Not What They Supposed - The terror connection missed by the Clintonistas

The Weekly Standard ^ | 4/14/2008 | Stephen F. Hayes

[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.

[GVnana]

"The Iraqi Perspectives Project (IPP) review of captured Iraqi documents uncovered strong evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism."

[FreedomPoster]

And jveritas showed those links, from many of those same documents, here, long before the IPP report was released.

[freeangel]

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.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Excellent post!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Highlighting this:

"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.

[Dan(9698)]

Has anyone asked these Clinton era officials for their comment now that the study has been done?

[avacado]

The new IPP Report showed that Saddam directly funded the group ‘Islamic Jihad’ which *is* al-Qaeda. That's all I need to know and it should be blasted all over the MSM.

[GVnana]

I haven't found any response. More on Simon and Benjamin:

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."

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

From the close:

********************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.

[avacado]

"But was there ever a credible basis for carrying that battle to Iraq?"

Gee... don't they think that non honoring a surrender agreement is a credible basis for war?

[jveritas]

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.

[IGOTMINE]

bump for later read

[FlashBack]

I just wish the msm would cover at least some of this!!!!!

[Kackikat]

Is there a link to that information?

[MHGinTN]

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!

[jveritas]

Covering it will proves their lies, they are not going to cover it.

[GVnana]

Links are highlighted in red and appear with the article excerpt as posted above.

[Miss Didi]

The Great One, too.

[FreedomPoster]

No, thank YOU!

You’ve done great work here.

[MHGinTN]

I would not put it past Mark to read every darn word of the report! He’s an amazing guy, the Great One.

[Kackikat]

SIMON AND BENJAMEN: “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.”

And just where do the above BUZZHEADS say we should mount that defense, in the ashes of the Americans here after we’ve been attacked again?

[okie01]

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."

So, "two former senior Clinton administration national security officials" lied.

What else is new?

And will the New York Times favor the new IPP with a report -- or even a synopsis?

Of course not. The New York Times is never wrong.

[GVnana]

And just where do the above BUZZHEADS say we should mount that defense, in the ashes of the Americans here after we’ve been attacked again?

In such a political climate, George W. Bush had the courage and foresight to do the right thing. And for that, I will always be grateful.

[WesternPacific]

The clintoon administration's Intelligence Community, (by the way, Intelligence Community during the clintoon years should be recorded as an oxymoron) is and will forever be in denial. To admitted their dangerous shortcomings would be devastating to a moral person.

[Milligan]

Egyptian Islamic Jihad; a precursor
to al Queda!

No Connection! Move along! ;)

[driftless2]

"no connection"

This is just a typical example of Big Media raising the goalposts. "So what if Hussein was up to his neck in sponsoring and fomenting Islamo-terrorism? We don't have any pictures of him and Bin-Laden playing pinochle, so therefore all the previous ton of evidence indicting him doesn't count." Liberals must have had to twist themselves into knots of rationalization to conclude that Hussein was not a terrorist.

[Kackikat]

Amen, and until eternity none of us will really know the magnitude of his insight.

[avacado]

"Egyptian Islamic Jihad; a precursor to al Queda! No Connection! Move along! ;)"

LOL! Yep, that's the MSM version for sure. I looked up Islamic Jihad in the 9/11 report and it said that right before Osama and al-Zawahiri (Mr. Islamic Jihad himself) blew up the US embassies in Kenya and Tansania that they put out a "press release" to the militant world that they had join forces, aka al-Qaeda. Yep, Saddam directly funding Islamic Jihad (al-Zawahiri) and the Army of Mohamed (Osama) is "nothing."

[Milligan]

Of Course there is no connection between Saddam and Bin Ladin.

Big Media forgets other terrorist communicated with Saddam....like Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Of course there is no smoking gun...the bullet left its chamber ages ago.

Big Media terrorist sympathizers will extort to undermine the US government.

Just remember what Bush said in Sept 20, 2001

Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People

“Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success.”

The enemy from Saddam Regime and terrorist organizations have infiltrated our government even got inside our most senstive positions.

Didn’t Saddam’s Spies Bankrolled Democrats’ Trip to Iraq?
Saddam was desperate to get out of the Sanctions.

http://www.nysun.com/news/national/saddams-spies-bankrolled-democrats-trip-iraq

al Queda infiltrated our highly sensitive programs....especially inside our Army biological research labs.

