Bush WMD Debacle Prompted by Salman Pak Blunder

NewsMax.Com ^ | May 31, 2003 | Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Full Disclosure:

I am a Christian, and a Libertarian. As the War Fervor grew last year, I never supported the War against Iraq.

• Foreign Dictatorship and Foreign Evildoings against a Dictator's own people do not, in the Augustinian religious tradition, constitute a Casus Belli justification for War. If they did, we'd be morally-bound to invade Red China.
• Foreign Possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction (if any existed, which apparently they don't) does not, in the Augustinian religious tradition, constitute a Casus Belli justification for War either. If it did, we'd be morally-bound to invade Red China... and maybe Russia... and for that matter, maybe France.

For the longest time, I never supported the War against Iraq... until I read of the "Salman Pak" Terrorist Training Camp south of Baghdad. "Muslim fundamentalist recruits from throughout the Arab world were taught to hijack planes using small knives."

• Foreign Dictatorship, Oppression of Foreigners in Foreign Lands, Possession of WMD... none of these are a "Casus Belli" under Christian "Just War" theory. None of them. But a Mass-Casualty 9/11 Terrorist Attack against one's own Country? Now THAT'S a Casus Belli.

A strongly-circumstantial, and potentially-concrete, "Just War" Casus Belli existed on the basis of "Salman Pak" ALONE. And apparently, Bush's advisors have basically put this on the hindmost of back-burners, and essentially forgotten it. It's all about the WMDs... and there ARE NO WMDs.

Considering that this was the only direct link to 9/11 which could justify the War in my own mind, I do confess some personal disappointment that this has been shoved under the carpet.

Moreover, I consider it to be an abject Political Disappointment... "Bush should fire the officials whose advice to ignore the Salman Pak connection could conceivably cost him his re-election next year."

(/End of Rant)

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

A strongly-circumstantial, and potentially-concrete, "Just War" Casus Belli existed on the basis of "Salman Pak" ALONE. And apparently, Bush's advisors have basically put this on the hindmost of back-burners, and essentially forgotten it. It's all about the WMDs... and there ARE NO WMDs. I consider this to be an abject Political Disappointment... "Bush should fire the officials whose advice to ignore the Salman Pak connection could conceivably cost him his re-election next year."

This article sums up my feelings on the matter quite accurately.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

A strongly-circumstantial, and potentially-concrete, "Just War" Casus Belli existed on the basis of "Salman Pak" ALONE. And apparently, Bush's advisors have basically put this on the hindmost of back-burners, and essentially forgotten it. It's all about the WMDs... and there ARE NO WMDs. I consider this to be an abject Political Disappointment... "Bush should fire the officials whose advice to ignore the Salman Pak connection could conceivably cost him his re-election next year."

This article sums up my feelings on the matter quite accurately.

[CyberAnt]

Hmmmm? I see we have another of the usual "hit" pieces on the Bush admin from NewsMax.

[AAABEST]

This is what I pray:

If GWB really felt that he was doing right by God and was honest in his actions, then I hope he's not being unfairly maligned. Although mistakes of such magnitude are unacceptable, at least it can be called a blunder.

If however, he had an agenda and was anything less than 100% honest in regard to such grave matters, I hope he's impeached and then burns in hell where he belongs.

[MJY1288]

What proof do you have besides they havn't been found yet, that the WMD's DO NOT EXIST?

My goodness you sound like a liberal

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Hmmmm? I see we have another of the usual "hit" pieces on the Bush admin from NewsMax.

I disagree. It's hardly a "hit" piece on Bush, so much as a "hit" on those advisors who counselled him to go after the WMDs (those wonderful Weapons of Mass Disappearance) rather than make the US case on the basis of Salman Pak (where we had a grounded Boeing 707 used as a training camp by Al-Queda terrorists schooling themselves in the arts of boxcutter-hijacking, as even admitted by UN inspectors who visited the site.)

What you call a "hit" piece, I call "sound advice" from some folks who, after all their "criticisms", still want to see Bush win in '04.

You may now resume your "Fox News uber alles" chants.

[sydbas]

Hmmmm? I see we have another of the usual "hit" pieces on the Bush admin from NewsMax.

Sometimes NewsMax is way out there. Chris Ruddy was one of the first to come out with an op-ed criticizing how the war was going in the early stages; I don't think he ever did any sort of rebuttal either. It seems as if the administration doesn't take their 'advice' they criticize. John LeBoutillier is a big Bush basher. Right now it seems their main interest is promoting their Deck of Weasels.

[Deb]

Gee, all the Democrats have to do is create an issue and everyone starts running around and screaming like it was valid. Then the FR Bush-haters creep out from under their rocks and join the chorus.

