Texas Rainmaker » Is Darfur an Imminent Threat?

Is Darfur an Imminent Threat?
May 22nd, 2007 11:11 am

If you’ve been listening to Democrat Joe Biden, it must be.

U.S. Sen. Joe Biden said that he would commit U.S. forces immediately to stop militia in Sudan’s Darfur region as long as there were reports of genocide.

He would commit troops immediately to an oil-rich, predominantly Muslim country, with suspected ties to al-Qaida and WMDs, that’s experiencing genocide?

And yet, he faults the Bush administration for “rushing to war” in Iraq when there was “no imminent threat”:

[Biden] believes the Administration went to war too soon, without a real coalition, without enough troops and without a plan to win the peace. As a longtime member of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Biden knows that no foreign policy can be sustained without the informed consent of the American people. And of all the mistakes the Bush Administration made in Iraq, perhaps the biggest was that it never leveled with the American people about the lack of an imminent threat, the human and material cost of securing the peace and the need to plan not just for the “day after” but for the “decade after.”

For those of you keeping score at home, the Left is protesting the fact that President Bush sent troops into a predominantly muslim country with suspected ties to terrorism and alleged WMDs, whose leaders were committing genocide while demanding that President Bush send troops into a predominantly muslim country with suspected ties to terrorism and alleged WMDs, whose leaders are committing genocide.

8 Comments »

Huh? In reacting to Iraq by saying it was never an imminent threat - Biden is, of course, responding to Bush and company’s claim that it was. And so how - pray tell - does this commit him to always and only getting inolved when there is an imminent threat to the U.S.? It clearly doesn’t. He can consistently believe that there are numerous distinct reasons for military involvement - one of which is if the U.S. is facing an imminent threat - and another in the case of genocide. From Biden’s persepctive, Iraq was neither an imminent threat - nor was Sadam engaged in genocide. So yes - Biden can consistently reject Bush’s reasons for going to war - and yet have different reasons for wanting to assist in Darfur. Nothing inconsistent here, Tex - despite your worst efforts to find something.

It does, however, look like Biden is committed to an international coalition - and to the consent of the American people. I’m not sure how he would manage to get either of those things even while immediately sending in troops. If only you had thought to call him on that instead. . .

Comment by djernigan — 11:44 am
“…nor was Sadam engaged in genocide.”

The Kurds just might disagree with that statement.

If Biden is so keenly sighted, why did he vote in favor of the Authorization for the Use of Force in Iraq Act? Joe Biden is a first order politician pandering to a base.

Comment by Old Soldier — 12:12 pm
“Huh? In reacting to Iraq by saying it was never an imminent threat - Biden is, of course, responding to Bush and company’s claim that it was.”

Wrong. Bush never claimed Iraq was an imminent threat, and explicitly said Iraq wasn’t yet an “imminent” threat during the 2003 SOTU: “Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.”

“And so how - pray tell - does this commit him to always and only getting inolved when there is an imminent threat to the U.S.? It clearly doesn’t. He can consistently believe that there are numerous distinct reasons for military involvement - one of which is if the U.S. is facing an imminent threat - and another in the case of genocide.”

Both countries possess oil. Both countries are muslim. Both countries were suspected of having links to terrorists and WMDs. Both countries were experiencing genocide.

The big difference between the two is that Darfur hasn’t threatened to kill Americans, hasn’t attempted an assassination of our President, hasn’t invaded neighboring countries and hasn’t consistently engaged in acts of war against Americans. So why would Darfur rise to the level of requiring “immediate American troop presence” and Iraq didn’t?

“From Biden’s persepctive, Iraq was neither an imminent threat - nor was Sadam engaged in genocide.”

From Bush’s perpective, Iraq wasn’t an “imminent” threat either. And Saddam wasn’t engaged in genocide? Are you serious? Heard of Al-Anfal, Halabja or Dujail, the event for which Saddam was convicted and hanged for genocide?

“So yes - Biden can consistently reject Bush’s reasons for going to war - and yet have different reasons for wanting to assist in Darfur. Nothing inconsistent here, Tex - despite your worst efforts to find something.”

And it’s this very reason Democrats should never again be allowed to assume the position of Commander in Chief. You guys don’t understand the purpose of the military. You just want to train them to sing kumbaya and send them out to every hellhole on the globe just to babysit.