Read http://www.anthraxandalqaeda.com/

This of course happen during the Clinton Administration being lax on security clearances because they wanted to be politically correct and didn’t want to offend anybody!

[Milligan]

Saddam was aiding Zawahiri’s group to assassinate Egyptian leader Mubarak for supporting the First Gulf War.

Wasn’t there a pesty instruction in the UN Cease fire agreement after the First Gulf War telling Saddam to leave his neighbors alone and keep away from ALL terrorist groups?

I remember reading this in the Duelfer Report.
Saddam’s clandestine labs were found specifically for assassinations.

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/002539.php

In the new Pentagon Report; Saddam’s Iraqi Intelligence went world wide hunting down his expat Iraqi opponents.

He had spies inside the United States too.
http://indianapolis.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel06/intelligence012506.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Lindauer

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

The Dems don't want to talk about this...but they did send a letter to the President ...FR Thread:

Hill Dems petition Bush on Iraq - Democrats Letter to President Bush April 4, 2008

[Marine_Uncle]

As usual Stephen Hayes does a number on the critics of the GWOT, specifically relating to Iraq.

[woofie]

BUMP

[freema]

If you scroll down, there are some comments on Able Danger.
I can’t remember who was ‘tracking’ AD stories, but I sure thought these comments were interesting.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_080112_twenty_five_u_s__mil.htm

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

From your link....Guess who:

******************************EXCERPT************************

Maj. Scott Ritter




Maj. Douglas Rokke, PhD




Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer

Maj. Scott Ritter, U.S. Marine Corps, is a former Marine Corps Intelligence Officer who also served as Chief Weapons Inspector for the United Nations Special Commission in Iraq 1991 - 1998.  In 2005, he said: “I, like the others, are frustrated by the 9/11 Commission Report, by the lack of transparency on the part of the United States government, both in terms of the executive branch and the legislative branch when it comes to putting out on the table all facts known to the 9/11 case.” [22]

Maj. Douglas Rokke, PhD, U.S. Army (ret), former Director of the U.S. Army Depleted Uranium Project and 30-year veteran, had this to say about the explosion at the Pentagon on 9/11, “When you look at the whole thing, especially the crash site void of airplane parts, the size of the hole left in the building and the fact the projectile's impact penetrated numerous concrete walls, it looks like the work of a missile.  And when you look at the damage, it was obviously a missile.” [23]

The 9/11 Commission Report asserts that only three of the alleged hijackers were known to U.S. intelligence agencies prior to 9/11: Nawaf al-Hazmi, Salem al-Hazmi, and Khalid al-Mihdar.  There is no mention in the Report that the names and photographs of alleged hijacker Marwan al-Shehhi and alleged ring-leader Mohamed Atta had been identified by the Department of Defense anti-terrorist program known as Able Danger more than a year prior to 9/11 and that they were known to be affiliates of al-Qaida.  Able Danger also identified Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdar.

In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee in 2006 [24], Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, U.S. Army Reserve, former Chief of the Army’s Controlled HUMINT (Human Intelligence) Program, overseeing Army Intelligence and Security Command’s global controlled HUMINT efforts, stated: “[B]asic law enforcement investigative techniques, with 21st Century data mining and analytical tools ... resulted in the establishment of a new form of intelligence collection – and the identification of Mohammed Atta and several other of the 9-11 terrorists as having links to Al Qaeda leadership a full year in advance of the attacks. ...

“After contact by two separate members of the ABLE DANGER team, … the 9-11 [Commission] staff refused to perform any in-depth review or investigation of the issues that were identified to them. … It was their job to do a thorough investigation of these claims – to not simply dismiss them based on what many now believe was a ‘preconceived’ conclusion to the 9-11 story they wished to tell. … I consider this a failure of the 9-11 staff – a failure that the 9-11 Commissioners themselves were victimized by – and continue to have perpetrated on them by the staff as is evidenced by their recent, groundless conclusion that ABLE DANGER’s findings were ‘urban legend’.” 

[freema]

Isn’t this fascinating, and isn’t it a ring around the rosey?