELVIS]

Mosque Shmosque...

It's beyond time to remove every last one of them !!


:elvis:

[Mezro]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
U.S., Iraqi forces find Falluja's 'largest weapons cache'


Read that the wrong way...thought it said: U.S., Iraqi forces find Falluja's largest gash:D

Mezro...I was wondering if they all fit inside...

[Wayne L.]

All of those far left liberal losers in the Democratic Party who were against the war in Iraq in the first place & complaining about President Bush lying about WMD's need to apologize to our soldiers & the president for making complete ASSES of themselves.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Wayne L.
All of those far left liberal losers in the Democratic Party who were against the war in Iraq in the first place & complaining about President Bush lying about WMD's need to apologize to our soldiers & the president for making complete ASSES of themselves.

Why would that be? He did at least fuck up when it came to WMD's. The chemical lab had nothing to do with Saddam. Try using your budding reading comprehension skills next time.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Mosque Shmosque...

It's beyond time to remove every last one of them !!


:elvis:

Then we blow up your church next?

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Wayne L.
All of those far left liberal losers in the Democratic Party who were against the war in Iraq in the first place & complaining about President Bush lying about WMD's need to apologize to our soldiers & the president for making complete ASSES of themselves.

ARE YOU FUCKING RETARDED?

[blueturk]

Originally posted by Wayne L.
All of those far left liberal losers in the Democratic Party who were against the war in Iraq in the first place & complaining about President Bush lying about WMD's need to apologize to our soldiers & the president for making complete ASSES of themselves.

BUSH should apologize to the soldiers,especially those who are endlessly re-upped against their will.Maybe if Dubya knew anything at all personally about being in a war,he'd have a better perspective.

[blueturk]

Aren't you clutching at straws here? Bush didn't say that there was a remote,microscopic chance that WMD's were in Iraq,he implied that there were DEFINITELY WMD's.You seem to be very well informed,but you're starting to scrape the bottom of the barrel to justify this war.If WMD's are ever found in Iraq,I'll gladly kiss any Bushite's ass.Bush had his own reasons for starting this war,and WMD's were the perfect excuse for pushing the fear button.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by blueturk
Aren't you clutching at straws here? Bush didn't say that there was a remote,microscopic chance that WMD's were in Iraq,he implied that there were DEFINITELY WMD's.

So did the previous Administration. People keep forgetting it was Slick Willy that put in George Tenet as director of the CIA who gave Bush the "slam dunk" advice on the WMD's in Iraq.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
So did the previous Administration. People keep forgetting it was Slick Willy that put in George Tenet as director of the CIA who gave Bush the "slam dunk" advice on the WMD's in Iraq.


BullSHIT B3

You're forgetting that BOTH Powell and Rice stood up before the press in March of 2001 and said Sadaam had no weapons.

Oooppps


It wasnt until Dubya NEEDED Sadaam to be a "grave" threat that Powell and Rice "parroted" the company line.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
So did the previous Administration. People keep forgetting it was Slick Willy that put in George Tenet as director of the CIA who gave Bush the "slam dunk" advice on the WMD's in Iraq.


Yeah, that's it.

It's Clinton's fault.


Not Bush
Not Cheney
Not Rummy
Not Wolfie
Not Perle
Not Tenet
Not Rice

IT'S THAT DAMN CLINTON'S FAULT


jesus fucking christ, when will you chickenhawks own up to your OWN FUCKING MISTAKES.???????????????????????????????????????

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
So did the previous Administration. People keep forgetting it was Slick Willy that put in George Tenet as director of the CIA who gave Bush the "slam dunk" advice on the WMD's in Iraq.

Actually, many people say that the CIA was pressured by the Bush Administration to focus evidence that might indicate that WMD's existed, like Chalibi, that corrupt lying "walk in" who assured the Pentagon that he knew that scientists were working on chem's. Is he in jail yet?

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Actually, many people say that the CIA was pressured by the Bush Administration to focus evidence that might indicate that WMD's existed, like Chalibi, that corrupt lying "walk in" who assured the Pentagon that he knew that scientists were working on chem's. Is he in jail yet?