“It does, however, look like Biden is committed to an international coalition - and to the consent of the American people.”

Good, just like Bush. A coalition that consisted of 54 countries - larger than the first (more popular) military action against Iraq. On March 21, 2003, 74% of Americans supported military action against Iraq.

“I’m not sure how he would manage to get either of those things even while immediately sending in troops. If only you had thought to call him on that instead. . .”

So much hypocrisy, so little time, I guess.

Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 12:16 pm
Nuke Tehran. Then the whole of the middle east would be better than it was.

Comment by Big White Hat — 1:11 pm
djergigan,

Your intellectual dishonesty is laughable.

The Democrats began the drum beat for war in 1998.

http://edition.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/

December 16, 1998
Web posted at: 8:51 p.m. EST (0151 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) — From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.

The president said Iraq’s refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.

“Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons,” Clinton said.

Operation Desert Fox, a strong, sustained series of attacks, will be carried out over several days by U.S. and British forces, Clinton said.

“Earlier today I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces,” Clinton said.

“Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors,” said Clinton.

Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors.
=======================================================

IN 1998 President Clinton signed the “1998 Iraqi Liberation Act”, which officially endorsed REGIME CHANGE for Iraq.

This Act was passed with a MAJORITY vote by DEMOCRATS and Republicans:
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/11/01/981101-in.htm
==================================================

What did Democrats say about Saddam Hussein’s WMDs BEFORE Bush was sworn in as President on January 20, 2001 and starting in 1998???!!!!

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm

====================================================

On top of that the Clinton Administration stated an “alliance in weapons development” between al-Qaeda and Iraq BEFORE 9/11 happened.

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/world/africa/082598attack-rdp.html

RICHARD CLARKE MADE IRAQ-Al QAEDA CONNECTION IN 1998

===================================
http://partners.nytimes.com/library/world/africa/082598attack-rdp.html
New York Times
August 25, 1998

U.S. Says Iraq Aided Production of Chemical Weapons in Sudan

WASHINGTON — The United States believed that senior Iraqi scientists were helping to produce elements of the nerve agent VX at a factory in Khartoum that American cruise missiles destroyed last week, administration and intelligence officials said on Monday.

The evidence the administration has cited as justification for the attack consisted of a soil sample secretly obtained months ago outside the pharmaceutical factory, the Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries, the officials said. Officially the administration has refused to describe its evidence in any detail, or to say how it was obtained.

The sample contained a rare chemical that would require two more complex steps to be turned into VX, one of the deadliest nerve agents in existence, and the chemical, whose acronym is EMPTA, has no industrial uses. The United Nations and the United States have long agreed that Iraq is extremely skilled at many kinds of VX production, having worked for years to perfect the best process.

The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, also said there was evidence that senior Iraqi scientists had aided the efforts to make VX at that factory, and at another plant a couple of miles away.

The connection with Iraq emerged as a key part of the administration’s argument for why it was justified in launching cruise missiles at a plant in another country without any warning.
———————————————————————

“While U.S. intelligence officials disclosed shortly after the missile attack that they had obtained a soil sample from the El Shifa site that contained a precursor of VX nerve gas, Clarke said that the U.S. government is “sure” that Iraqi nerve gas experts actually produced a powdered VX-like substance at the plant that, when mixed with bleach and water, would have become fully active VX nerve gas.”

“Clarke said U.S. intelligence does not know how much of the substance was produced at El Shifa or what happened to it. But he said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to El Shifa’s current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts, and the National Islamic Front in Sudan.”

“Given the evidence presented to the White House before the airstrike, Clarke said, the president “would have been derelict in his duties if he didn’t blow up the facility.”

If we’re to believe everything Richard Clarke says then we must believe that a link existed in 1998 and 1999 between Iraq and al-Qaida.

President Clinton told us to listen to Richard Clarke so…..

So before dummy Bush was sworn in on January 20, 2001, before Bush did or said anything, and before 9/11 President Clinton and his terrorism czar Richard Clarke linked Iraq and al-Qaeda!

In the CLINTON Administration’s 1998 Indictment of Osama Bin Laden they stated an alliance between al-Qaeda and Iraq. And stated a “cooperation in weapons development”. After 9/11 this fact is even more chilling.

