Posted on 04/05/2008 8:59:28 AM PDT by GVnana
Not What They Supposed The terror connection missed by the Clintonistas.
by Stephen F. Hayes
Four months after the start of the Iraq war, two former senior Clinton administration national security officials took to the pages of the New York Times to demand accountability for the Bush administration's claims about Iraq and terrorism. Or, as they put it in their opening sentence, "Iraq's supposed links to terrorists."
Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon wrote that the Bush administration's assertions about Iraqi support for terrorism were "suspect" and demanded scrutiny. One sure way to know the truth about Iraq and terrorism, they argued, was to consult the mountain of evidence the regime left behind as its leaders fled in front of American forces. "Military and intelligence officials need only comb through the files of Iraq's intelligence agency and a handful of other government ministries," and we would have our answers.
Well, we have our answers. They came in the 1,600-page Pentagon study released on March 13 and entitled Iraqi Perspectives Project, Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents, produced after a review of some 600,000 documents unearthed in postwar Iraq. And it is a devastating indictment of the U.S. intelligence community's analysis of Iraq, the Clinton administration's counterterrorism policy, and the arguments of anyone who would use the word "supposed" to describe Iraq's links to terrorists.
A thorough examination of those flawed analyses and the policies that resulted from them is as important now as it was when Benjamin and Simon called for it in the summer of 2003. "This is not only a question of political accountability--it also bears on our nation's fundamental approach to security," they wrote. On that, at least, they were right.
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
And jveritas showed those links, from many of those same documents, here, long before the IPP report was released.
It may have been released March 13, but the msm will tell no one about it until the next attack under a democrat and Bush will be blamed for not doing more with this information.
Excellent post!
"This is not only a question of political accountability--it also bears on our nation's fundamental approach to security," they wrote. On that, at least, they were right.
Has anyone asked these Clinton era officials for their comment now that the study has been done?
Steven Simon, Hasib J. Sabbagh Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies
Daniel Benjamin, Senior Fellow in the International Security Program, Center for Strategic & International Studies
"But when it comes to fighting the decentralized threat of fundamentalist Islamic terrorism, Benjamin and Simon maintain, the best defense is not a good offense, but a good defense."
********************EXCERPT***********************
Back in 2003, Benjamin and Simon wrote that the Iraq war was sold to the American people "as Phase II in the war on terror that began after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. But was there ever a credible basis for carrying that battle to Iraq?"
We have our answer.
Stephen F. Hayes is a senior writer at THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
Gee... don't they think that non honoring a surrender agreement is a credible basis for war?
Thank you FP. Stephen Hayes is one of the very few journalists who have been working for long time on uncovering Saddam strong relation to terrorism, I am glad that he is still talking and writing about it.
bump for later read
I just wish the msm would cover at least some of this!!!!!
Is there a link to that information?
Rush needs to be notified of the particulars on this one. His voice is about the only way America is going to find out what the report says because the traitors in the mainstream media will not report this as it needs to be broadcast ... it might effect the election of the media’s beloved enemy aiding democrats!
Covering it will proves their lies, they are not going to cover it.
Links are highlighted in red and appear with the article excerpt as posted above.
The Great One, too.
No, thank YOU!
You’ve done great work here.
I would not put it past Mark to read every darn word of the report! He’s an amazing guy, the Great One.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.