Laura Ingraham Wrong About Iraq and WMD

Knowing what I know now, I'd still authorize the invasion of Iraq had I been President George Bush.

Laura Ingraham hammers Jeb Bush on his response to an interview question. The question involved a hypothetical scenario. In this scenario, Jeb Bush was in the same point in time as his brother was in the months leading to the Iraq invasion.

Laura Ingraham's response to his response assumed that the anti-WMD propaganda, of the left, was "true": 

Originally stated by Laura Ingraham:
When he's asked a simple question, good on Megan Kelly by the way, what was the question? Knowing what we know now, not if you are in the same exact circumstances your brother would you have authorized this war, no no no, knowing what we know now, mainly that there were no WMDs, we got bad intelligence, if you had known all those things, would you have, he said, "Yes, I still authorize the war. That, in my mind, reveals, it's a sneak peek as to what Jeb is going to face come general election should he win the nomination. Megan gave him a little taste of that, it's going to go way beyond would you authorize the war in Iraq?

During the run-up to the Iraq war, President George Bush advanced more than one argument as to why we needed to go into Iraq. His explanations were consistent with his initial speeches after the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Mainly, that this war was not like any other war before. This war was one where you were going to have both visible and invisible parts to the public. This was a multidimensional war. 

The war in Afghanistan was the opening salvo, but not the final campaign in this currently ongoing Global War on Terror.

Or, as I'd like to call it, "Our reaction to the terrorist war to exterminate Western Civilization and to establish global Islamic law."

George Bush explained multiple reasons to why we had to engage this war. This war includes the Iraq war. This greater war was going to involve a financial, economic, political, etc., as well as military leg. One main theme involved "freedom." In the case of Iraq, it included, "Weapons of Mass Destruction."

There's a reason to why it was called, "Operation Iraqi Freedom."

Because of the successful media perpetrated propaganda campaign, the majority of the public thinks that there were "no" Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.

Perhaps Laura Ingraham could tell those soldiers, attacked by chemical agent laced IEDs in Iraq, that there were "no" WMD in Iraq.

Laura Ingraham, I dare you to tell those soldiers, who were attacked by sarin, mustard, and blister agent laced improvised explosive devices in Iraq... that there were "no" Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.

From the beginning of the invasion and throughout our involvement in Iraq... That's the time frames for US military units and coalition members discovering chemical agents in Iraq. Chemical agents are one part of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Hence, WMD were in Iraq.

If the mainstream media did its job, and emphasized these discoveries as much as they did the propaganda that there were "no" WMD, this would've been common knowledge.

As part of basic military training/basic combat training, new service members learn about Weapons of Mass Destruction. One of the things that they learn is that WMD comes in one of three main forms. 

We have biological warfare agents, chemical warfare agents, and nuclear warfare agents. All three constitute WMD.

Sarin, mustard, and blister agents are examples of chemical agents, hence "weapons of mass destruction." In other words, WMD were found in Iraq post invasion. Whether or not these were made prior to 1991 is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that they were found post invasion, justifying one of President George Bush's arguments for going into Iraq.

But, that wasn't his only argument for invading Iraq.

In order to successfully combat terrorism, we have to take them on in different arenas. President George Bush consistently talked about these different arenas.

Going into Iraq was a logical next step in the War on Terror. From an asymmetrical warfare standpoint, this was an act of brilliance. Take a look at the map of the Middle East.

With Afghanistan on one side, and Iraq on the other side, Iran would have a hard time trying to maintain their status quo. The pressure, from economic and democratic change within the flanking countries, would make it harder to suppress the desires of the Iranian people.

Here's another angle on what's going on in the Middle East. With Israel, and a democratic Iraq, to the north of Saudi Arabia; and Lebanon, a democratic Iraq, Israel, and Turkey flanking Syria, we create similar situations for Syria... In the long term... That we created with Iran.

The invasion of Iraq created a checkerboard pattern of countries, in the Middle East, in different forms of democracy.

Herein lies the bigger element of President George Bush's ultimate plan for the Middle East. With countries in different stages of economic and democratic development, we could apply the other elements of asymmetrical warfare more.

The biggest one, offered by economic development, creates a situation to where we have something like Japan, South Korea, Germany etc., in the heart of the Middle East. From there, it's a matter time before the people in the other countries want the same thing.

Hence, the demonstrations that took place in the Middle East. A part of the Iraq invasion plan was a projected democratic "ripple effect." It was supposed to kick in and bring democracy to the rest of the Middle East.