Many people haven't come forward yet. Not even one. :gulp:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Many people haven't come forward yet. Not even one. :gulp:

Actually, during the time in question, several spoke to the press. ANd there is that guy (Mr. Anonymous who is actually Michael Scheuer) that wrote "Imperial Hubris" which is harshly critical of the CIA high command and the Bush Administration's hyper fascination with Iraq.



Imperial Hubris
A CIA analyst reveals why we are losing the 'war on terrorism'
by Justin Raimondo
In his scathing indictment of the Bush administration's policies in the "war on terrorism," Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry twice made a telling point during the debate on national security matters, one that drove home the Bushies' incompetence with deadly accuracy. In detailing how many former military figures have endorsed his bid to become commander-in-chief, Kerry averred that "they know I would not take my eye off of the goal: Osama bin Laden. Unfortunately," he continued,

"He escaped in the mountains of Tora Bora. We had him surrounded. But we didn't use American forces, the best trained in the world, to go kill him. The president relied on Afghan warlords and he outsourced that job too. That's wrong."

Kerry made the same point a few minutes later, elaborating on it to lethal effect:

"Saddam Hussein didn't attack us. Osama bin Laden attacked us. Al Qaida attacked us. And when we had Osama bin Laden cornered in the mountains of Tora Bora, 1,000 of his cohorts with him in those mountains. With the American military forces nearby and in the field, we didn't use the best trained troops in the world to go kill the world's number one criminal and terrorist.

"They outsourced the job to Afghan warlords, who only a week earlier had been on the other side fighting against us, neither of whom trusted each other.

"That's the enemy that attacked us. That's the enemy that was allowed to walk out of those mountains. That's the enemy that is now in 60 countries, with stronger recruits."

When I heard this, my ears pricked up: Kerry was taking a page from Michael Scheuer's recently published book, Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terrorism, which lamented the lost opportunity afforded us in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks to deliver a smashing blow to al-Qaeda:

"While the 11 September attack was a human-economic calamity, Washington's failure to have its military ready for a crippling next-day attack on al-Qaeda turned it into catastrophe. It cost America its best – perhaps only – chance to deliver what is called a 'decapitation' operation, one with a chance to kill at a stroke many al-Qaeda and Taleban leaders."

The author of Imperial Hubris bitterly and repeatedly drives this point home, throughout his wide-ranging and brilliant book: a book that, I would argue, is the single most important and perceptive volume on the subject of the "war on terrorism" yet published. In 263 pages of text, Scheuer, a currently serving CIA analyst writing as "Anonymous," takes apart the shibboleths promulgated by this administration as it fights a war in which the enemy is misperceived, underestimated, and – ultimately – enhanced by our actions.

The startling thesis of this book is stated in the first paragraph of the Introduction:

"As I complete this book, U.S., British, and other coalition forces are trying to govern apparently ungovernable postwar states in Afghanistan and Iraq, while simultaneously fighting growing Islamist insurgencies in each – a state of affairs our leaders call victory. In conducting these activities, and the conventional military campaigns preceding them, U.S. forces and policies are completing the radicalization of the Islamic world, something Osama bin Laden has been trying to do with substantial but incomplete success since the early 1990s. As a result, I think it fair to conclude that the United States of America remains bin Laden's only indispensable ally."

Scheuer's theme is that we have consistently underestimated and misidentified our enemy, the forces of radical Islamism represented by the figure of bin Laden, and are therefore dooming ourselves to defeat. We have portrayed OBL as a demented nihilist whose religious convictions are a cruel distortion of Islam held only by a lunatic fringe in the Muslim world. Scheuer shows that the exact opposite is the case. Far from being the Mad Terrorist that war propagandists and politically-motivated ideologues depict, the threat posed by OBL "lies in the coherence and consistency of his ideas, their precise articulation, and the acts of war he takes to implement them." Far from being the apocalyptic fanatic conjured in the Western imagination, OBL is a practical warrior, engaged in what he – and much of the Muslim world – sees as a defensive jihad, or holy war, against the incursions of the West and its Zionist ally. He, and they, don't hate us for our freedoms, or because we guarantee women the "right" to an abortion, or because Queer Eye for the Straight Guy was such a big hit, but because of our policies in the Middle East and elsewhere, which they see as a war aimed at the eradication of Islam. In this context, as Scheuer puts it:

"The military actions of al-Qaeda and its allies are acts of war, not terrorism; they are part of a defensive jihad sanctioned by the revealed word of God, as contained in the Koran, and the sayings and traditions of the Prophet Mohammed, the Sunnah. These attacks are meant to advance bin Laden's clear, focused, limited, and widely popular foreign policy goals."

