Slap a wrist to extract a foot (updated 9sep13)

George Rebane

As we prepare to launch some sort of punishing strike against the Assad regime in Syria, the question of WMDs comes up again.  We recall that 1) no significant WMDs were found in Iraq after Gulf2, and 2) that our military reported large convoys of trucks headed to Syria in the weeks before Gulf2 started with its ‘shock and awe’.  Now we have evidence that Assad has used chemical WMDs – primarily the Sarin nerve gas – against both rebels and his own civilians.

What has been absent in the lamestream's coverage is the entire issue of how and when did Assad get the reported 1,000 tons of chemical WMDs that he has squirreled away across Syria.  There have been no reports, especially by Israel, of such a massive infusion of these weapons from other suppliers since Gulf2.  All we have is clear historical evidence that numerous convoys of Iraqi military trucks were observed heading for Syria before hostilities started.

The Left then gleefully reported the absence of Iraqi WMDs in their scourging of Bush2 for Gulf2.  In these pages (see comment stream here) we offered the reasonable conjecture that Saddam shipped his WMDs to fellow Baathists in Syria in the ample time he had before we started our last mid-east war.  Today this conjecture is again being picked up on sites like The Diplomad 2.0 (H/T to reader).

So now we are within hours of launching strikes whose only clear purpose is to risk American lives to deliver an inconclusive slap on Assad’s wrist.  And the purpose of that slap?  I believe it is only to extract Obama’s foot from his red-lined mouth.  With the given assurances of no intended regime change, what other interest could this inanity possibly serve?

[31aug13 update]  Moments ago in the White House Rose Garden President Barack Obama announced that his foot was more deeply imbedded than previously thought, and that he would now seek congressional support in its extraction before striking Syria.  Well, maybe not is so many words, but the message from Britain’s Parliament and the national polls to the president has been clear – don’t go it alone.

My own thoughts on the matter put a more comprehensive objective into play here as we await the return of Congress (now scheduled for 9 Sep).  I would advise Congress to get back to DC right after Labor Day, debate the matter, and give conditional support for the strike provisioned on the following –

1.    Make it not a pin prick with no threat of regime change, but a massive air/missile assault on all facets of Assad’s military infrastructure and fighting capability with the express intention that this action is intended to abet regime change.
2.    Include the promise and schedule of material military support to the secular Syrian rebels to aid them in prevailing against both Assad and the out-country radical Islamic factions hoping to turn post-Assad Syria into an Islamic theocracy a la Iran.
3.    State clearly that the US and its allies will support the new non-theocratic Syrian government against any remnant radical factions that intend to oppose such a new Syria.
4.    Enlarge the overall authorization to include the principled message aimed at Iran, that the US and its allies view Iran’s accession to the nuclear club with equal animosity as it holds all nations employing WMDs against their own people.

[2sep13 update]  Historian, classicist, and commentator Victor Davis Hanson is one today’s leading observers and interpreters of America’s fundamental transformation.   A recent interview with him is featured in the WSJ’s Uncommon Knowledge video series (here).  In it he discusses the role of human leadership at selected tipping points of history that reach back into antiquity, and bring us to the contemporary genesis of the Iraqi ‘surge’.  The finale to this compelling 40+ minute dialogue is particularly vindicative (new word) of the ideas presented and debated on RR.  Get yourself a cup of coffee and settle back for a stimulating interlude that is spot on relevant to what President Obama and his administration are going through now.

[9sep13 update]  As President Obama puts on the full court press to convince the Congress and the nation that Syria should be pinpricked, we revisit the simplest explanation for understanding his actions now and over the past years.  Recall that RR has maintained that his devastating policies for the country could always fall under the binary categories of being either inept outpourings from an incompetent administration, or purposeful in executing the promised fundamental transformation of America into a socialist state on par with the lost lambs of the EU.  I have continue to believe that the caricatured ineptness of this administration serves to hide his true agenda for the US.  Such incompetency is made more believable by the celebrations of his liberal constituency comprised of cynical elites, starry-eyed ideologues, and a plurality of the simply stupid.

Today in the 9sep13 WSJ neoconservative pundit and writer Norman Podhoretz offers ‘Obama’s Successful Foreign Failure’ that is an excellent summary of the president’s ineptness-as-camouflage foreign policy.  Of the utter confusion and lame denials (“I didn’t set the red line, …”) that now issue daily from the White House, Podhoretz writes – “Yet if this is indeed the pass to which Mr. Obama has led us—and I think it is—let me suggest that it signifies not how incompetent and amateurish the president is, but how skillful. His foreign policy, far from a dismal failure, is a brilliant success as measured by what he intended all along to accomplish. The accomplishment would not have been possible if the intention had been too obvious. The skill lies in how effectively he has used rhetorical tricks to disguise it.”

As often opined here, Podhoretz concurs that Obama’s visible history with “anti-American preacher Jeremiah Wright, unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers, and the original ‘community organizer’ Saul Alinsky” laid the basis for his love of autocratic socialism that he sells under the rubric of “fairness” which can be attained only by dunning “the rich”.  Not mincing his words, Podhoretz unambiguously concludes –

“As a left-wing radical, Mr. Obama believed that the United States had almost always been a retrograde and destructive force in world affairs. Accordingly, the fundamental transformation he wished to achieve here was to reduce the country's power and influence.”

Comments

[Russ Steele]

My guess is that Obama will launch cruse missiles for two days at Syria's air force assets.

[TheMikeyMcD]

America..... http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-28/how-america-gets-educated-syria

Google trends search results for "where is Syria" and "Twerking"-

[Todd Juvinall]

The lamestream will praise Obama as the second coming of Caesar. What a hero eh?

I recall the trucks being reported and it was pooh-poohed as nothing by the lames. We all knew he, Sadaam, was getting them out of Dodge. Looks true now.

[Walt]

This is where the "three monkeys" comes into play.
Deny the evidence of convoys, deny Sadam ever had them in the first place, and HAS denied the multiple uses for a year.
The Coward in Chief has erased, and moved his "red line"
how many times? ( I have lost count)
The real question is will "O" even go to Congress as required by the Constitution. Somehow I don't think so.
I recall being on an overpass one snowy day as the peacenicks
came by, then news broke of "O" throwing a few missiles Libya's
way. ( nope, no going to Congress there either.)
And just what did the "marchers" have to say when one or two of us "gave them the news"? " well,,, O must have had a good reason..." Here they were, bitching about Bush and his "illegal"
war, then without missing a beat, gave "O" a pass.

We also have this " The enemy, of my enemy, is my friend." going on as well. So.. Just which side is which? The Muslum Brohood? ( the side "O" really likes),or Al-Qaida? ( the rebs?)

Who was Amb. Stevens helping arm, now that gun running for "someone" was going on. ( Who the hell cares at this point?.... Right?)

[Ken Jones]

Walt the march from the Union by us "peacenecks" was on March 13th 2011. The missiles the US launched at Libya was March 19th 2011. I guess you must have been clairvoyant on the bridge that day, or perhaps embellishing the story to suit your agenda. Easier for you to call the President childish names than focus on facts.

[Paul Emery]

It is my understanding that the WMD's that Sadaam had in the early 90's that were cited as an excuse for our unconstitutional invasion of that sovereign nation had a limited shelf life therefore could not be what Assad is using. I have limited knowledge about that so any additional information would be appreciated.

[Paul Emery]

More

But the truth of the matter is that Iraq’s WMD may have even less of a shelf life than Ritter now claims -- and the U.S. government knows it.......Furthermore, says this Defense Department report, “The chemical munitions found in Iraq after the [first] Gulf War contained badly deteriorated agents and a significant proportion were visibly leaking.” The shelf life of these poorly made agents were said to be a few weeks at best -- hardly the stuff of vast chemical weapons stores.

http://www.alternet.org/story/15854/lies_about_iraq%26%23146%3Bs_weapons_are_past_expiration_date

[George Rebane]

Re PaulE's 239pm - In the artillery, I was also a trained CBR officer. Our chemical artillery shells were then of a quality that warranted no consideration for their shelf life. At the time we presumed that the Red Army had equivalent chemical WMD's. One can reasonably expect that in the interval these weapons have only become more reliable along every one of their attributes.

[Walt]

Sorry Ken, But I recall that day vary well. One of the people next to me had
a radio on when the news broke of the attacks.
Matter of fact it was just after Keach was playing in the street with his camera, dressed like he was in Hawaii. ( sun hat, flowered shirt, shorts, and flip-flops.)
The date you site, was the date of the story most likely.
I tried to dredge up what the miserable excuse of what we call The Union these days had, but their archives are empty.

[Paul Emery]

George

I think you jumped the gun here to try to make your point about justifying the war in Iraq. Here's the scoop on Sarin nerve gas that you refer to in your post as the most likely WMD used by Syria. From the International Business Times:

http://www.ibtimes.com/what-sarin-gas-syrian-government-forces-rebels-suspected-using-nerve-agent-1239273

"If Sarin gas was used by either side in the Syrian civil war, it’s likely that the substance was made relatively recently. Depending on the purity of the chemicals used to make sarin, it has a shelf life of somewhere between a few weeks and a few months."

[George Rebane]

PaulE 402pm - perhaps you are right, perhaps. However, the nerve agent in Syria was delivered by either rocket and/or artillery, and to weaponize any chemical agent to reliably perform under those delivery methods makes me maintain my original point. I don't think that the Syrians have that capability - everything they ride, carry, and shoot was made elsewhere.

BTW, our nerve agent was not Sarin but a new and improved formula called VX, and as I said, it had no stated half-life. VX is/was much more virulent than Sarin, and I believe its mere existence was outlawed about 20 or so years ago. That, of course, has no bearing on what is still being stored and used.

[Ken Jones]

Walt you are correct. The march and missile attack were both on the 19th. I stand correct.

[Ken Jones]

Re: I stand corrected, not correct. Walt had the correct dates.

[Paul Emery]

George 04:19

Are you saying that the nerve gas that Syria might hae inherited from Iraq might have been leftovers from what we provided them to gas the Kurds and Iranians?

[Russ Steele]

Paul@04:02PM,

When I went through Chemical Warfare Training in the Air Force, we learned about the the delivery systems a potential enemy might use. The best delivery system was to have the chemicals on board the shell or bomb and then mix them in flight. This insured the stability and the potency of the product at the impact point. From Wikipedia:

In some formulations, tributylamine is replaced by diisopropylcarbodiimide (DIC), allowing sarin to be stored in aluminium casings. In binary chemical weapons, the two precursors are stored separately in the same shell and mixed to form the agent immediately before or when the shell is in flight. This approach has the dual benefit of solving the stability issue and increasing the safety of sarin munitions.

It is very possible that Iraq had the latest technology, having had some experience with delivering these types of WMDs, and that technology was passed on to Syria.

[Paul Emery]

Russ

Of course it's possible but it's not a theory that has much traction with reliable sources. The Bushers would have loved to have discovered that and I'm sure they did all they could to find WMD's with no success. They literally scoured the country looking for clues to justify their WMD claims. Rumsfield himself said later that:

intelligence reports -- now shown to have been false -- that Iraq possessed WMDs were the main reason for going in, Rumsfeld said.

"No question it was the big one," he said. Asked if the United States would not have invaded if the administration hadn't believed Iraq had the weapons of mass destruction, Rumsfeld said: "I think that's probably right."

He criticized the source known as "Curveball" -- an Iraqi defector who admitted his claims that Iraq possessed WMDs were false -- but stopped short of condemning the U.S. intelligence community."

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/02/20/rumsfeld.interview/index.html

Perhaps they had that technology when they had our assistance in gassing the Kurds and Iranians.

[George Rebane]

PaulE 913pm - would you please explain how your comment discounts the very likely cross border transport of the chemical WMDs, since he clearly had them when gassing the Kurds and now Assad has them with no record of these amounts being delivered to him under extremely watchful eyes?

[Paul Emery]

It's possible George but there were no traces of WMD facilities in Iraq which were frantically searched for by the Bushkies with no success. Again, even Rumsfeldt admitted there were none. He blames "Curveball" for misleading the Bush Administration. Curveball later admit he lied
However the question remains, where did they come from?

More about Curveball

“Curveball,” the Iraqi defector who fed the Bush Administration bogus claims of mobile weapons labs being developed by Saddam Hussein — claims that were later gussied up and presented to the United Nations as incontrovertible fact — is finally explaining the tall tale that helped launch America’s military.

“My main purpose was to topple the tyrant in Iraq because the longer this dictator remains in power, the more the Iraqi people will suffer from this regime’s oppression,” he recently told a filmmaker with the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC).

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/03/iraqi-defector-curveball-details-lies-that-led-to-war/

[Gregory]

George, don't expect an answer from Paul regarding border crossings, he's boxing again, not engaging in a discussion.

Paul, binary Sarin, like all binary chemical agents, has a comparatively unlimited shelf life, and that the agent is Sarin is just a guess at the moment. We (the north American peasants discussing issues on a typepad blog) also don't know for sure that it really was Assad who launched it, though I think Assad is the likely culprit; there are nasty people on both sides of the Syrian conflict.

There are bright ChemE's in the middle East and while they aren't in a financial position to drive 21st century chemistry forward with cutting edge research, they're perfectly capable of making late 20th century chemical concoctions.

[George Rebane]

PaulE 952am - making weaponized chemical agents was pretty much out of Saddam's reach also. And it doesn't matter because when you import chemical warheads from other countries, you don't need "facilities" for making the stuff. I imagine that the chemical warheads Assad used on his people were previously owned by at least two nations.

[Al]

Not a "true believer" of Wiki, but this history version may help to understand the sectarian violence. There are other issues, too, not discussed in this Wiki, regarding fuel pipeline(s) from Saudi through Syria to Europe (and bypassing the Russian flows).:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alawi

[George Rebane]

Al 208pm - But have you come up with a rationale for a regime sustaining slap on the wrist?

[Douglas Keachie]

Buckskin shirt jacket and Levis for Walt, methinks the flipflops are an exaggeration, and any Hawaiian shirt would have been the bottom most layer.

[Douglas Keachie]

Use a gas, assassinate, use bombs and bullets, fine, go ahead and have your lovely little war. Not sure of the logic here, or if there is any at all, really?

[Paul Emery]

Gregory

I'm totally open to the possibility though it seems unlikely that they came from Iraq. I think it's kinda funny that George jumped on this as some kind of Bush cleansing moment. Pretty typical partisanship from these pages.

I agree that there has been little in the press about the possible source of the weapons. Let us know if you find anything legitimate.

[Paul Emery]

There is this:

WASHINGTON — Syria's chemical weapons program stretches back decades, allowing the country to amass a supply of nerve and blister agents capable of being mounted on long-range missiles that could reach neighboring countries, according to government and independent analysts.

Its program stretches back to the 1970s or '80s — experts disagree on the precise time — as a means of developing a deterrent against Israel's presumed nuclear capabilities, according to analysts and a Congressional Research Service report.

Chemical weapons were considered "the poor man's atomic bomb," said Gregory Koblentz, a security analyst at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Syria has stocks of sarin and VX, which attacks the nervous system, and mustard gas, which burns the skin, according to the Defense Intelligence Agency.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/08/29/syria-chemicals-nerve-mustard/2730257/

[Al]

All I think I know is that Assad is an Alwite, a small sect of Shi’a. This is why he’s supported by Iran and Hizbollah who are Shi’a
(Plagerised) The Saudis (supposedly) want to build and control an oil and natural gas pipeline through Syria to supply Europe and Turkey.
Assad will not allow this because his Russian Allies depend upon Russian natural gas sales to Europe to float their economy.
If Russia loses the European gas market the Russian economy will implode and the Russians will lose a lot of clout in the
world economically and politically.
The muslim brotherhood (MB) (and 0) is helping the Saudis and other Arab oil states overthrow Assad so the Arabs can build the pipeline.
The Russians simply cannot allow this and will go to war to stop the MB.
The House of Saud put the illegal alien and criminal usurper in the W.H.
Don't really know, but trying.
I believe that Kerry's (he was in Vietnam, you may not know) humanitarism argument is shallow/false.
In summary, it's a mess, but I think that Assad should stay. Plus,
mother Russia wants to be left alone to enjoy her Orthodox Christianity and her land.

[George Rebane]

re PaulE's 322pm - Were incontrovertible evidence to surface that Iraq's WMDs were indeed transported to Syria before the start of Gulf2, it would indeed be a "Bush cleansing moment", since the claim that Saddam had no WMDs has provided about ten years of Bush tarnishing moments. To argue otherwise does not deserve rebuttal.

And the accused partisan jump did not occur in this post but several years ago as cited. However, in an auto-sufficient debate none of this matters.

DougK 224pm - Agree with your sentiments.

[Ken Jones]

Al wrote:
The House of Saud put the illegal alien and criminal usurper in the W.H.
Don't really know, but trying.

Trying? Hardly. Can't take anyone serious that believes the President who was born in Hawaii is an illegal alien and a criminal. Sure Al. House of Saud = Bush? Maybe, see the pic below.

http://sayitaintsoalready.com/2009/04/15/george-bush-kisses-a-saudi-prince/bush-kisses-saudi-prince-4-15-09/

Equally hard to believe is the assertion that Saddam/Iraq sent WMDs to Syria. More a desperate desire to absolve President Bush of his cluster and lies about Iraq. Paranoia big destroyer.

[Al]

K- We all remember Iraq's convoy's dust trails high-ballin' toward Syria in those days. We should'a dusted a couple of 'em for forensics, as I thought at the time.

0's funding and matricutulation and rise is still a mystery to me at this writing.

[Ole Bill Tozer]

I hope we stay far away from that place. I used to follow the uprising/civil war/ hostilities in Syria, but I guess I am war weary. Everybody seems to have their finger in the Syrian pie.

Syria takes its marching orders from Iran. Too many reports of the fighting in Syria where there were no Syrians doing the fighting. Iranian Republican Guard, Hezbollah, The Mooslum Brotherhood, renegade fighters coming over after looting weapons in Libya and both sides massacring civilians and blaming the other. Al Q and Hamas. The Coptic Christians are paying the heavy price of trying to remain neutral....its all their fault.

If we go in, send a couple dozen of Cruise Missiles right on Assad's head and then let the country dissolve into another Iraq. There ain't no good side, just bad sides killing each other. And neither side wants anything to do with an Israeli-Palestinian peace or even cease fire. None of those states do. And they don't want the Palestinians moving there either. Look what happened to Beirut, once known as the Paris of the Mediterranean.

Stay the hell out of there. At least Britain wised up today and backed out of any support of a strike. Oh, peaceful France lately is always the first to clamor for bombing the crap out of Arabs, just like they were begging us to join forces to bomb Libya. They even banned wearing Burkas on the streets of the Motherland..sounds kinda of anti-Mooslum to me. Guess they are getting tired of seeing burning cars and burning "no mans land" slums in France and want to see how it is really done in Ahabland.

[Douglas Keachie]

Based on speech coming in at 10 am PDT, rockets will be launched (or may have been already launched) very soon.

[Paul Emery]

OLe Bill 09:50

"Stay the hell out of there"

Yes and the rest of the region. I'm with Ron Paul on this one. Mind our own business and protect our borders.

[George Rebane]

Wow! we all seem to be in agreement on this one. He should leave his foot where we're used to seeing it ;-)

[Paul Emery]

"The rest of the region?" Really George?

[George Rebane]

PaulE 1053am - Why not? If we went in there only for regime change (Iraq-Saddam, Afghanistan-Taliban), we should have left years ago or made arrangements for an indefinite stay. Announcing our departure, and then being shouted out by both Iraq and Afghanistan is not a good policy. Recall, that now we must evaluate all those actions by Obama's recent (re)statement that Assad's gassing his people is a threat to America's security. That's a bigger stretch than even Bush2 could muster.

[Paul Emery]

How is that a bigger stretch George? We know for a fact that Assad has WMD's and it's been established that Saddam did not. As I documented even Runsfeldt accepts that. It was indeed Tony Blair's frothing to the British about the imminent danger from Iraq that won the support of the Brits for our adventure.
Rummy admitted that WMD's were the main reason we went after Saddam and we probably wouldn't have gone in had we known they didn't exist.

It's really all about Israel and Oil of course.

[fish]

How is that a bigger stretch George? We know for a fact that Assad has WMD's and it's been established that Saddam did not. As I documented even Runsfeldt accepts that. It was indeed Tony Blair's frothing to the British about the imminent danger from Iraq that won the support of the Brits for our adventure.
Rummy admitted that WMD's were the main reason we went after Saddam and we probably wouldn't have gone in had we known they didn't exist.

It's really all about Israel and Oil of course.

You'll never know how much it pains me to say this.....but I think the facts are on Pauls side on this one!

Good lord I'm tired of the middle east!

[Account Deleted]

It's an established fact that Saddam did use poison gas against the Iranians in their little dust up and that he gassed entire villages in Iraq. Unless Paul wants to say that Bush used the CIA to gas folks in Iraq and blame Saddam. I find it interesting that Paul readily accepts the WMD charge against Assad yet refuses to accept the far more documented case against Saddam. I'm not advocating any sort of action here, just pointing out what we know is true.

[Account Deleted]

I know Paul will not accept reality, but I'll try...
HuffPo - noted extreme 'right wing' website.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/08/28/syria-chemical-weapons_n_3828476.html

"The date was March 16, 1988, in a Kurdish town in Iraq, 14 kilometres from the border with Iran. The bloody Iran-Iraq war was in its eighth and final year.
One day earlier, the townspeople had liberated Halabja. Iraqi forces were abandoning the area and Iranian troops, guided by allied Kurdish guerillas, had briefly entered the town.
On March 16, according to eye-witness accounts and Iraqi pilots years later, poison gas was dropped from aircraft, killing several thousand civilians in the town, with the precise death toll unknown.
1988 poison gas attack killed thousands
Iran and Kurdish leaders, especially Jalal Talabani, now Iraq's president, alerted the outside world. Iran flew in journalists, whose images of streets littered with corpses were shown on newscasts. However, no independent investigators visited the area.

But Paul knows that Saddam never had WMD so all of this is rubbish.

[fish]

But Paul knows that Saddam never had WMD so all of this is rubbish.

Which Iraq was allowed to have (and used against the Iranians during the Iraq/Iran war) until after the first Gulf war.

[Gregory]

Let's remember that the Iraqis were supposed to help prove they had gotten rid of all their WMDs and did not have development programs, but instead played a cat and mouse game with weapons inspectors that was probably intended to give their neighbors heartburn, since fear of Iraqi WMDs was a key defensive element.

It worked against the US, too. Even Senator Hillary Clinton argued against a resumption of hostilities because US troops would get gassed.

[Gregory]

"it's been established that Saddam did not"

Not true, it's only been established that the US and Britain found few after Saddam was deposed. Then there was that Sarin artillery shell used ineffectively in an improvised explosive device by Iraqi insurgents, and British intelligence still claims that Saddam was shopping for yellowcake uranium in Niger.

Here's a fun link from three years ago:
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/10/24/wikileaks-documents-show-wmds-found-in-iraq/

[fish]

Let's remember that the Iraqis were supposed to help prove they had gotten rid of all their WMDs and did not have development programs, but instead played a cat and mouse game with weapons inspectors that was probably intended to give their neighbors heartburn, since fear of Iraqi WMDs was a key defensive element.

They made it a nightmare for UNSCOM and hid both inventory and production capability. But by the time the second Gulf War...or Bushes Folly...if you prefer there were just bits and pieces left. Whether significant inventory left in the dead of night to Syria is still a matter for debate but middle eastern heads of state are not known for there trusting nature...that which you truck to Syria in the dead of night must just be returned to you on top of a SCUD.

[George Rebane]

PaulE 1136am - Nothing of the sort. As everyone here has pointed out to you, Saddam did have WMDs and used them in the Iraq/Iran war and against his Kurdish Iraqis. He also could have stopped the Gulf2 invasion any time by allowing the UN to execute its WMD search, which he did not. The only thing that Rumsfeld has acknowledged was that the allied forces found no WMDs during their post Gulf2 search. None of this explains away or diminishes the likelihood of what was the cargo in those pre-invasion truck convoys to Syria. Your cherry picking the counter arguments and ignoring the inconvenient ones as if they don't exist, doesn't help. Somewhere along the line you want to establish the proposition that Saddam never had WMDs, and, given the evidence, that is proving difficult.

[Gregory]

"He also could have stopped the Gulf2 invasion any time by allowing the UN to execute its WMD search, which he did not."

Saddam was directed to *help* the WMD search. He was to help *prove* all the past known stocks and production capacity was destroyed as promised. That didn't happen.

[Paul Emery]

Yes indeed George he had them during their scuffle with Iran and the Kurds. We have the receipts and helped fund the program. We continued giving Saddam billions in assistance long after we knew or the use ow WMD's. Indeed a golden moment in American Imperialism. The bottom line is that according to our Sec od Defense at the time he had none at the time of our invasion. I have to repeat that Rummy said in effect that if we knew then what we know now we likely would not have invaded Iraq. Are you justifying the war?

[George Rebane]

PaulE 433pm - Well, that's a bit of progress. We now have Rummy back to what he actually said. Can we not justify Gulf2 on the same basis that we seem to be justifying the impending attack on Syria? After all, maybe Assad shot his wad with the last nerve gas attack and has none left. At least Bush2 had what the international community considered to be credible evidence.

[Paul Emery]

George

First of all I am not in favor if intervention in this matter because it won't do any good. There is little doubt (but some) that Assad used WMD's in Syria. There is also little doubt (but some) that Saddam did not have WMD's in Iraq. So to justify the war in Iraq, which you are inclined to do, and not support intervention in Syria is kinda odd. Either way, Saddam was no threat to us over here except to our forces harassing his sovereignty with fly overs where we don't belong anyway

In reality Israel is calling the shots here in pulling the plug on intervention. They could care less what side wins and as long as they are fighting each other they are not fighting Israel.

[Bill Tozer]

I can't believe I am going to cite Saddam Hussein as a source, but here goes: Before Hussein had his head roll around the gallows floor, he said to our interregators that he HAD to let it be known that he had WMDs because he wanted that telegraphed loud and clear to Iran. Suddam was obsessed with Iran and considered Iran the threat, not the United States of America. He under estimated the US, but not Iran according to the headless henchman. Stupid Iraqis can't even make a decent noose. Its not that hard. But noooooo, they turned the hanging thing into a soccer game. Just like the Tallywacker Tailban do for sport.

[Gregory]

I'm going to guess Paul has forgotten the gulf war didn't start with Bush II invading Iraq, it started with Saddam invading Kuwait.

"It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it." -- Gen. Douglas MacArthur

Bush I didn't want to win; instead of sending Schwartzkopf in to mop up, he established a cease fire (there was never a peace treaty) and turned Iraq over to the UN to supervise and finish the job through diplomacy, leaving it to fester through the last of the Bush I and Clinton presidencies as the UN was utterly incapable of dealing with an intransigent and criminally Stalinist ruling party, issuing directives one after another with Iraq failing to comply with even one. Then there was the Oil for Food/Oil for Palaces scandal that engulfed the UN that dwarfed Enron and fed the Iraqi regime.

Bush I made two major mistakes... putting the US in the middle east (Kuwait wasn't our business) in the first place, and then not finishing the job he started.

The Pauls of the world are content with blaming it all on Bush II and Cheney.

[George Rebane]

Gregory 1148pm - Good reminder that it all did not start with 9/11.

[Paul Emery]

Gregory

This is even getting more bizarre. You are saying that because Papa Bush wrongfully invaded Iraq and did not finish the job that gave the younger Scrub the rignt and duty to finish the job therefore justifying the invasionin '02. The Pauls of the world are very curious as to your rationalization in this issue.

[Todd Juvinall]

Looks like Sadaam's WMD's are actually those Assad is now using. I guess the left will have to eats its own excrement.

[Ken Jones]

Right Todd. Not one fact to prove your assertion. Seems to me you enjoy the excrement sandwich daily. Today you went back for seconds.

[Todd Juvinall]

Ken Jones, another lefty whiner with no facts on anything. What a hoot!

[Paul Emery]

Speaking of facts.

Todd writes:
"Looks like Sadaam's WMD's are actually those Assad is now using."

Can you document that statement or did you make it up?

[George Rebane]

See update re President's just concluded Rose Garden announcement.

[Al]

Bayonets, bassinets and babies, here we go again.

Who do we trust to report who used the gas?

Secular Syrian rebels: is there such?

Assad should get the U.N. embedded with his troops ASAP.

[Gregory]

Paul 09:17 AM

"You are saying that because Papa Bush wrongfully invaded Iraq"

Nope. Try a'gin, leaving out the Keachie leaps of illogic.

[Bill Tozer]

3. State clearly that the US and its allies will support the new non-theocratic Syrian government against any remnant radical factions that intend to oppose such a new Syria.

Me thinks you are dreaming there Dr. Rebane. Doesn't Syria already have a non-theocratic government? So did Iraq and even Libya until recently. Just a bunch of factions and tribes in each country. Except the bush rat world is becoming more radicalized and the factions don't want to "just get along." No, they want what you oppose.

Good news coming out of Egypt, with its formerly non-theocratic government. The people rejected the Brotherhood and now the demonstrations and public sentiment are more anti-government than support to bring Mr. Brotherhood back to dispense Sharia Law. Egypt and Turkey have stood up to radical factions, but they are no where near a kind of "democracy" we would recognize coming from our backgrounds as Americans. Same with Jordan.

Muslim-hood is at war with itself and all non-true believers (depending on which true believers' interpretation as being the only real true believers).

Muslim-hood is different today than 80 years ago. Think they have not changed, just are going back a 1,000 years to recapture their glory days. Them were true believers back then. Kinda like today's Tallywacker Taliban.

[Paul Emery]

Gregory 11:40

"Bush I made two major mistakes... putting the US in the middle east (Kuwait wasn't our business) in the first place, and then not finishing the job he started."

You seem to be hiding under the UN skirt to justify the invasion.

"Saddam was directed to *help* the WMD search. He was to help *prove* all the past known stocks and production capacity was destroyed as promised. That didn't happen."

Gregory 03:19

You're being coy about this. Do you support the invasion of Iraq by Bush 2 or not and why. Pretty simple question.

[Paul Emery]

I'm off to Davis where I'm jumping out of an airplane at 16,000' for my first skydiving adventure. 90 seconds of freefall. Supposed to be a life changing experience. Who knows, it may turn me into a Republican.

[George Rebane]

Having jumped out of a perfectly good airplane myself, I hope that yours will be a tandem jump with someone who knows where the rip chord is located. Dress warmly for that altitude - a remarkable one for the first jump.

[bill tozer]

Go Paul Go!!! You can do it. Remember it is better to voluntary jump than be pushed. Just pray that a Republican did not pack your chute, lol. I have had Libs trying to pack my chute for years, but that is a topic for the Great Divide. Proud of you. Go out there and break a leg. As Gunny Sargent would say "it is an unnatural act to jump out of a perfectly good airplane."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPu8qAvWuLw

[Gregory]

"You seem to be hiding under the UN skirt to justify the invasion." -Paul

You are fabricating straw men to knock down, particularly offensive in this second case since I have little respect for the UN's actions regarding Iraq during the entire debacle; even Kofi Annan's kid got Oil for Palaces kickbacks.

[Gregory]

George, regarding your update, the time for supporting the Syrian rebels is long past if it ever existed at all. With the bad guys being the al-Assad gang and the good guys now including al-Qaeda and friends, at this time it looks like a fine time to sit on our hands and do nothing. Let Paul have the Blue Nice-ees at the UN go do that voodoo that they do so well; a sternly worded resolution should shame al-Assad into capitulation.

Paul, forecast temp at 16,000' over Sac is -3C, about 26degrees F, wind 30 knots from the southwest. Balmy. Me, I can't imagine jumping out of an airplane in controllable flight that isn't on fire. The highest I've ever piloted an aircraft is 16,500' and the view is very nice if you aren't contemplating a jump.

If above 12500 for more than 30 minutes, the required crew must be on oxygen, and all crew must be on O2 above 14000. Then passengers must be offered O2 above 15000, so, just wondering, will they give you O2 so you're not already hypoxic when you jump? Just wondering, there may be special rules for skydivers and other cargo.

[George Rebane]

Gregory 202pm - In principle, if we could go back in time, I agree with you. But we are where we are, and sunk costs don't count. The American president has drawn an embarrassing and imprudent red line, and the US cannot withdraw from the world stage as a dithering fool without the prospect of a much more dangerous world in the offing that will require orders of magnitude more American lives to again reign in than we have expended in the so-called 'wars' since Bush1 went into Iraq.

But I do agree that simply giving Obama the go-ahead for an inconsequential foot-extractive pin prick is a non-starter for me (and the nation). If that is the only alternative, then it's better to pull our forces in from around the world, and circle the wagons here in the western hemisphere. Our credibility (and predictability) to project force for whatever reasons will be gone, and the bad guys will come out of every nook and cranny in the woodwork.

Re PaulE's jump - Agree with your hypoxia concerns. But then, decimal points are always tough sledding; maybe he's really coming out at 1,600' AGL, a more reasonable alternative. Even better at 3,000' AGL.

[Gregory]

I wasn't referring to sunk costs, only lost opportunity as actually pushing one or two of the least of the evils early on might have had the effect of actually putting them in a position of deposing al-Assad, a good thing even if it isn't our business in the first place.

One thing worse than meddling with other countries is doing it incompetently. Time to stop that.

I expect Paul got the altitude right, as a freefall of a minute and a half from 1600' wouldn't last that long before the first bounce. Checking, the highest they'll sell you a ticket for is 18,000 ft, not coincidentally the highest a plane can fly without getting an instrument clearance into the Class A airspace that starts at that boundary.
http://tandemskydivingschool.com/experienced-jumper-pricing/

Regarding hypoxia, there are two issues here... meeting the letter of the Federal Air Regulations, and avoiding hypoxia in the first place. The 12,500' limit wasn't set by physiology but politics... any lower and one wouldn't be able to use an unpressurized airplane to cross the Sierra Nevada or Rockies in very many places. Pressurized aircraft are usually kept at 8,000' and I'll generally use a low flow of O2 at or above 10k if I expect to be there awhile. At night the FAA recommends supplemental O2 above 5000 ft because of degraded vision in low light.

At 16000' you're getting dumber by the moment without supplemental O2 as you have about half the partial pressure of O2 one has at sea level. Mountaineers often think they're doing pretty good at that altitude but that's mostly because the first thing that happens is you get too stupid to notice how stupid you have become.

[George Rebane]

Gregory 436pm - Didn't accuse you of referring to 'sunk costs', it was simply my point. I know I'm on weak ground here, but that's the swamp our Prez has led us into, and we have to make the best of it getting out. Agree that we should only meddle competently in other countries' affairs since meddle we must, else we muddle.

Yes indeed on the hypoxia. I had overlooked that the jump school probably wants to give a longer lasting experience for the novice, hence the altitude.

[Gregory]

George, the altimeters they carry indicate it's time to pop the chute at 3000 and past time at 2500. You want time to try to open the auxiliary parachute if there's a problem with the main.

"I had overlooked that the jump school probably wants to give a longer lasting experience for the novice, hence the altitude."

That just doesn't make sense to me, as I suspect only the military jumps from aircraft at low altitude as it minimizes the time one is a target. This is recreation; why would making it shorter make it better for anyone, expert or novice?

[Gregory]

"Agree that we should only meddle competently in other countries' affairs since meddle we must, else we muddle."

Where in the Constitution is the enumerated power to interfere in other countries internal affairs, outside of those fairly rare instances of acts of war against the USA?

[George Rebane]

Gregory 530pm - I agreed on the higher altitude in my 454pm; I think we're talking past each other.

Re interfering in other countries' internal affairs. The Constitution is silent on that specific, and only exhorts the federal government to apply the powers given it to secure the country. The meddling in question is left as a matter of executive latitude in carrying out the security mandate. I believe all countries do it to the extent that they can.

[Bill Tozer]

Dr Rebane: concerning your update point #1, I concur. If we are going in, lets not just tip the big toe in the water. Destroy ALL communications, military assets, and cut off the head of the snake. Shock and Awe, Lock and Load, Rolling Thunder, Shake Rattle and Roll and all that good stuff. Bunker busters, Daisy Cutters, Guided Missiles, Down Wind Chili and an all out 24/7 assault for a couple of days. Heck, Israel could do the same in 6-8 hours. No pussy footing around. But is that the wise thing to do?? Are we back in the nation building business?

Obama should be very cautious and careful. Telling Syria to play nice or else is not wise unless one intends the "or else" to be a no holds barred death match. Otherwise, he will appear to the world as weak as another UN Resolution that is usually received as a lecture or scolding or threatening words rather than pounding the hammer down hard with no mercy. "Johnny, I will count to three. One, two...Johnny!, two and a half, Johnny, two and 3/4, Johnny...I will count to 5 and you better stop hitting your sister."

The UN is the perfect place to end the guessing. Putin has made it loud and clear that Russia says no way, no how. Not ever. F off, Obama. The Butchers in China say "just say no to kicking up dust in Syria" Iran would love it if we bombarded Syria because that will give it the perfect excuse to launch some of their "for energy purposes only" nukes on Israel. In fact, that would be the perfect excuse for Syria to take some of Saddam's Scuds and lop them at Israel. Would give Syria a lot of good will and sympathy in the Hallowed Chambers of the UN and around the Muslim/Ahab/Persian World.

Our Obama led foreign policy has put the British-American relationship in the worse shape since the War of 1812. Britain has always sided with us on every important decision we have made, even when their own interests were not apparent. They joined up to bomb Serbia. They went along with us in Desert Storm. Then Gulf War II. Flew over our skies after 9/11 as we got our wobbly legs back under us.

First thing Obama did as President was snub the British diplomats and kept them waiting while he retired upstairs to dine and play with his kids. Then he went to Egypt and placed all his bets on the Muslim world, while making the Israeli Prime Minister wait and wait longer than the British diplomats. Them waiting room seats were kept nice and warm by our Allies. I call that downright rude.

Then the brouhaha over returning the Bust of Churchill. That bust was a present from Tony Blair to George Bush right after 9/11. I consider that part of the National Treasury or White House, not some private property of Barrack Hussein Obama.

I get it. Obama's grandfather was treated bad by the Colonialist British. Cry me a river. Then his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton threw salt in the wound by declaring "France is our closest alley."

In normal times, the British vote in Parliament would be a sure thing. The Conservatives in power with the liberal opposition badly shattered and divided. But nooooo. They joined Russia and China and also said "F off, Obama." Maybe O can get the Saudis or the UAE or maybe the Philippines to join our party.

[Paul Emery]

I'm back. 18,000' oxygen strapped to my back tandem jump, 90 seconds of freefall. Great fun. I had a DVD made so I'll put it up on you tube soon.

No Republican tendencies yet but we'll see in the morning. Here is the company in Davis that does this.

http://tandemskydivingschool.com/making-your-first-jump/

[Barry Pruett]

Paul: I cannot wait to see the video! I read previously in this thread (and I think you said this but if not no worries) the question of why would a Republican support Iraq and not Syria.

The answer from me is this...I am tired. My children have lived there whole lives at war. I do not think that history has determined whether the Bush Doctrine of regime change and replacement with a democracy has worked, but it appears to me that, after learning more about the Middle East, nothing we do there is going to make the people in the Middle East less radical and less prone to dictatorships.

I have a ton of family and a lot of kids that I have coached before over there already. We have nobody to support in Syria...the only thing that the people in Syria have in common is that they hate us. If there was a BROAD international coalition with some concrete proof that it was Assad, then I would give it some thought, but I would still be reluctant to get involved.

Gassing your people is heinous, but we have a lot of other things on our plate.

In short, I am tired.

[George Rebane]

PaulE 1102pm - congratulations on your jump, and we all look forward to the video.

On a broader scale, I hope that now you have a direct experience of what I've been talking about in ref to socialist programs like nationalizing healthcare. Before running out of other people's money everything feels fine - the exhilaration of free fall, the weightlessness - until you see the ground coming up. Then it's time to start worrying whether you have a parachute that works before the inevitable 'splat'. Your favorite Denmark, and other countries in the EU are now fumbling for their rip chords after having had a wonderful ride.

I'm not suggesting you necessarily become a Republican, but this conservetarian would welcome you into the fold.

[George Rebane]

I draw your attention to the 2sep13 update to this post.

[Paul Emery]

George

I'll have more on this later. The only splat I see coming is from those millions that have no health care in this country who are suffering daily from cureable and preventable illnesses. You're proposal for a 19th century free market system with reforms (torts, assessablility and tax reform) offer no guarantee for relief even if enacted and are entirely untested in the modern world. Besides, there is no way the Pubbers, your posion of choice as you put it, would enact those reforms because they are bought out by the same forces that controlk the Dems. This is an undeniable reality that I'm sure you recognize. So without prospects for reform we're stuck with things as they are which you seem to support.

[George Rebane]

PaulE 207pm - In this regard I call your attention to the growing legion of liberal organizations (formerly Obamacare supporters) who are now crowding each other to climb on the Exemption Express. It appears that more and more people taking a close look at what Obamacare really entails prefer to be "stuck with things as they are". If it isn't for the reasons we have outlined in this forum, then why is this the case? Why is the administration paying additional tax dollars to produce and air propaganda ads to bamboozle people to sign up if Obamacare provides such wonderful "relief" from current healthcare practices?

[Gregory]

Regarding the "millions that have no health care in this country": there is no one in this country who has "no health care", and IIRC the latest study that tracked people brought on to medicaid and put on BP and other medicines for preventative care didn't show any different mortality rates.

Not that getting timely care without standing in line is preferable to long waits, but having to stand in line for charity isn't the killer it's portrayed to be. I still remember the blond haired, blue eyed young cutie who arrived at the hospital in labor at the same time my wife did, only she had no insurance and no ability to pay. Screamed for a Caesarian about 30 minutes into the labor, and got it. Probably was home with her baby before my wife and son were out of danger after the emergency Caesarian after 30 hours of labor, a long couple of days.

Regarding free markets in health care, it's pretty much what we had before the 1970's, before civilian medicine had reacted to the Great Society expansion of socialized medicine to being 50% of the market. It ain't 19th century.

BTW back to the fun stuff... Paul, how was your supplemental O2 delivered to your face? El cheapo clear vinyl mask, nice silicone rubber mask, cheap cannula or just a tube to suck on? The latter is what airline pilots often used before pressurization days and before good conserving cannulas (with little reservoirs to fill during exhalation) became available.

Have you figured out what the carbon footprint of that little escapade is? How low will you be setting your thermostat this winter to compensate? :)

[Paul Emery]

George

Don 't expect me to be a supporter of Obamacare. As you know I'm for singlepayer.

[Russ Steele]

Wow! Victor Davis Hansen has always been one of my favorite observers and authors. His historical examination of matters in questions and his first had experience with the emigration issues have always give him valuable insight worth the readers time to consider. His examination of the Savior Generals was another outstanding contribution to our understanding of military leadership.

Now the questions is where is Obama’s Themistocles, Belisarius, Sherman, Ridgway or Petraeus. Valeri Jarrett in camo jammies and high heel boots? And, who was with him on his 45 minute walk when he decided he did not have the balls to bomb Syria on his own?

[George Rebane]

PaulE 330pm - are you not a supporter of Obamacare as the waypoint on the road to single payer? Does that not mean that you are willing to back Obamacare as a precursor destruction derby on the present healthcare system so that the national pain it causes to millions and our economy would prepare people to be compliantly ushered (demagogued?) in full scale socialized medicine? If so, then for all intents and purposes, you are as much a supporter of Obamacare as are any of the other Dems not scrambling to board the Exemption Express.

Am I missing something here?

[Bill Tozer]

Paul, you ain't the only one that is waiting with baited breath for single payer:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/02/union-dumps-afl-cio-for-its-positions-on-obamacare-immigration-reform/s

[Bill Tozer]

Dr. Rebane, I turned on the Uncommon Knowledge you highly recommended and laid down on the futon in the computer /craft room. But being Laborless Day and all, I must confess I fell asleep about ten minutes into it. I snooze, I lose. A nice nappy-pooh nonetheless.

However all is not lost. I awoke from sweet dreamland to an interview with a delightful author about Calvin Coolidge. It was fantastic. The author made me feel like I was there and explained what was meant by the term "normalcy" and other economic jargon of the day. Plus great insights into the man and his feelings for the poor. He had a soft spot of the poor Irish immigrants as well. Collidge's core moral principles dovetailed nicely with his administrative and economic beliefs.

Favorite quote: It is better to kill a bad bill than to pass a good bill.

I will definitely watch more of the series. Sincerely, Ole Bill Tozer

[Bill Tozer]

Syria for Dummies: no big words and you can jump to the bottom to see what we can do to stop the killing. Hint: nothing

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/29/9-questions-about-syria-you-were-too-embarrassed-to-ask/

[Paul Emery]

George

Any interim system is on the path to Single Payer healthcare which is the most efficient option available. . As far as I can tell your plan is to leave things as they are till the reforms you propose become law which will never happen for obvious reasons.

Gregory

Can you share some detail about pre '70's health care so we can have something to talk about

[Bill Tozer]

Paul, I think pre-70's health care was known as "hospitalization insurance". Cheap policy that many bought.

[Gregory]

Paul, you're the one claiming millions have no health care, and that there's not been a free market in health care since the 19th century. Perhaps you should flesh out your claims first.

BT pretty much has it right, though some employers had an 80/20 plan in place (and then there was Kaiser, if you were near one of their centers), and medical expenses were tax deductible. So was credit card interest.

[George Rebane]

PaulE 1030pm - "Any interim system is on the path to Single Payer healthcare which is the most efficient option available." That doesn't appear to be an understandable sentence. But I am aware of no one who has made the case that Single Payer is the most "efficient (healthcare) option available." However, I do invite you to be the first right after you define in which sense you are using 'efficient'.

[Paul Emery]

George

I'm sure if you look at a combination of low percentage of GDP and high percentage of insured citizens you will find that a form of single payer healthcare is the system adopted in most cases. that's a pretty good indication of efficiency in my view. Some would call it bang for the buck. Among industrialized nations Australia has the lowest percentage of GDP at 8.5% The US currently is 16%. Australia achieves universal coverage through Medicare, a tax-funded public insurance program that covers most medical care, including physician and hospital services and prescription drugs. (single payer) All citizens are covered. This country has over 20% uninsured.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Issue%20Brief/2011/Jul/1532_Squires_US_hlt_sys_comparison_12_nations_intl_brief_v2.pdf

[George Rebane]

PaulE 347pm - I can quickly design a healthcare system that is much more "efficient" than the Australian one. Healthcare efficiency usually has some parameters indicating levels of service and satisfaction. For example, Britain's NHS is terribly terrible when such considerations are included. Any feelings about this?

[Paul Emery]

How would you factor in the "satisfaction " level of those with no insurance or healthcare?

[Paul Emery]

For comparison purposes Australia ranks #5 in "satisfaction.

"In a survey of 15 countries, people in those countries gave top grades for improvements in their national healthcare system since 2008, along with residents of Belgium and Australia, which rounded out the top five nations."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/11/world-health-care-satisfaction-rankings-south-korea-argentina_n_3420252.html

[Paul Emery]

I posted a stat that showed Australia with a #5 in the world satisfaction rating but it seems to have disappeared.

[Bill Tozer]

Why don't you two flip a coin and decide which is a more apt discussion under the current topic: impending air strikes on a foreign nation with no concrete plan to win or effect change, or impending single payer health care which won't happen for a few years until after Obamacare is fully operational and collapses under its own weight.

[Paul Emery]

Bill

George reintroduced the topic with his analogy of sky diving and Obmacare, which was very clever by the way.

[Todd Juvinall]

Having been in many doctors offices around here lately, I can tell you there is no love for yhe impending destruction of our health care in the USA. What also fascinates me is the admittance of defensive medicine for almost anything. The additional procedures cost gazillions and all because of the fear of lawsuits. Doctors tell me this. So, for those brainiacs like PaulE and BenE and the rest of the leftwing, why don't you go talk to some doctors? Then you might get some people to believe what you say. The system is bogged down with fearful medical professionals and the consortium's (corporations) who can hardly afford the liability insurance. Now with Ocare taxing medical devices, tanning salon trysts and then those "Cadillac plans" of peple who pay more for more, we have made ourselves areal mess. Now the Longshoreman's Union is in the news and Ocare is the reason. It looks bad for all Americans, even those 30 million Obama and Reid bribed for. They will still not get any! \\Oh well, Obama and all the libs now want to bomb Syria so Assad can then sue America in the World Court for reparations. What a world, what a world.