We saw that in the form of the "Arab Spring". It was up to Washington D.C. to leverage the Arab Spring. They were supposed to help bring about, and catalyze, positive economic and democratic change in the Middle East.

This included finding groups, within these countries, to support. Washington D.C. fell short of what it needed to do.

Now, people would point to ISIS, and what's going on in Iraq and Syria today. People would say, "We should not have gone into Iraq." That's a wrongheaded way to look at things.

This isn't like a project at home, where you try to construct something and it fell apart. Then you respond by saying, "I should not have built that." The fate of the United States does not hinge on your construction. However, it hinges on whether we succeed in the Middle East or not.

We won the Iraq war with a straight cut victory, it was up to Washington D.C. to carry it through.

The cold hard fact is that the American-led coalition won the Iraq War with a straight cut victory. The Iraqi military demonstrated competency. For the most part, the population supported this military. Within the Iraqi ranks, there was general respect up and down the chain.

The Iraqi military and security force showed competency. They tended to give the terrorists a bad day. 

The US military, toward the end of the Iraq involvement, saw a need to keep a residual force behind. All that was needed was a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA). At first, the Iraqis did not want to have a situation to where US military was outside Iraqi law. However; they turned more toward giving us a SOFA on favorable terms for the US military.

The initial resistance was simply a negotiation ploy. It was a way to see if we would give them more of what they wanted before negotiations progressed. They were willing to push the envelope until they couldn't push it anymore. 

When they couldn't, they ultimately agreed to favorable terms.

Unfortunately, there was no will in the White House to get the military what it needed. In this case, to build up the Iraqi military and its capability to keep Iraq secure.

Consequently, what the US military helped create from March 2003 through December 2011 deteriorated rapidly. This allowed for ISIS to make rapid advances into Iraq. This is a feat that would not have happened had the US military received the support it needed post OIF.

So yes, Laura Ingraham, knowing what I know now, I still would've ordered the invasion. If I were president in the months leading up to the Iraq war, I would've given the same order that George Bush ultimately gave.

Fickleness in Washington D.C. should never be the cause for us losing the will to fight. The enemy has a vote. The ones that the West is fighting now has every intention of establishing radical Islamic law in the United States and elsewhere. 

They brag about it. This is what they're thinking about when they brag about placing the flag of Islam on top of the White House.

Anybody that says that we should not have invaded Iraq becomes a voluntary mouthpiece for the enemy. In this case, for ISIS. By attacking the justifications for going into Iraq, one contributes to the erosion of the will to fight. This works in our enemies' favors.

The question is not whether we should have gone into Iraq or not. That was the right decision. History will see it that way. That's a non-argument.

What should be looked at is the White House's failure to take the military's advise to heart in order to secure the victory. Based on that, ways to more effectively combat our enemies in the Middle East should receive the heaviest attention. People need to quit "next day" quarter backing.

Laura Ingraham Wrong About Those Who Would Still Order an Invasion of Iraq Knowing What They Know Now

In her diatribe against Jeb Bush, Laura Ingraham continued on as if the assumption, solidified by media propaganda, were "fact." I mean, if the news people said that there were "no" WMD in Iraq, who in their "right" mind would have invaded in the first place?

I'm sorry, the Iraqi security personnel that suffered IED burns, on their skin, would disagree. The burn on their skin represent the aftermath of a blister agent laced IED. Blister agents are examples of WMD. This speaks volumes of the fact that WMD was in Iraq as President Bush argued.

Originally stated by Laura Ingraham
But that's, that  that's just a fun hypothetical but you have to say no to that! You can't say, "yes I still would've gone into Iraq! Or and if you do, you just have to have, there has to be something wrong with you! You can't still think that going into Iraq now as a sane human being was the right thing to do! I don't, I just, that's just, that's like you have no ability to learn from past mistakes at all! Well when the past mistakes were made by your brother.

Why can't we? Because most of the media claims that there were "no" WMD in Iraq... despite the fact that the WMD kept turning up throughout the Iraq War? 

I understand that Laura Ingraham was busy hammering Jeb Bush. She was doing her best to erode his credibility. After all, he is not the best candidate for the Republican side. 

The major fact that he did an about-face from his brother's decision made him a candidate that I would not vote for in the general elections.