Scheuer goes on to list instances in which American foreign policy has resulted in oppression, economic exploitation, and mass death for millions of Muslims from Morocco to Malaysia:

U.S. support for Israel that keeps Palestinians in the Israelis' thrall

U.S and other Western troops on the Arabian peninsula

U.S. occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan

U.S. support for Russia, India, and China against their Muslim militants

U.S. pressure on Arab energy producers to keep oil prices low

U.S. support for apostate, corrupt, and often tyrannical Muslim governments

Scheuer speaks in his own distinctive voice, perhaps exemplified by his chapter titles: the chapter entitled "An Unprepared and Ignorant Lunge to Defeat – the United States in Afghanistan" appears to have been of special interest to candidate Kerry, as it focuses on the complete disaster that our Afghan campaign represents, even as it is being touted by this administration as a great "victory."

We were not only unprepared to respond when the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were attacked, but, when we did react, we did it half-heartedly, "out-sourcing" the task to local Afghan tribes, who gladly took our money and then looked the other way as OBL and the combined forces of al-Qaeda and the Taleban escaped.

The U.S. thought that money would be enough to buy them the head of bin Laden and other HVT's (High Value Targets), but, in universalizing their own mercenary mentality, the strategic geniuses in the Pentagon were sorely mistaken. Scheuer's description of the Afghans as "stubbornly contrary" is shot through with implicit admiration for their unwillingness to turn over any HVT's for the $100 million reward, "despite living in the planet's poorest state."

One big value in this book is its frequent referencing to al-Qaeda's internet postings, including the writings of OBL and his top theoreticians and strategists. For example, Scheuer cites a top aide to bin Laden, Abu-Ubayd al-Qurashi, who wrote after the climactic battle of Shahi Kowt:

"Anyone who follows the news from Afghanistan will see how the different factions are playing with the Americans in order to prolong the flow of dollars as much as possible, and are trying to strengthen their own interests without participating seriously in the American crusade."

If only our own Office of Management and Budget were as ruthless in their appraisal of this larcenous scheme! The Afghans took our money, and then did precisely what they intended to do all along. They took our aid and weapons in the battle against the Russians, who pursued the very same strategy we are employing – installing a "secular" regime with ideological pretensions of being "democratic," aided by a small, Westernized, secular elite and an uneasy coalition of racial-religious minority groups. The result in our own case is doomed to be identical to that which befell the Russians and their Afghan sock puppets: utter defeat.

Once al-Qaeda's leading cadre were allowed to escape, they were carried on the wind like dandelion seeds, dispersed throughout Afghanistan, and then into Pakistan, Central Asia, and beyond, implanting themselves far and wide. The seeds of a worldwide insurgency – nurtured by the arrogance and hubris of American foreign policy – have sprung up in Iraq – a "gift" to al-Qaeda, as Scheuer puts it – in Bosnia, in Spain, in Africa, and throughout the Middle East and the Caucasus. Al-Qaeda, far from being down and almost out, as the Bush administration would like us to believe, is "Not Down, Not Out" as Scheuer puts it in one of his chapter titles. This is due, he says, to "Al Qaeda's Resiliency, Expansion, and Momentum" – in short, we are dealing with a formidable enemy, which is widely misunderstood and willfully so, by all too many in the West.

The belief that al-Qaeda is fighting a defensive war against a Western incursion is at the core of bin Laden's widespread support throughout the Muslim world, and this is underscored by Scheuer, who points out that the insurgencies OBL and his cohorts support are, without exception, fighting to regain Muslim territory, not conquer new lands. OBL and his followers aren't nihilists attacking "civilization itself," as the more self-righteous commentators habitually put it: in Muslim eyes, they are a simply acting in self-defense.

Imperial Hubris is studded with analytical gems, phrased in colorful prose: it sparkles with wit, as well as wisdom, but all in the service of a serious and even solemn task: to provide a radical corrective to the hypocritical cant and political "spin" that has distorted and undermined any meaningful effort to defeat al-Qaeda and the very real threat posed by the emerging global insurgency it represents. We are blinded, says Scheuer, not just by partisan politics but also by a radical inability to see beyond our own cultural parameters:

"The way we see and interpret people and events outside North America is heavily clouded by arrogance and self-centeredness amounting to what I called 'imperial arrogance' in Through Our Enemies' Eyes. This is not a genetic flaw in Americans that has been present since the Pilgrims splashed ashore at Plymouth Rock, but rather a way of thinking America's elites have acquired since the end of World War II. It is a process of interpreting the world so it makes sense to us, a process yielding a world in which few events seem alien because we Americanize their components."

We have created, in bin Laden, "the enemy we want, not the one we face," and our insistence on misunderstanding him, or his appeal, will have fatal consequences – which are just beginning to be felt on the battlefield in Iraq, and whatever future battlefields the War Party has all mapped out for us.

We must shed our comforting illusions, Scheuer avers, and face the reality of the threat posed by bin Laden and his followers worldwide. Unless we recognize what they are, and what motivates them, we cannot undertake any meaningful and successful action to defeat them.

Reading Scheuer's wonderful book, one begins to realize how much this mantra of "they hate us for what we are" – instead of what we do – is really a form of appeasement because it disarms us in advance, and confirms the radical Islamist critique of American policy as an eternal war waged on Islam by the "Crusaders and the Jews," as bin Laden says. We are doing bin Laden's work for him, in Iraq – "the hoped for but never expected gift" – and, since the day the World Trade towers fell, throughout the world. Iraq is the "gift" bin Laden received from Washington that "will haunt, hurt, and hound Americans for years to come."

On the question of Israel, Scheuer bravely confronts the "third rail" of American foreign policy, descrying the policy of unconditional support to that country as an albatross of unbearable weight tied 'round our necks, one that could well drag us down into a relentless war against a billion-plus Muslims. Yet all discussion, he notes, of this inexplicable policy, which hurts our national interests, is forbidden:

"Almost every such speaker is immediately branded anti-Semitic and consigned to the netherworld of American politics, as if concerns about U.S. national security are prima facie void if they involve any questioning of the U.S.-Israel status quo."

The Kerry people may lift his critique of the Afghan war, but were surely horrified by Scheuer's bitterly ironic paean of admiration for

"Israel's diplomats, politicians, intelligence services, U.S.-citizen spies, and the retired senior U.S. officials and wealthy Jewish-American organizations who lobby an always amenable Congress on Israel's behalf."

He sarcastically hails the Israelis and their American supporters who "have succeeded in lacing tight the ropes binding the American Gulliver to the tiny Jewish state and its policies," perceptively noting that this conflation of American and Israeli interests been so successful that, "for many Americans," Israeli nationalism "has become deeply entwined with American nationalism" – to which I would add, only in certain quarters.

Given the veracity of the news that U.S. law enforcement has discovered a cabal of spies for Israel who burrowed their way into the Pentagon's policymaking wing, that crack about "citizen-spies" certainly was eerily prescient.

One hopes, however, that Imperial Hubris is not prescient in other ways, such as the author's prediction that – given the status quo policies maintained by our government, which give wide credence to bin Laden's propaganda efforts – we are doomed to fight a savage war in which "killing in large numbers is not enough to defeat our Muslim foes." Scheuer has been widely misinterpreted as advocating a savage war of attrition, including the "razing of infrastructure," as he puts it, but it is clear from the text that the author means only to give us fair warning:

"This sort of bloody-mindedness is neither admirable nor desirable, but it will remain America's only option so long as she stands by her failed policies toward the Muslim world."

The idea that we are going to "drain the swamp" of Arab resentment by imposing "democracy" at gunpoint is a typically self-serving example of Western narcissism, which presumes to know what is best for everyone on earth. Locked into our role as "a hectoring, white-faced, pistol-packing, Wilsonian schoolmarm," as Scheuer puts it, we are a bulwark of Central Asian and Middle Eastern dictatorships (e.g., Uzbekistan and Saudi Arabia, et al.), Concerned only with maintaining cheap oil and Israel's regional hegemony, we are fueling the worldwide insurgency – not a mere terrorist conspiracy – that poses a deadly danger to us all.

"The choice," writes Scheuer, is "between keeping current policies, which will produce an escalating expenditure of American treasure and blood, or devising new policies, which may, over time, reduce the expenditure of both."

We must choose between unconditional support for Israel and "an unending war with Islam." We must choose between the advice of John Quincy Adams, who warned that America must not "go abroad in search of monsters to destroy," and "the sordid legacy of Woodrow Wilson's internationalism, which soaked the twentieth century in as much or more blood as any other 'ism.'"

In Imperial Hubris no sacred cow goes unslaughtered, and, for that reason alone it is worth a read. It is also filled with instances in which the present administration basically blew it, especially in Afghanistan, which explains the interest of Kerry and his minions, who seem to have made some use of it in last week's debate. But the Kerry people are unlikely to take to Scheuer's basic prescription, which is that we had better damn well stay out of the affairs of other nations unless we are prepared to deal with the consequences of meddling in that which we neither understand nor appreciate. Scheuer's view of the Israeli lobby, in particular, is far too politically incorrect for the Kerry-ites to ever embrace.

In summing up the spirit and theme of this fascinating and very valuable book – which offers, among other things, a portrait of OBL that rings truer than any I have read elsewhere – I would call your attention to one of the author's more endearing subtitles, a section called "Thought Police Be Damned: Nothing is Too Dangerous to Talk About."

Now that's my kinda guy! In talking about these previously forbidden subjects, Scheuer – who has been effectively silenced by the national security bureaucracy – has done us all a very great service.

No one who has opinions on the subject of al-Qaeda, the Afghan war, the Iraq disaster, or the so-called "war on terrorism" can possibly be taken seriously until and unless they have read Imperial Hubris from cover to cover. Buy this book, read it, and recommend it to your friends.

– Justin Raimondo

[Cathedral]

Intelligence said they were there, Bush just relied on it, and it was wrong.
I don't live under the cloud where one side of the poltiical spectrum is guilty while the other walks around squeaky clean.

Government is Government, and they're all lying sacks of shit in my opinion.
I have faith in one thing, and that is God.
There isn't one person walking this earth that i would follow in any fashion, except maybe DLR, lol.

But, this is a prime example of why every Mosque in Iraq should be searched. they chose to make them military compounds, we are stupid to tip-toe around them, period.

And about the "Mission Acomplished" sign i still see being thrown around...The mision that was accomplished was the taking of Baghdad, and last i checked, the coalition forces did indeed take it.
let's not fabricate it to fit an agenda of hate for President Bush.

And as for the WMD's, I could care less about them when they are just about to hold free elections in 2 months that sets Iraq on the road to democracy.

Jump off the political soap boxes and figure out that this is history in the making, and it is very important history at that.

[lucky wilbury]

i posted the whole thing before but here is a cut down version of it. who gave this speech?


----------------------


With respect to Saddam Hussein and the threat he presents, we must ask ourselves a simple question: Why? Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up? Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community? Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster? Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke? Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits? Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously? Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified? Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents?

Does he do all of these things because he wants to live by international standards of behavior? Because he respects international law? Because he is a nice guy underneath it all and the world should trust him?

It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world. He has as much as promised it. He has already created a stunning track record of miscalculation. He miscalculated an 8-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's responses to it. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending Scuds into Israel. He miscalculated his own military might. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his plight. He miscalculated in attempting an assassination of a former President of the United States. And he is miscalculating now America's judgments about his miscalculations.

All those miscalculations are compounded by the rest of history. A brutal, oppressive dictator, guilty of personally murdering and condoning murder and torture, grotesque violence against women, execution of political opponents, a war criminal who used chemical weapons against another nation and, of course, as we know, against his own people, the Kurds. He has diverted funds from the Oil-for-Food program, intended by the international community to go to his own people. He has supported and harbored terrorist groups, particularly radical Palestinian groups such as Abu Nidal, and he has given money to families of suicide murderers in Israel.
-----------------------------

It is the total of all of these acts that provided the foundation for the world's determination in 1991 at the end of the gulf war that Saddam Hussein must:


..... unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless underinternational supervision of his chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missile delivery systems ..... [and] unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear weapon-usable material.


