UPDATE, Sunday 14 December
Via Blackfive,
US removes uranium from Iraq
From Associated Press, that arm of the vast right wing conspiracy:
US removes uranium from Iraq.
Let’s pay attention to that: The United States military have removed
550 metric tons of “yellowcake” – the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment
which was stored at the nuclear facility in Tuwaitha, Iraq, some 12 miles south of Baghdad.
- Saddam Hussein had a nuclear program
- At the Tuwaitha nuclear complex just south of Baghdad
- Which included 550 metric tons (over 1.2 million pounds) of “yellowcake”, or concentrated uranium
- And multiple devices that could be used in a nuclear weapon
The AP does not say alleged nuclear program. It does not add “according to military experts.” It simply says “Saddam Hussein’s nuclear program.”
Other important points:
1. The yellowcake removed is the last mayor remnant of Saddam’s nuclear program. There was more.
2. The military had removed earlier this year four devices for controlled radiation exposure which “contain elements of high radioactivity that could potentially be used in a weapon”.
3. The yellowcake was sold to Cameco, which may have been involved in the Oil-For-Food scam, and is a company in which Soros Fund Management LLC owns a substantial portion.
It Must Suck Being Joe Wilson Today – Joe, you’ve been punk’d!
In other news, Iraqis lead final purge of Al-Qaeda, Islamism is discredited, and We’re winning this War on Terror.
The Carnival of Latin America and the Caribbean will be up in a couple of hours. Bear with me – with the rescue of the Colombian hostages, it’s going to be huge!
Special thanks to Hip Hop Republican and Larwyn.
Today’s must-read: Saddam and al-Qaeda
At American Thinker, via Larwyn, Debra Baker’s article, Saddam and al-Qaeda
- In Extract 12 on page 16 of the Pentagon papers, there is another memorandum that was drafted in Saddam’s office which specifically shows that Saddam was directly financing and training the EIJ
- captured Iraqi archives reveal that Saddam was training Arab fighters (non-Iraqi) in Iraqi training camps more than a decade prior to Operation Desert Storm (1991).
- Saddam provided support to terrorists that only a state could provide by issuing passports to known terrorists so they could move about freely.
Go read the rest.
On Saddam’s Order
What is not debatable, based on the Iraqi Perspectives Project, is that Saddam Hussein’s regime funded, trained, and assisted terrorist groups (including al-Qaeda proxies), and sometimes actually ordered them to attack American citizens, American interests, and American allies. To compound the danger, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was simultaneously using its intelligence and security apparatus to plot and conduct terror attacks of its own.
The article lists the groups that Saddam’s regime funded, trained, and assisted:
- “Renewal and Jihad Organization”
- Egyptian Islamic Jihad (al-Qaeda second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahiri’s group, which merged with Osama bin Laden’s terrorists to form al-Qaeda)
- The Islamic Scholars Group in Pakistan
- Pakistan Scholars Group
- “Army of Muhammad” that it knew to be loyal to Osama bin Laden
A September 2001 document mentions Saddam’s efforts “make common cause” with a number of Islamic radical groups in Kuwait, including a Shiite group. Another document mentions a Sri Lankan group that volunteered to carry out suicide bombings on Saddam’s orders during the first Gulf war. Additional internal memos show Iraqi officials reporting to one another that Hamas was willing through the 1990s to conduct suicide attacks against Americans on behalf of Saddam’s Iraq. These memos also listed Abu Abbas, the notorious Palestinian terrorist, as another man willing to lead his forces for Saddam in attacks against Americans.
Additionally,
The report details the regime’s production of suicide vests, IEDs, and car bombs for plots that included targets in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. Saddam’s embassies in these countries were warehouses for missile launchers, plastic explosives, TNT, Kalashnikovs, booby-trapped suitcases, and grenades. These tools were all available to a regime that had internal orders to attack American civilians, military members, bases, embassies, and ships.
The report where Mark Eichenlaub found all this information is five volumes long. What journalist out there is taking the time to comb through this information, rather than continue to believe that Saddam’s Iraq was harmless country that presented no threat to anyone?
UPDATE
While we’re at it, Brian Faughnan at the Weekly Standard posts about Iraq’s Unheralded Political Progress.
Brian’s going to be on next Friday’s postcast. Don’t miss it!
Skype sucks: The wait; and today’s links
After the phishing, the wait
.
.
.
.
waiting
.
.
.
Saddam’s Files, They Show Terror Plots, But Raise New Questions About Some Media Claims
The Bolivarian Republic of Massachusetts, via Instapundit
Why Can’t People Just LEAVE KWAME ALONE!!!!
Via Ed,
Major offensive against Hizbolla – in IRAQ
Wishing Kevin McCullough great success!
Dance time, with Miro’s art:
Saturday afternoon mini-linkfest
The Saddam-Al Qaeda Links: In Photos and Video
Washington Post Duped Instead of D.U.P.E.S. (UPDATE: WaPo Purposeful Dupe)
Via Dan, Report Details Saddam’s Terrorist Ties
The report also undercuts the claim made by many on the left and many
at the CIA that Saddam, as a national socialist, was incapable of
supporting or collaborating with the Islamist al Qaeda. The report concludes
that instead Iraq’s relationship with Osama bin Laden’s organization
was similar to the relationship between the rival Colombian cocaine
cartels in the 1990s. Both were rivals in some sense for market share, but
also allies when it came to expanding the size of the overall market.The Pentagon study finds, “Recognizing Iraq as a second, or parallel,
‘terror cartel’ that was simultaneously threatened by and somewhat
aligned with its rival helps to explain the evidence emerging from the
detritus of Saddam’s regime.”
Puerto Rico and Hugo’s subs, in today’s round-up
No, not these subs; the Russian subs: Mora writes,
Chavez is heading to Russia in the next few days, to discuss the purchase of five kilo-class submarines, and possibly four more advanced amur-class subs. There are questions as to how he would be able to finance them as well as how obtain the advanced training to bring them online, but there is no question from his statments that he wants them.
The financing might involve not only oil, but also drugs. As I have pointed out, Hugo needs money for financing his “Bolivarian Revolution”, i.e., his desire to control all of Latin America’s politics. For that he needs money. A huge amount of money. The drug trade is one source.
As for the advanced training, I’m sure Putin will provide the personnel as part of the deal. Don’t believe for a moment that Vlad’s going to hand Hugo valuable war weapons without keeping a firm hand in the works.
Mora also points out,
Although there are many islands in the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf Of Mexico, and many colonial powers, it’s significant that Chavez alluded to the U.S.’s and France’s prime presences there. In the past he’s threatened Netherlands and its overseas territories, and he’s always hated Britain, but now he seems to have singled out France. While Chavez’s antipathy to the U.S. is well-known, what’s less well-known is that France’s new president, Nicolas Sarkozy, has an interest in the region and a clear understanding about Chavez. He’s stepped up his ties to Venezuela’s battered neighbor, Colombia, and probably will become more active in the region as Chavez’s aggression steps up. Chavez knows this, and wants to throw out a few threat to France and the U.S. now.
This segues well with my theory on the drug trade: France has repeatedly caught tons of cocaine proceeding from Caracas in the past (including the seizing of a vessel carrying 18 tons of cocaine on March last year. I explored this connection between Chavez and the drug trade on my post of April 13, 2006 (scroll down).
Hugo may be fooling some, but he’s certainly not fooling Lech Waleska: Via Gateway Pundit
“I believe Chávez is a huge demagogue and populist who says one thing and does a quite different thing. He likes giving away what does not belong to him and tries to take advantage of people’s dissatisfaction,” he added.
One thing for sure, Hugo’s not fooling Newton
Immigration and Terrorists in the US: Connect the Dots
In a nutshell – terrorists flew under the radar in 1986, over-stayed visas, and rode the curtails of illegal Mexicans who had crossed the border all the way to citizenship. Do we want to do that again? Can we afford it?
In other, totally unrelated news, Hitchens asks, Let’s stop channelling angry Muslims
Look Forward to Anger
It’s impossible to satisfy “Rage Boy” and his ilk. It’s stupid to try.
…
The lives of Shiite Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and Christians—to say nothing of atheists or secularists—are considered by Sunni militants to be of little or no account. And yet they accuse those who criticize them of bigotry! And many people are so anxious to pre-empt this accusation that they ventriloquize the reactions of Sunni mobs as if they were the vox populi, all the while muttering that we must take care not to offend such supersensitive people.This mental and moral capitulation has a bearing on the argument about Iraq, as well. We are incessantly told that the removal of the Saddam Hussein despotism has inflamed the world’s Muslims against us and made Iraq hospitable to terrorism, for all the world as if Baathism had not been pumping out jihadist rhetoric for the past decade (as it still does from Damascus, allied to Tehran). But how are we to know what will incite such rage? A caricature published in Copenhagen appears to do it. A crass remark from Josef Ratzinger (leader of an anti-war church) seems to have the same effect. A rumor from Guantanamo will convulse Peshawar, the Muslim press preaches that the Jews brought down the Twin Towers, and a single citation in a British honors list will cause the Iranian state-run press to repeat its claim that the British government—along with the Israelis, of course—paid Salman Rushdie to write The Satanic Verses to begin with. Exactly how is such a mentality to be placated?
We may have to put up with the Rage Boys of the world, but we ought not to do their work for them, and we must not cry before we have been hurt. In front of me is a copy of this week’s Economist, which states that Rushdie’s 1989 death warrant was “punishment for the book’s unflattering depiction of the Prophet Muhammad.” There is no direct depiction of the prophet in this work of fiction, and the reverie about his many wives occurs in the dream of a madman. Nobody in Ayatollah Khomeini’s circle could possibly have read the book for him before he issued a fatwah, which made it dangerous to possess. Yet on that occasion, the bookstore chains of America pulled The Satanic Verses from their shelves, just as Borders shamefully pulled Free Inquiry (a magazine for which I write) after it reproduced the Danish cartoons. Rage Boy keenly looks forward to anger, while we worriedly anticipate trouble, and fret about etiquette, and prepare the next retreat. If taken to its logical conclusion, this would mean living at the pleasure of Rage Boy, and that I am not prepared to do.
Interesting to see that The Economist is referring to the Prophet Mohammed; I’ve been subscribing to The Economist for decades now and never once have I seen them refer to Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Fred Thompson has more to say about Rushdie.
GreenMountain politics posts on Giuliani.
Go, Pundit, Go has a video on the Dems and the unions
Side note:
We’ve been on the road, and I’m happy to recommend the Subway franchise for a fast lunch. You can get a freshly-made salad with as many or as few toppings as you like, without having to put up with greasy burgers or overfried, overseasoned chicken.