In fact, any Republican candidate for president... that states or believes that he/she would not have ordered the Iraq invasion "knowing what they know now"... would not get my vote. If the ultimate Republican nominee is an agreement in this regard with Laura Ingraham, there's an excellent chance that I would not vote Republican for president in 2016.

So yes, I could understand that she's pulling all she could pull to torpedo Jeb Bush's credibility. However...

If I were president in early 2003, I still would've ordered the invasion of Iraq knowing what I know now.

Whether she realizes it or not, she labels those of us on my side of the argument as "having something wrong."

I mean, really? I strongly believe, based on the facts and on historical context, that going into Iraq was/is a smart thing to do. I strongly believe that we still should have gone in when we ultimately went in.

I say this knowing what I know now for an action I would still take had I been President Bush in early 2003.

It is our ability to learn from the past that makes us hold strongly to the argument that yes, we would order the invasion of Iraq knowing what we know now.

Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, was an asymmetrical threat to the United States. He spent much of the 1990s, and early 2000's, playing games with the United Nations weapons inspections. 

A Russian defector wrote the book, Through the Eyes of the Enemy.

The author, Stanislav Lunev, went into detail on how he, as a member of a para-special forces unit in Russia, trained the Iraqis on deception with regards to weapons of mass destruction. He talked about how he trained them to create the WMD casing that look like anything that you would find in the environment.

Considering that the terrorists used MRE wrappers as IED casing speaks to this account being close to reality.

When they got word that the inspection team was coming to an area that had WMD, the Russian military provided advice on how to move and hide that WMD.

Too farfetched? 

Saddam Hussein complained about how members of the Western inspection teams were "spies" or "agents of intelligence agencies." 

The methods that Stanislav Lunev talked about in his book, Through the Eyes of the Enemy, turned up again during Collen Powell's testimony to the United Nations. Collen Powell's accounts of how the Iraqis were moving suspicious items match with the descriptions for similar events given in the book, Through the Eyes of the Enemy.

Saddam Hussein was an asymmetrical threat that had to be removed from power.

On one hand, we had Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda dreaming of "fantastic" and "spectacular" attacks on US soil. On the other hand? We have Saddam Hussein refusing to come clean with his weapons of mass destruction program or weapons of mass destruction.

Those who say that Saddam Hussein would not have gotten along with Osama bin Laden fail to understand the following Arab saying:

"An enemy of an enemy is a friend." 

They also fail to see our own history where capitalist United States worked with communist Soviet Union to fight the Axis Powers.

Saddam Hussein has a history of supporting terrorism in the Middle East. Then we had this case of a terrorist training camp in Iraq, where some of the cadre admitted to training Al Qaeda. They may not have had joint cooperation with regards to the September 11, 2001 attacks.

However, one has to see this from an asymmetrical warfare standpoint. Those reading the reports of the two inspection teams that the US sent to Iraq post invasion... without the bias offered by the media... would see that the inspection teams could not rule out movement of WMD to another country.

They couldn't rule out the possibility that WMD existed in parts of the country that they did not check.

Both reports essentially said that in the areas that they searched, they cannot find WMD. Any attempts to describe the parts of Iraq that was not searched based on the findings of a limited search would be irresponsible.

That's what the mainstream media did. They extrapolated the results of a limited search and applied it to the entire country. That's academically irresponsible.

We had a situation where Al Qaeda is looking for a way to commit mass terrorism on US soil. That's still the case now. At the same time, we had a madman refusing to come clean with his WMD with the intention of reconstituting his WMD program. These conditions created an asymmetrical warfare version of standing in the middle of the room... Waist high in easily flammable liquid... With a man playing with matches.

We had to go in given those conditions. As I mentioned earlier, it was not just about WMD. It was also about setting the right conditions in the Middle East. These are conditions that would facilitate rapid economic and democratic growth in the Middle East. It was a process that was to happen over a long period of time.

History has been cruel to those who assumed that a specific type of weapon did not exist.

The only people that I notice, that have no ability to learn from the past, are those that still insist that there were "no" WMD in Iraq. 

They fail to recognize the numerous articles written attesting to WMD being found in Iraq post invasion.

They fail to learn from history. For example, in a morning in the Philippines in the late 19th century, Filipinos slaughtered American soldiers in the mess tent. They used weapons that certain American sentries thought "did not exist."

History has been brutal to those that think that certain weapons "did not exist."

What reasonable human being, one that's capable of learning, would ignore the facts in favor of media propaganda? That's where the statement, "There's something wrong with you," should be applied.