Tag Archives: 2003 invasion of Iraq

Sometimes You Just Wonder About Motives

Posted on by

American Military News reported on Wednesday that the U.S. government suppressed information on chemical weapons found in Iraq.

The article cites a CNN story:

The U.S. government suppressed information about chemical weapons it found in Iraq, and several servicemembers were injured by their exposure to those weapons, The New York Times is reporting.

In an article published late Tuesday, the newspaper says it found 17 American servicemembers and seven Iraqi police officers who were exposed to mustard or nerve agents after 2003. They were reportedly given inadequate care and told not to talk about what happened.

The article further reports:

According to new reports from the New York Times, between 2003 and 2011 U.S. troops were exposed to Chemical weapons in Iraq regularly, and on 6 occasions were injured by them.

 All in all 5,000 chemical warheads were found in Iraq dating back to the Saddam Hussein regime. Many of these warheads were made in close conjunction with western nations.

I don’t mention this to bring it up as an excuse for the invasion of Iraq. I bring it up to remind people that our government has not always been truthful with us. As far as the invasion of Iraq is concerned, we need to remember the situation at the time–the Iraqi government was violating a United Nations no-fly zone and other conditions of the United Nations agreement signed after Iraq invaded Kuwait. If we wanted the United Nations to survive, we had to deal with Iraq. I personally would not miss the United Nations, but that was the situation at the time. We also need to remember that the Democratic party supported the invasion of Iraq at the beginning and later used the war as a political issue. The war in Iraq is another example of politicians interfering in ways that are unhelpful in military situations.

Is There A Realist In The House?

Posted on by

While I sit here in North Carolina enjoying the beautiful weather, the Middle East is falling apart. There are three articles in today’s Wall Street Journal that cause me to wonder about the future of the Middle East and the future of America.

The first article, entitled, “Sunni Tribes in Iraq Divided Over Battle Against Islamic State” deals with the problem of tribalism in Iraq. Many Iraqis oppose ISIS. They understand that ISIS is not who they want running their country. They are willing to fight ISIS–right up to the point where as Sunnis they are asked to fight with Shiites. Some Sunnis support the Islamic State being created by ISIS. Many do not. It is very difficult to fight an ISIS takeover of Iraq when all Iraqis do not oppose such a takeover.

The second article, entitled, “Islamic State Gains New Leverage in Syria” deals with the ISIS capture of Palmyra in Syria. Palmyra, home to many archaeological treasures, is now in the hands of a group that has destroyed many archaeological treasures in the past.

The article reports:

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, an opposition group that monitors the conflict via a network of activists inside the country, said that following Palmyra’s fall on Thursday that Islamic State now controls half of the country, including most of its oil fields. The crude provides a steady stream of revenue.

The third article (actually an editorial), entitled “I Don’t Think We’re Losing” deals with President Obama’s recent statement after the fall of Ramadi in Iraq. What does losing look like according to the President?

The article reports:

It’s also worth mulling over Mr. Obama’s claim that he always “anticipated” this would be “a multiyear campaign.” This is the same President who criticized George W. Bush for conducting endless war in Iraq and Afghanistan and vowing to end it in both places. The Iraqi city of Mosul fell last June, Mr. Obama laid out his anti-ISIS strategy in September, and eight months later he promises years of more American commitment to Iraq.

At least Mr. Bush, for all his mistakes after the fall of Saddam Hussein, ordered a change of strategy that left Iraq stable by the time Mr. Obama took office. On present trend Mr. Obama’s Cool Hand Luke generalship will leave his successor an Iraq in turmoil and a mini-caliphate entrenched across hundreds of miles. If this isn’t “losing,” how does the President define victory?

I don’t have the answer to the problems in the Middle East (and the rise of ISIS). However, I do know that there are some very good leaders in our military who do have answers. I question whether or not they are currently being listened to. I do not support ground troops, but also do not support standing idly by as innocent civilians are being killed or forced to flee with only the clothes on their backs. We said ‘never again’ after the holocaust killed millions of Jews. This is our ‘never again.’ ISIS is killing both Jews (if there are any remaining in the Middle East outside of Israel) and Christians. I believe God will hold us accountable for our inaction.

Rewriting History To Help An Election Campaign

Posted on by

Yesterday the Daily Caller posted an article entitled, “Stop It Liberals: Bush Didn’t Lie About Iraq Having WMDs.” Please follow the link to read the article, I am simply going to focus on the reason this is important.

The seemingly only candidate the Democrats have right now is Hillary Clinton. She has some basic scandal problems. If the media can get the focus off of Hillary Clinton’s scandals and back to Bush Derangement Syndrome, they can tell people that a Republican President is not a good idea–without talking about Hillary or her scandals (or qualifications).

There was much more to the Iraq War than WMDs. Andrew McCarthy posted an article at National Review yesterday talking about the reasons for invading Iraq. Please follow the link and read it–it is extremely insightful.

Like it or not, the 2016 Presidential Campaign is upon us. The press has been given its marching orders and is dutifully following them. Unless Americans begin to look past what the mainstream media is telling us, we will have another President who does not believe in the basic tenets that America was founded on. It is our choice. That is the reason the articles at the Daily Caller and National Review about the invasion of Iraq are important.

 

Rewriting History When It Is Convenient

Posted on by

BuzzPo posted an article today about some recent remarks made by Secretary of State John Kerry.

The article reports:

Later, Kerry was asked to comment on Netanyahu’s criticism of a hypothetical deal with Iran as a threat to Israel.

“The prime minister was profoundly forward-leaning and outspoken about the importance of invading Iraq under George W. Bush,” Kerry replied. “We all know what happened with that decision.”

Well, isn’t that special. Benjamin Netanyahu became Prime Minister of Israel in 2009–long after the invasion of Iraq. John Kerry, as a Senator, voted for the invasion of Iraq.

Facts are such inconvenient things.