It never fails.

So, this weeks attack has you a-prayin', eh? Yeah, I'll bet.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

What proof do you have besides they havn't been found yet, that the WMD's DO NOT EXIST? My goodness you sound like a liberal

I have something better... that does exist:

Salman Pak -- where we have a grounded Boeing 707 used as a training camp by Al-Queda terrorists schooling themselves in the arts of boxcutter-hijacking, as even admitted by UN inspectors who visited the site.

I "sound like a liberal"? Well, you don't hear many "liberals" talking about Salman Pak, do you?

Of course, that's the trouble... you don't hear Bush talking about it either. And that's the problem. He should be.

[CyberAnt]

"if the administration doesn't take their 'advice' they criticize"

Exactly!

That was precisely what Ruddy did all during the campaign, plus during the recount.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Sometimes NewsMax is way out there.

This news has been out since August of last year. Is it a CRIME for me to wish that Bush would make a bigger deal of it?

It's a direct connection to 9/11. WMDs? We don't need no stinkin' WMDs. Not when there's a direct connection to boxcutter-hijackings of Boeings.

Sheesh, you people are defensive. If you're this defensive about the Weapons of Mass Disappearance, then the author's point is further validated... Bush is making the wrong case. And it's hurting him, politically.

[MJY1288]

IMHO the war was justified for the simple reason that Saddam did not live up to the cease fire agreements he agreed to in 1991, we lost over 300 soldiers (Incl 2 friends of mine) in Desert Storm and we owed to them to resume hostilities against Saddam and remove him in their honor.

All the other reasons for removing Saddam Hussein was nothing other then gravy

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Then the FR Bush-haters creep out from under their rocks and join the chorus.

If it's all the same to you, I think I'll "hate" Bush (nice of you to define my emotions for me; thanks, babe) for making Ted Kennedy his Education Commissar, not over this Iraq thing.

I just wish he would make a bigger deal outta Salman Pak. It's a direct connection to box-cutter hijackings of Boeings.

If you really think I am a "Bush-hater", trying to steer him wrong... why don't you just tell me how it would hurt him to make that point, considering it was even confirmed by the UN inspectors who visited the site (even as the WMDs are "somewhere over the rainbow")?

Why do you think that would be a detrimental point for Bush to be making, mmm, Deb? Thrill me with your acumen...

[CyberAnt]

You disagree because you don't know the methods of NewsMax.

And ... the WMD's exist! Or ... was that Bill Clinton's imagination when he used them as the reason to bomb Iraq in 1998 ...??

[MJY1288]

It was NEWSMAX's flip flopping for subscriptions that made me cancel my subscription to NEWSMAX. They remind me of Judicial Watch......... Opportunist

[CyberAnt]

"opportunist"

Good point!

[AAABEST]

Hmmmm? I see we have another of the usual "hit" pieces on the Bush admin from NewsMax.

Yeah we know sister. Everybody's the effen enemy nowadays. The libs, the libertarians, Newsmax, Worldnetdaily, the "Pitchforkers", the paleos, Chuck Baldwin, many long time FReepers etc. etc. However Bill Kristol is the good guy now! He used to be the bad guy but now he's saying nice things about GWB so he's good again!

Not for anything but all of the above (including myself and not including smirk-face McCainiac Kristol) virulently supported and fought for GWB. I met the guys from Newsmax at the protests in Broward and Palm Beach and played a part in getting his blueblooded ass into office.

You folks are beyond whacked. You have no idea what you believe anymore, no solid political philosophy (just as GWB). All you know is "Talk nice about Bush = Gooooooood, second guess Bush = baaaaaaaaad".

My God ya'll are becoming insufferable trogs.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

IMHO the war was justified for the simple reason that Saddam did not live up to the cease fire agreements he agreed to in 1991, we lost over 300 soldiers (Incl 2 friends of mine) in Desert Storm and we owed to them to resume hostilities against Saddam and remove him in their honor. All the other reasons for removing Saddam Hussein was nothing other then gravy

Well, burn me at the stake if you like, but I never bought the justifications for Gulf War I. Take that as you will.

Salman Pak, OTOH... training Al-Queda terrorrists to hijack Boeings with box-cutters? A potentially-direct connection to 9/11? That's a better Casus Belli in my mind than bailing out the corrupt Kuwaiti-Wahhabist slave-ocracy ever was.

I just wish Bush would say something about it....

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

Sheesh, you people are defensive. Bushbots. Welcome to the Bush idolatry coffee clatch. Thinking not required. Note how they ask you to prove a negative. That's known as strategery.