=================================
http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html

#4.
………..
In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of
Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on
particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al
Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.
================================

In 2002 Vladimir Putin also revealed he warned Bush that Iraq was planning terrorist attacks for inside the United States before the Iraq Invasion!

================================
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/18/russia.warning/index.html

Russia ‘warned U.S. about Saddam’
Friday, June 18, 2004 Posted: 12:46 PM EDT (1646 GMT)

MOSCOW, Russia (CNN) — Russian intelligence services warned Washington several times that Saddam Hussein’s regime planned terrorist attacks against the United States, President Vladimir Putin has said.

The warnings were provided after September 11, 2001 and before the start of the Iraqi war, Putin said Friday.

The planned attacks were targeted both inside and outside the United States, said Putin, who made the remarks during a visit to Kazakhstan.
===============================================

If you are President of the United States after 9/11 and every Intelligence Agency is telling you Saddam has WMDs and the President of Russia tells you Saddam Hussein is planning terrorist attacks for inside America after 9/11 and before the Iraq Invasion how can you not act????

Comment by Gunner — 2:16 pm
Ok guys - it really is very simple. First - from the nature of my post - it should be clear that I don’t approve of Biden’s attitude on this issue. And, moreover, I have never said anything about what we should do in Darfur. My point(s) –

1 - In the original post Tex was clearly suggesting that Biden would be inconsistent in going into Darfur without it being an imminent threat. This is quite simply an unfair accusation. Tex offered nothing about Biden’s attitude about genocide - which IS the issue in Darfur. I would suspect this is why Tex changed his post - all WITHOUT - doing so within the context of an UPDATE. Come on, Tex - play fair. If you get it wrong - right it publically and transparently.

2 - By the time of the Iraq war - what, with all the UN flyovers and restrictions - Iraq certainly wasn’t involved in genocide (and bbefore you try to nitpick this issue by pointing out small and controversial killings which occurred in the intervening years - please read up on what is happening in Darfur for an example or real genocide –http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict.

3 - Despite what Bush said explicitely - he was giving every indication to the public that Iraq WAS an imminent threat - with its WMD’s and its purchasing of alluminum tubing and its connections to Al Qaeda.

4 - Both countries possess oil. Both countries are muslim. Both countries were suspected of having links to terrorists and WMDs. Both countries were experiencing genocide.

Three out of four of these are irrelevant to trying to paint Biden as inconsistent - at least given the information you have provided. And even if he is on record saying we shouldn’t invade countires with oil, or are predominantly muslim, and/or have terrorist links (which would be bizarre - but then in the response to Bush’s warmongering, Democrats have said some pretty dumb things) -there is still nothing inconsistent with his position. And as for the fourth - genocide - see point 2.

5 The “Coalition of the willing” list is such a con job - that it really doens’t deserve a response. I mean - the very idea that you would sit down and bean count a list of small and insiginificant countries until you got one long enough to serve some rhetorical purpose - is downright Orwellian.

Comment by djernigan — 7:14 pm
Daniel,
You obviously miss the point. This post isn’t just about Biden’s latest comments. See the “Related” link where I posted about this subject a year ago. This is about the Left being anti-whatever-Bush-does.

The Left kept telling us what a threat Iraq was all throughout the 1990s. Then Bush orders troops in and suddenly the Left claims Iraq was never a threat and this was all some concoction of Bush’s. Now we have the Left simultaneously demanding troops into Darfur, another muslim, oil-rich country with ties to terrorists and suspected WMDs, run by a genocidal regime, while faulting Bush for putting troops in Iraq. (But I thought the anti-war crowd wanted the troops HOME)…

Whichever way Bush goes, you’ll be against it. That’s the point.

The “Darfur is an imminent threat” focus was a tongue-in-cheek reference to the Left’s (via Biden in this instance) continually shifting reasons for opposing Bush’s actions at every turn. Biden’s website perpetuates the myth that Bush claimed Iraq was an imminent threat, when in reality, that was a word used by the Left to set an unreasonably high bar for action in Iraq. So if Biden claims that Bush’s biggest mistake in sending troops to Iraq was that it wasn’t an imminent threat, then we could logically assume he thinks Darfus is an imminent threat because he’d put troops in immediately…

Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 8:11 pm
Too bad my last post disapeared for some reason. It really won the day, haha.

Daniel

Comment by djernigan — 10:36 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI