Saturday, April 26, 2003  

Indisputable Proof of the Iraq-Terror Link

London's Telegraph is reporting the first hard evidence of a relationship between Saddam and Osama:

Papers found yesterday in the bombed headquarters of the Mukhabarat, Iraq's intelligence service, reveal that an al-Qa'eda envoy was invited clandestinely to Baghdad in March 1998.

The documents show that the purpose of the meeting was to establish a relationship between Baghdad and al-Qa'eda based on their mutual hatred of America and Saudi Arabia. The meeting apparently went so well that it was extended by a week and ended with arrangements being discussed for bin Laden to visit Baghdad.

OK? So no more whining about how fighting Iraq didn't have anything to do with the War on Terror. And it looks like the Iraqis knew the trouble they would get into by getting in bed with Al Qaeda:

Perhaps aware of the sensitivities of the subject matter, Iraqi agents at some point clumsily attempted to mask out all references to bin Laden, using white correcting fluid. The dried fluid was removed to reveal the clearly legible name three times in the documents.

So do you think we'll be hearing retractions and apologies by all the people who mocked Colin Powell when he laid out the connection between Saddam and terrorism in front of the U.N.? People like Ted Rall, who in his column entitled "Don't Support Our Troops" said this:

"Iraq isn't part of the war on terrorism. The only link between Iraq and Al Qaeda is the fact that they hate each other's guts."

They didn't seem to hate each other too much, Ted. I wonder if he'll run a retraction in his next column. Something tells me I shouldn't hold my breath.

posted by Josh | 5:48 PM

Friday, April 25, 2003  

Still Barking, Never Biting

If you were still wondering whether or not Saddam Hussein was (past tense) a bad guy, the U.N. took a courageous stand today when its Human Rights Commission condemned the "all-pervasive repression and oppression sustained by broad-based discrimination and widespread terror" during Saddam's rule.

Good job, U.N.! You finally realized that a brutal dictator was, in fact, a brutal dictator. And because you were so outraged by his actions you decided nothing.

Of course, a minority of members of the Human Rights Commission (you know, the one that is headed by Libya) also said that U.S.-led coalition forces themselves should come under investigation for possibly violating the rights of Iraqis. I'm sure that Bush and Rumsfeld are praying that the U.N. punishes them just like the U.N. punished Saddam.

posted by Josh | 9:01 PM

Buy a Con Law Book

If you're sick and tired of hearing the anti-war crowd's bogus arguments about how they've had their free speech rights oppressed, you'll feel better after reading this article about a guy who is claiming his free speech rights were violated when he was charged with harassment for literally throwing cold water on peace protesters.

At least now it's close to being even. If I have to listen to Tim Robbins preach about how his fundamental right to make an anti-war statement at the Baseball Hall of Fame was violated, at least the anti-war nuts have to listen to the pro-war water-thrower.

(hat tip: Fark)

posted by Josh | 8:08 PM

Thursday, April 24, 2003  

Stupid, Stupid Celebrities

In response to the barrage of criticism that has been hurled at them, the Dixie Chicks have responded by...getting naked. I imagine my debate with them would go something like this:

Me: I think you really abused your fame and ability to speak to large audiences when you criticized the president while you were in a foriegn country on the eve of war.

Dixie Chicks: But we're naked!

Me: Quite right. Nevermind. What are you doing later?

So I guess their strategy is pretty good after all. But seriously, they could not have come up with a lamer way to respond to their critics. If they had any brains, they'd just hunker down 'til this blew over (which it inevitably will, given America's ever-shortening attention span). Instead, they try to make their case au naturale in the pages of that intellectual standard-bearer, Entertainment Weekly.

But at least their not not as delusional as Madonna. She told England's Radio Times that:

"We as Americans are completely obsessed and wrapped up in a lot of the wrong values - looking good, having cash in the bank, being perceived as rich, famous and successful or just being famous."

This is off-topic, but I had to draw everyone's attention to the jaw-dropping amount of hypocrisy displayed by her un-American statement. If we're obsessed with money and fame, my girl, it's just because you taught us everything you know about them. What the f--k did she think she was doing?

posted by Josh | 9:44 PM

From our "Birds of a Feather" Dep't: Scott Ritter Speaks Out in Support of Corrupt (and Treasonous) British MP

Scott Ritter was shocked, just shocked to hear that British MP George Galloway was on the take from the Iraqi intelligence services. With apologies to the Bard, methinks the perv doth protest too much.

Ritter explains the source of his empathy: Having been on the receiving end of smear campaigns designed to assassinate the character of someone in opposition to the powers that be, I have grown highly suspicious of dramatic revelations conveniently timed to silence a vocal voice of dissent.

Just one question: how long before some files turn up in Baghdad with Scott Ritter's name on them --- and some rather...ahem...compromising photographs in them?

posted by Geraldine | 9:40 PM

Secondary Effects of a Just War

WMI has said for awhile that there was much more to the Iraq war than toppling Saddam and getting rids of WMDs. This article is one of many pieces of evidence that will prove us right:

RAMALLAH, West Bank -- Yasser Arafat and his prime minister-designate, Mahmoud Abbas, ended a bitter dispute over the composition of a new cabinet yesterday.

Their agreement clears the way for a Mideast peace initiative by Washington. The plan is to end 31 months of Israeli-Palestinian fighting and establish a Palestinian state. It would respond to pressure on the United States by Arab and European countries to promote Mideast peace at a time when its troops occupy Iraq.

Being an AP article, it gets the facts a bit skewed: It is not the "Arab and European countries", but the United States that has the pressure, and we would not have had such pressure if we had not invaded Iraq. Please note: It is laughable that there has ever been a time when we have not promoted Mideast peace (as far as Arab countries go, weren't the Saudis recently having telethons for suicide bombers?)

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the biggest issue that needs to be settled in the Mideast (duh), and the Iraq war was another stepping stone toward achieving that goal. Point being, if we had not invaded Iraq, I seriously doubt that Yasser would be as conciliatory as he is now (he sure wasn't beforehand).

Of course, the lack of Palestinian control over their home-grown terrorists could still screw things up. But maybe they still have their laissez-faire policy implemented.

posted by Josh | 1:54 AM

Wednesday, April 23, 2003  

Our Friends the Russians

Charles Krauthammer exposes the hypocrisy and callousness behind the Russian refusal to lift the sanctions on Iraqi:

In the history of diplomacy going back to, oh, Babylonian times, it is hard to find a pronouncement as cynical.

During the 1990s, when Hussein was concealing his weapons of mass destruction, the Russians did everything they could to lift sanctions. Indeed, in 1999 Russia refused to support the resolution renewing weapons inspections. It showed not the slightest concern about these WMDs when they were controlled by Hussein, a man who invaded two neighboring countries, attacked two others and used chemical weapons to kill tens of thousands of innocents. But now that Iraq is run not by a local mass murderer but by an American president, Russia has acquired a sudden concern about Iraq's WMDs -- and wants to keep sanctions imposed, and the Iraqi economy starved, until those concerns are satisfied.

What are they after? They want a continuation of the oil-for-food program -- Tommy Franks correctly called it the "oil-for-palace program" -- under which the United Nations has been using Iraqi oil proceeds to buy tons of goods largely from France, Russia and Syria. They want the honoring of the enormous oil-exploration concessions that Hussein gave them (in return for their services to him at the United Nations). And they want the new Iraq to be saddled with the huge and reckless loans they made to Hussein to build his palaces and buy his weapons.

Until then, Iraq starves.

Another way to say it might be, "If you're being even more contrarian than the French, you've got problems."

posted by Josh | 3:56 PM

Tuesday, April 22, 2003  

Wolves in Frogs' Clothing

The newswires are all abuzz with the startling news that France has called for the suspension of sanctions on Iraq.

But before you start renaming all your boxed of microwavable Freedom Fries, notice that France has put one rather important caveat on their willingness to lift the sanctions: that the full removal of the sanctions would be "linked to the certification of the disarmament of Iraq". Now, that doesn't sound too bad on the surface, but I've got a suspicion that in France's mind, disarmament can only be certified by U.N. inspectors, which the U.S. today said we would not allow. Coincidence? I think not.

Mark my words: France's move today is just a ploy to get a U.N. (read: French) toe-hold in Iraq. But not to worry, as Secretary Powell said today that France will be punished for its anti-Iraq war stance. Come on, Jacques; I know we're just Les Americains Stupides, but we're not that stupid.

posted by Josh | 11:32 PM

Re: New Poll

Sorry to post a response instead of my usual rant, but I think a key issue was left off the poll. I do not think there would be any protests at all, because unlike the antiwar crowd, we all have jobs. I can imagine how that scenario would have gone over at work:

Tucker: "Boss, I'm not going to be at work tomorrow. Some friends of mine and I are going to block traffic on the Key Bridge with our SUVs cause Gore won't invade Iraq."
Boss: "Yeah, ok....Tucker, you're fired - not because of your pro-war views, but because that is the stupidest thing I have ever heard in my life, and you are going to screw over my commute tomorrow."
Tucker: "Ok, ok...I won't block traffic on the bridge, but I will march down the street with an 'Increase Aid to Israel' banner cause Gore won't invade Iraq."
Boss: "Tucker, that's even more stupid than your last idea. What does aid to Israel have to do with Iraq? Why the f*** did I ever hire you? You're retarded."
Tucker: "Ok, forget that idea. But I will have to break out my 'Keep Mumia in Jail' sign and march on the White House."
Boss: "Gee, Tucker, that sounds fascinating. (he picks up his phone) Security! We have a crackpot loose in the building."
Tucker: "Well at least let me use my 'Viva la France' poster and march on the Capitol, so they will change Freedom Toast back to French Toast."
Boss: "How did you get through 4 years of college? Were you a sociology major or something?"
Tucker: "Gore = Hitler?"
Boss: "That's the last straw. Where's my baseball bat?"
Boss: (standing over my lifeless corpse) "It's hard to believe you beat out 2 million other sperm to the egg."

Bottom line, the members of the antiwar crowd (or at least the ones who make all the headlines) have acted like complete idiots. I don't think we would have acted that way (read: stupid) no matter what the circumstances.

posted by Tucker | 7:41 AM


My hippie buddy Ed (whose interests usually center around Trent Reznor) posited an interesting question to me today, and I thought I would express it in Poll form:

"If this were a parallel universe where, say Gore had been elected, 9/11 had still happened, but we weren't going to war with Iraq, would you be protesting our not going to war? Or do you think there would be protests in favor of a war that wasn't being fought?"

Basically, I think he's asking whether the pro-war crowd (which, of course, includes WMI) would have fought for their side as vehemently as the anti-war crowd fought for theirs. I am unsure of the answer to this question, so I'll let our readers decide. Vote away.

posted by Josh | 12:33 AM

Monday, April 21, 2003  

WTF?! NY Times Op-Eder Admits He Was Wrong...Sort Of

I predicted it would never happen, but one columnist from the anti-war junta has come out to say he called it wrong. Nicholas Kristof writes:

"Last September, a gloom-and-doom columnist warned about Iraq: "If we're going to invade, we need to prepare for a worst-case scenario involving street-to-street fighting."

Ahem. Yes, well, that was my body double while I was on vacation.

Since I complained vigorously about this war before it started, it's only fair for me to look back and acknowledge that many of the things that I — along with other doves — worried about didn't happen."

Wow. Of course, he goes on to argue how or rebuilding effort will fail, but at least he tried. Now if only Ted Rall, Maureen Dowd, Molly Ivins, etc, would do the same...oh well. I guess they have to crawl before they can walk.

posted by Josh | 11:52 PM

Hating the Truth

Maureen Dowd has another pointless and unanalytical column out today (NY Times reg. req'd), where she tries to contrast the good times in Washington with the bad times in Baghdad. Well, duh. If my memory is correct, we just fought a war in Baghdad, so it might be a month or two before IslamoDisney opens its doors. But I can guarantee you one thing - no one got thrown into a paper shredder today in Baghdad, which is more than anyone could guarantee a month ago.

But this part of the column about Franklin Graham struck me as especially ridiculous:

Muslims suspicious that America is on a crusade against Islam were inflamed to learn that Mr. Graham is taking his missionary act to Iraq. They are still scorched by his remarks to NBC News after 9/11: "It wasn't Methodists flying into those buildings, and it wasn't Lutherans. It was an attack on this country by people of the Islamic faith."

OK, I don't really know anything about Franklin Graham - maybe he's OK, maybe he's not. But you cannot dispute the accuracy of his statement. Dowd's attack upon his statements and upon him shows the true colors of post (and maybe pre-) 9/11 liberalism: The left hates the truth when it offends peoples' sensibilities.

This is a dangerous trend, for obvious reasons. In a world filled with terrorists who have access to WMDs, we can't have leaders who are too squeamish to face reality, for fear that one group or another might not like it. Which may be why the Left has no real leaders now.

posted by Josh | 12:02 PM

Sunday, April 20, 2003  

The Last Days

The NY Times has an interesting account of the final days of Saddam's regime:

Almost all of these high officials seemed divorced from the reality that was known to the simplest Iraqi with access to a shortwave radio or to neighborhood gossip that Iraqi troops were falling back almost everywhere, and that the Americans would be at the gates of Baghdad in a matter of days.

Listening to these officials, it was as though they had been immersed so long in a parallel world where truth was routinely walled out that, even now, they could not grasp the facts about to overwhelm them.

The article does a nice job of illustrating how a regime that was rotten from the inside fell quickly when faced with the strength of the allied coalition.

posted by Josh | 6:00 PM
WMI Poll
arsenals of democracy
coalition of the willing
evil empires
wmi's gonzo journalism
email us
link to WMI
the archives
that don't work