Saddam Hussein signed that agreement. Saddam Hussein is in office today because of that agreement. It is the only reason he survived in 1991. In 1991, the world collectively made a judgment that this man should not have weapons of mass destruction. And we are here today in the year 2002 with an uninspected 4-year interval during which time we know through intelligence he not only has kept them, but he continues to grow them.

I believe the record of Saddam Hussein's ruthless, reckless breach of international values and standards of behavior which is at the core of the cease-fire agreement, with no reach, no stretch, is cause enough for the world community to hold him accountable by use of force, if necessary. The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons .

He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons , allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.

---------------------

I have said publicly for years that weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein pose a real and grave threat to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. Saddam Hussein's record bears this out.

I have talked about that record. Iraq never fully accounted for the major gaps and inconsistencies in declarations provided to the inspectors of the pre-Gulf war weapons of mass destruction program, nor did the Iraq regime provide credible proof that it had completely destroyed its weapons and production infrastructure.

He has continually failed to meet the obligations imposed by the international community on Iraq at the end of the Persian Gulf the Iraqi regime provide credible proof war to declare and destroy its weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems and to forego the development of nuclear weapons . during the 7 years of weapons inspections, the Iraqi regime repeatedly frustrated the work of the UNSCOM--Special Commission--inspectors, culminating in 1998 in their ouster. Even during the period of inspections, Iraq never fully accounted for major gaps and inconsistencies in declarations provided to the inspectors of its pre-gulf war WMD programs, nor did the Iraqi regime provide credible proof that it had completely destroyed its weapons stockpiles and production infrastructure.

It is clear that in the 4 years since the UNSCOM inspectors were forced out, Saddam Hussein has continued his quest for weapons of mass destruction. According to intelligence, Iraq has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of the

150 kilometer restriction imposed by the United Nations in the ceasefire resolution. Although Iraq's chemical weapons capability was reduced during the UNSCOM inspections, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort over the last 4 years. Evidence suggests that it has begun renewed production of chemical warfare agents, probably including mustard gas, sarin, cyclosarin, and VX. Intelligence reports show that Iraq has invested more heavily in its biological weapons programs over the 4 years, with the result that all key aspects of this program--R&D, production and weaponization--are active. Most elements of the program are larger and more advanced than they were before the gulf war. Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating agents and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery on a range of vehicles such as bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives which could bring them to the United States homeland. Since inspectors left, the Iraqi regime has energized its missile program, probably now consisting of a few dozen Scud-type missiles with ranges of 650 to 900 kilometers that could hit Israel, Saudi Arabia and other U.S. allies in the region. In addition, Iraq is developing unmanned aerial vehicles UAVs, capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents, which could threaten Iraq's neighbors as well as American forces in the Persian Gulf.

Prior to the gulf war, Iraq had an advance nuclear weapons development program. Although UNSCOM and IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors learned much about Iraq's efforts in this area, Iraq has failed to provide complete information on all aspects of its program. Iraq has maintained its nuclear scientists and technicians as well as sufficient dual-use manufacturing capability to support a reconstituted nuclear weapons program. Iraqi defectors who once worked for Iraq's nuclear weapons establishment have reportedly told American officials that acquiring nuclear weapons is a top priority for Saddam Hussein's regime.

According to the CIA's report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons . There

[Page: S10173] GPO's PDF
is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop nuclear weapons . The more difficult question to answer is when Iraq could actually achieve this goal. That depends on is its ability to acquire weapons -grade fissile material. If Iraq could acquire this material from abroad, the CIA estimates that it could have a nuclear weapon within 1 year.
Absent a foreign supplier, it might be longer. There is no question that Saddam Hussein represents a threat. I have heard even my colleagues who oppose the President's resolution say we have to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. They also say we have to force the inspections. And to force the inspections, you have to be prepared to use force.

So the issue is not over the question of whether or not the threat is real, or whether or not people agree there is a threat. It is over what means we will take, and when, in order to try to eliminate it.

---------------------------

Regime change has been an American policy under the Clinton administration, and it is the current policy. I support the policy. But regime change in and of itself is not sufficient justification for going to war--particularly unilaterally--unless regime change is the only way to disarm Iraq of the weapons of mass destruction pursuant to the United Nations resolution.

As bad as he is, Saddam Hussein, the dictator, is not the cause of war. Saddam Hussein sitting in Baghdad with an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction is a different matter.

In the wake of September 11, who among us can say, with any certainty, to anybody, that those weapons might not be used against our troops or against allies in the region? Who can say that this master of miscalculation will not develop a weapon of mass destruction even greater--a nuclear weapon--then reinvade Kuwait, push the Kurds out, attack Israel, any number of scenarios to try to further his ambitions to be the pan-Arab leader or simply to confront in the region, and once again miscalculate the response, to believe he is stronger because he has those weapons ?

And while the administration has failed to provide any direct link between Iraq and the events of September 11, can we afford to ignore the possibility that Saddam Hussein might accidentally, as well as purposely, allow those weapons to slide off to one group or other in a region where weapons are the currency of trade? How do we leave that to chance?

That is why the enforcement mechanism through the United Nations and the reality of the potential of the use of force is so critical to achieve the protection of long-term interests, not just of the United States but of the world, to understand that the dynamic has changed, that we are living in a different status today, that we cannot sit by and be as complacent or even negligent about weapons of mass destruction and proliferation as we have been in the past.

The Iraqi regime's record over the decade leaves little doubt that Saddam Hussein wants to retain his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and, obviously, as we have said, grow it. These weapons represent an unacceptable threat.
------------------


When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.

As the President made clear earlier this week, ``Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable.'' It means ``America speaks with one voice.''

Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.

[lucky wilbury]

or this speech. again a cut down version of it. this person also signed the iraq liberation act as well as many other pieces of legislation that dealt with iraqs wmd.

------------------
Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

---------------------------

Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan.

The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing.

In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.

Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.

Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.

It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.

Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.

Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

So Iraq has abused its final chance.

As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.

"In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program."

In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.

Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.

This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.

And so we had to act and act now.

Let me explain why.

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.

Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.

That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.

They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.

At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare.

If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.

-------------------------------------------

So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.

First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens.

The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.

Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people.

We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people.

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.
--------------------------------

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.

But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so.

In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America.

[BigBadBrian]

I know. I'm raising my hand. Call on me. :D

[lucky wilbury]

take your best guesses

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
take your best guesses

Okay, not having read it (but scanning it) I'll play the game and say ex-Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet.

Or was it Clinton??

I haven't felt like doing much reading since I've been aggrevated today by two Canadian Spammers Terrence and Phillip in the DLR/VH Main (otherwise known as Blacklisted and Parmelly).

[lucky wilbury]

the first was a speech given by kerry in oct of 02 on the senate floor and the second one was clinton televised speech in dec of 98 when he had the us attack iraq over wmd

[Nickdfresh]

Lucky Wilbury Pres. Clinton Speech abstract: Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.


Well, I was one for two.

There is big difference between launching bombing raids and lauching a full blown invasion, especially when we are engaged with terrorists that are flying planes into our skyscrapers.

Will Bush make a similar speech about Iran when the time comes?

[DrMaddVibe]

I hope so dumbass!

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
I hope so dumbass!

Assvibe, do you eat leaded paint chips or something?

[DrMaddVibe]

Don't you have some asskissing to do?

Fuckstain!

[ODShowtime]

don't you have a moronic picture to post for the 10th time?

[DrMaddVibe]

Just for YOU!

[ODShowtime]

well, at least that was a new one for me

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Don't you have some asskissing to do?

Fuckstain!

Don't you have a call to make? Yeey!

[DrMaddVibe]

Say that again?


I KNEW it was you!

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Say that again?


I KNEW it was you!

Assvibe, go in another forum, the adults are talking here. Jesus Christ, I swear the 14 year olds on this site are more mature, and express their thoughts better, than you.