Fake News, Disinformation Section. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, Comedy Central's satiric "fake news" show, last nite had as guest one Georges Sada, described as a general in Saddam Hussein's regime who has written a book he was pushing via that appearance. Stewart was bubbling with enthusiasm for this man, whom he found at once courageous and cuddly. 'He sat opposite Saddam, told him things he didn't want to hear, and lived to tell about it!' Alas, Sada seems a Bushite disinformation drone who referred to the "liberation" of Iraq and claims in his book that not only did Saddam have Weapons of Mass Destruction immediately before the Bush invasion — 'I saw them with my own eyes' — but he moved them into Syria before the fall of Baghdad, where, presumably, they remain today. Plainly this is part of the propaganda the Bushies are shoveling by the truckload to work us to war against both Syria and Iran.
+
Perhaps they think the Nation is so stupid that it will consent to two more wars in the Middle East, just in time for the November elections. I hope they're wrong.
+
Before the U.S. attack, and in hopes of giving people information and argumentation to influence the decision whether to attack or not, I wrote a 31,000-word presentation called "No Iraq Attack".
+
In that presentation, at the heading "Saddam, Modernist", I make the points that (a) Saddam was most unlikely to have WMDs, because he could not use them against the U.S. or Israel (and defending Israel is the real, sole reason the U.S. attacked Iraq) without triggering a devastating counterattack from the United States, which would destroy everything Saddam was trying to accomplish in the Arab world, and (b) there was no chance Saddam would turn over WMD to anyone he could not control. That goes for Syria as well as al-Qaeda.

The pretense is that Saddam is in league with al-Qaeda and plans to give "terrorists" weapons of mass destruction to transport to the U.S. The reality is that Saddam is notoriously untrusting — one might say "paranoid" — so would NEVER permit weapons of mass destruction to be turned over to ANYONE he could not CONTROL ABSOLUTELY, because he fears that such weapons might be used against HIM.

Saddam is no fool. He knows that Islamists are his enemy. He knows that most of the "terrorists" hostile to the U.S. and Zionism are almost equally hostile to every Arab government in the world, and wants them all replaced with Islamic dictatorships of mullahs and other "holy men" who would safeguard the souls of Moslems against the temptations of the modern world — of which Iraq is plainly part.

No, Saddam is not giving weapons of mass destruction to Islamists. Not EVER. NEVER.

So, realistically, we need concern ourselves only with such forces as Saddam feels confident he can control: his own military. He knows that any use by Iraq of nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction from Iraqi soil would be detected immediately and punished with overwhelming force that would surely kill him and destroy everything he dreams of for Iraq. This is called "deterrence", and it has worked to prevent nuclear war for the entire Atomic Age.

In the Cold War, such deterrence was mutual. Both the Soviet Union/Warsaw Pact and United States/NATO had the capacity to obliterate the other side. This was called "Mutual Assured Destruction" or "MAD". MAD was enuf to prevent World War III from breaking out, despite the two sides having between them on the order of 30,000 nuclear weapons!

We are asked to believe that tho MUTUAL Assured Destruction could work against the Soviet Union, ONE-SIDED Assured Destruction (which I call "O-SAD") would NOT be enuf to restrain Iraq. Ridiculous! Saddam is not a suicide bomber. Nothing he has ever said or done would lead anyone to think that he believes he will go instantly to Paradise if he attacks the United States and is vaporized in return. Who can believe that a man who has built dozens of palaces all over Iraq and holds out grandiose hopes for a reunion of "the Arab Nation" under his leadership would throw it all away and cause it all to be destroyed by an insane and reckless attack upon the United States?

Iraq is not a danger to the United States or any other great power, in the West or anywhere else. Iraq's missiles are so crappy that despite dozens of attempts, they have never brought down so much as a single U.S. or British warplane patrolling the "no-fly" zones within Iraq's own territory. How, given such preposterous inaccuracy at very short range, could such crappy missiles ever reach a U.S. or even British target?

