Having seen the newest beheading of an American civilian by ISIS, the Vast Testicular Concavity made no statement before he boarded his plane to Estonia to assure them that they have American backup. Can you imagine—with the Ukraine not receiving our material support, much less anything else from us—how that must make the Estonians shiver with confidence??

ISIS needs killing to the last butcher. Every one of them in the ground with—wherever practical—the company of gutted pigs. KILL them ALL. Rain Fuel-Air explosives on the ones outside the cities. They are pure, naked Evil.

And, Obama(like Nero)fiddles…Loathsome. Unforgivable.

The worst aspect of the Democrats’ opposition to Bush’s Iraq enforcement was that Bush carried forward the Iraq enforcement from Clinton. In fact, Clinton’s initial endorsement of Bush and OIF cited to Clinton’s own Iraq enforcement experience. Democrat Congressmen who voted for PL 107-243 were, like Clinton, merely consistent with their role in Clinton’s Iraq enforcement that was picked up by Bush.

During the Clinton administration, Russia and other international Saddam advocates used the same narrative against Clinton’s Iraq enforcement that they carried forward to oppose Bush’s Iraq enforcement.

What changed? With Bush as President and Leftists pushing the Russian narrative, the same Democrats who had approved or even – as Clinton officials – personally carried out Clinton’s Iraq enforcement chose to adopt the Russian narrative to oppose Bush, even though the Democrats had worked against the same Russian narrative for Clinton’s Iraq enforcement.

The 180-degree partisan flip was a cynical partisan maneuver by the Democrats. But what’s more striking is the tactic shouldn’t have worked. The 8-year record of Clinton’s Iraq enforcement, decade-plus Congressional record on Iraq, and near-decade of Russian narrative opposing the US-led Iraq enforcement had all been open-source, headline news. Yet despite all that, the Democrats/Left’s brazenly revisionist adoption of the Russian narrative against Bush’s Iraq enforcement prevailed in the popular zeitgeist.

Why do the Democrats and Left believe they can get away with anything in the activist game? Because their success lying brazenly about Iraq – despite that the Iraq enforcement record and primary sources clearly show OIF was right on the law and justified on the policy – proves they can get away with anything in the activist game.

The Duelfer Report is on-line, as are the other primary sources I cited.

Basic essentials for understanding OIF in the proper context include the 1990-2002 UNSC resolutions for Iraq (at minimum, see UNSCRs 687, 688, and 1441), Public Law 107-243 (the 2002 Congressional authorization for use of military force against Iraq), President Clinton’s announcement of Operation Desert Fox (the penultimate military enforcement step that set the baseline precedent for OIF), President Bush’s remarks to the United Nations General Assembly and excerpts from the 2003 State of the Union, the March 2003 UNMOVIC Cluster Document (summary) that triggered Bush’s final decision for OIF, and the Iraq Survey Group’s Duelfer Report.

Links here:
http://learning-curve.blogspot.com/2014/05/operation-iraqi-freedom-faq.html#furtherreading

Saddam was guilty of more than that.

The weapons standard of compliance was established initially by UNSCR 687 and reinforced at the conclusion by UNSCR 1441 and PL 107-243. The UNSCR 1441 inspection period concluded with UNMOVIC’s finding of “about 100 unresolved disarmament issues”, reported to the UNSC on March 7, 2003. That was the main trigger. Since the Iraq enforcement was compliance based – not intel based, as many believe – the debate really ends there. According to the terms of the Gulf War ceasefire, Saddam was guilty on WMD.

Post-war, albeit irrelevant to the compliance-based trigger for OIF, the ISG corroborated Iraq was in violation of the ceasefire mandates. Violations included, notably, a “large covert procurement program [and] undeclared chemical laboratories” in the Iraqi intelligence services, which also “supported denial and deception operations”. Each of those violations by itself justified OIF. The IIS was under Saddam’s direct control and, of course, his regime arm that was notorious for working with terrorists and handling Saddam’s in-house black ops.

There likely were more violations than the ISG found. The Duelfer Report emphasizes that potential evidence was lost in the war and its aftermath, including clear signs that suspect areas were clearly “sanitized”. Also not all captured regime officials were forthcoming when questioned due to fear of prosecution and reprisals. So what the ISG reported found was more telling than what it didn’t find. Again, though, the post-war findings are irrelevant to the decision for OIF since the enforcement procedure was compliance based and Iraq was confirmed by UNMOVIC to be noncompliant on the ceasefire weapons mandates. Iraq was also noncompliant on non-weapons mandates, eg, UNSCR 688, which were also mandatory for Iraq and triggers for OIF.

Well yeah, obviously Saddam is the cause. He should have stood down with Kuwait in 90-91. After the Gulf War, he could have prevented the sanctions, no-fly zone, Op Desert Fox, Op Iraqi Freedom, and everything else by simply complying with the terms of the ceasefire he agreed to. He could and should have done so in 91-92, let alone 02-03.

But comparatively speaking, of the 3 Presidents who dealt with the Saddam problem, HW Bush is the one who screwed up.

Irving Kristol, our godfather, defined us thusly: A Neoconservative is a Liberal who has been mugged by reality.

Like the classy hostess of this blog and many who read and comment here.

They’re still alive. The Democrats from Civil War, conveniently or not, aren’t.

The ISIS Hell is a direct result of Obama the Pretender’s abandonment of our huge Victory. A VAST TESTICULR CONCAVITY for all the Evil Doers to see was really all they needed.