Iraq is a danger to Israel. That is all. And that is not reason enuf for the United States to disgrace itself in a war of aggression against a country that has never attacked us.

Saddam had great plans for himself and his nation. He would not deliberately have brought on the destruction of either, much less both. It was therefore not credible that he would have developed, at enormous cost, weapons that could do him no good because he could never use them, and even having them on hand would endanger not just his regime but also his own existence. As it turned out, even not having them could not save him from Zionist liars in the United States.
+
In lite of Saddam's fate, why on Earth would Syria accept WMD into its territory, and thus invite the very same destruction Iraq suffered, on the same pretext? It's absurd. Syrians would have to be insane, and I don't believe that a Syrian regime that has lasted for decades is suicidal, any more than that Saddam was suicidal. But Zionists in media seem to believe that they can get away with the same lies over and over again; that "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me" has no meaning to Americans. They will follow the leader into another devastating war, against Syria, on the basis that it now has those Weapons of Mass Destruction we could not find in Iraq. And then into another war, against Iran, because Bush has pledged openly that he will use military force to protect Israel from Iran, pre-emptively, even tho Iran has never attacked Israel and is not expected to be in position to do so for at least five years.
+
Zionists believe that they so utterly and absolutely control the U.S. Government that they can defy even the electorate, even in an election year. Indeed, they may feel that the only time they will ever be able to launch a pre-emptive strike (thru the U.S., of course, since Israel cannot do it) against both Syria and Iran, their last remaining credible military enemies in the entire region, is if they do it before November, because the Democrats won't go for two more wars in the Middle East, and Democrats may well take over one or both Houses of Congress in November.
+
Democrats are Americans, not imitation-Israelis. Democrats are captive to Liberals, who are largely nonreligious or benign-religious. They don't believe in a God of Wrath but, if in any God at all, then in the God of Love, and the God of Love does not smile upon Americans killing for Israel.
+
Democrats are Americans, who believe the U.S. should go to war, if ever, only for American interests and American principles, not for Israeli interests and Israeli principles — if one could even characterize Zionist tribalism and racism as "principles" at all.
+
The Radical Religious Right that controls the Republican Party is treasonous. They truly believe we are living in "End Times", and that if only they can provoke Armageddon thru massive aggression in the Middle East, Christ will return in glory to Earth and bring a thousand years of divine rule. The wicked will be destroyed in fiery retribution, and the Elect will sit at the right hand of Christ in his Earthly dominion.
+
Democrats don't share that insane delusion, and do not believe in killing for Christ by actually killing for Israel.
+
Democrats don't believe that the end of the world is a good thing, to be pursued ecstatically in the expectation that the destruction of this world will produce the arrival of a better one. Nor do they believe that the mere laying waste of two more countries in the Middle East and the death of thousands (or tens of thousands) more American young people will bring on the end of the world. After all, there's no Soviet defender of either Syria or Iran to retaliate against a U.S. invasion with a full-scale nuclear war. So where is the end of the world and the beginning of Christ's reign to come from if we do invade Syria and Iran?
+
The End-Times premise is absurd, even as regards the practicality of producing Armageddon thru such a trivial cause. We would destroy not the world but only Syria and Iran, and then have to answer for those crimes, if not at the Last Judgment, then at least every day for the rest of our lives in the tribunal of our own conscience.
+
It is imperative that Americans make very plain that we aren't buying the lies. We don't believe there are Iraqi "Weapons of Mass Destruction" in Syria. We know better than to believe that we have to invade Iran or it will destroy the world. We're not that stupid, but the Bush Administration and Israeli lobby believe we are that stupid. Unless we mobilize to send an unmistakable message to the Republican Party now that we will not tolerate a war against either Syria or Iran, much less both, we will have both before November.
+
(The current U.S. military death toll in Iraq, according to the website "Iraq Coalition Casualties", is 2,319.)
- posted by L. Craig Schoonmaker @ 9:50 AM