Skip to comments.Iraq: Setting the Record Straight (Definitive 108 page Report; BOOKMARK)
Posted on 11/01/2005 4:34:45 PM PST by RWR8189
Iraq: Setting the Record Straight
Setting the Record Straight
I. Iraq: The Clinton Administrations Case. ...................1
II. Iraq: The Perspective from Washington on March 18, 2003.................................13
III. Iraq: A History of Deception, Obstruction & Failure to Meet
IV. Questions & Answers: Iraqs Nuclear Weapons Program...................................32
V. Questions & Answers: Iraqs Missile and UAV Programs..................................43
VI. Questions & Answers: Iraqs Chemical/Biological Weapons Programs.............54
VII. Questions and Answers: Iraqs Ties to Terrorism and al Qaeda..........................70
Appendix: The Right War for the Right Reasons.........................................................78
Two years after the invasion of Iraq, we still do not know with complete confidence what happened to all of the stockpiles of weapons and weapons precursors that Saddams government admitted to possessing in the early 1990s, as well as other undeclared material Iraq had not accounted for during the United Nations weapons inspection process. Although American inspection teams led by David Kay and Charles Duelfer have concluded that most have been destroyed, this is based principally on interviews with former officials of the Saddam regime involved in the programs.
Assuming for the moment that Duelfer and Kay are right, and that the stockpiles were destroyed before the war, does that mean the war was fought under false pretenses? The failure to discover weapons in Iraq has led to many charges against the Bush administration, but essentially these fall into two categories. First, it is alleged that the administration lied about the threat or, in the more sophisticated version, that it hyped the threat by manipulating the intelligence. Second, even if the administration did not lie about or hype the threat, nevertheless, the original rationale for the war has proved mistaken.
One way to begin to answer the first charge is to compare the Bush administrations claims about the nature of the threat posed by Saddam Husseins Iraq with those made by the Clinton administration. The fact is that the current administrations arguments about the threat we faced from Iraq was not substantially different from that put forward by the previous administration.
Read the rest of the report here.
Seconding the reference bump!
Awesome reference. Thanks for posting this.
How about Republicans finally grow a spine and support the military effort and remind the left of a few things.
1. Remind the left that every single Democrat of note said in 1998 that Iraq's WMD posed a danger to the United States.
2. Remind the left that Clinton's Justice Department obtained a federal indictment of Osama bin Laden which stated that AQ had a deal with Iraq. They agreed not to attack Iraq in exchange for weapons development.
3. 9/11 Commission reaffirms Bush administration view of Iraq/AQ ties.
June 21, 2004. RNC.
4. Long List of Clinton Administration Officials who Believed There was an AQ/Iraq connection.
July 12, 2004. NewsMax.
5. List of CIA and various Reports regarding Iraq's support for terrorists, terrorism and AQ.
September 16, 2004. The Weekly Standard.
6. Osama bin Laden was considered an Iraqi Intelligence asset.
October 14, 2004. National Review.
Funny how in the 90's the world was concerned about the growing relationship between OBL and Saddam and now the left is revising history.
Saddam reaching out to OBL
January 1, 1999. Newsweek
ABC news reports on the Osama/Saddam connections
January 14, 1999. ABC News
Osama and Saddam Work Together
January 27, 1999. Laurie Mylroie interview. She is a former Clinton terrorism czar.
A Much Shunned Terrorist Takes Refuge In Iraq (Abu Nidal)
New York Times. January 1999.
Western Nightmare: Saddam and OBL versus the World. Iraq recruited OBL.
February 6, 1999. The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,798270,00.html
Saddam's Link to OBL
February 6, 1999. The Guardian
Saddam offered asylum to bin Laden
February 13, 1999. AP
Son of Saddam coordinates with OBL.
Iraqi Special Ops coordinates with Bin Laden's terrorist activities.
August 6, 1999. Yossef Bodansky, National Press Club
That and more here:
The link is not working for me.
Share with Democrats. Drive one crazy a day :-)
Research referance pingaroo
The media is an absolute fraud. I was reading a Newsweek story (I think by Isikoff) that was basically accusing the Bush Administration of misleading the press with regards to Saddam's WMDs. This is like the NY Times chastising Judith Miller for "her" so-called lying WMD stories when she was but one of several NYT's journalist who wrote about Saddam's WMDs...long before Bush even became president.
It was only days after Bush's 2001 Inauguration that the NY Times, with the help of William Cohen (Clinton's Sec. of Defense) were writing stories "warning" the incoming Bush administration of the danger we faced from a rearming Saddam Hussein. Under the 1/22/01 headlines, the NYT's reported via Cohen that "Iraq Resumes WMD Activities," as their own reporters, Eric Schmitt and Steven Meyers, reported that "Iraq Rebuilt Weapons Factories."
These stories concluded that: "While officials have previously disclosed that Iraq had rebuilt missile plants destroyed in the 1998 strikes, the Jan. 10 report released by Mr. Cohen was the first public acknowledgment of the resumption of work at suspected chemical and biological plants....Some of Iraq's facilities could be converted fairly quickly to production of chemical weapons," the report said at one point. It went on to warn, "Iraq retains the expertise, once a decision is made, to resume chemical agent production within a few weeks or months, depending on the type of agent."
What makes this story even more relevant is that it even contradicts the claims of Bill Clinton and other Democrats who are now, suddenly claiming, that Saddam's WMDs were destroyed during his 1998 bombings. For the last 2 years both Democrats and the media have been looking for ways to exonerate themselves from what was their initial support of this war. Their lies have ranged from the comment above, to, "well...we were lied to because Bush manipulated the intelligence. The only problem with this lie is that they were making these same claims about Saddam's WMDs long before Bush was president.
How can Newsweek claim that Bush lied to them about the threat Saddam posed when Newsweek was running their own stories in support of this threat before Bush came along. Their magazine ran an article in its January 11, 1999, issue headed, "Saddam + Bin Laden?" "Here's what is known so far" (Notice that this is also "after" Clinton's 1998 bombing):
"Saddam Hussein, who has a long record of supporting terrorism, is trying to rebuild his intelligence network overseas--assets that would allow him to establish a terrorism network. U.S. sources say he is reaching out to Islamic terrorists, including some who may be linked to Osama bin Laden, the wealthy Saudi exile accused of masterminding the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa last summer."
On January 15, 1999, ABC News reported that three intelligence agencies believed that Saddam had offered asylum to bin Laden:
"Intelligence sources say bin Laden's long relationship with the Iraqis began as he helped Sudan's fundamentalist government in their efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. ABC News has learned that in December, an Iraqi intelligence chief named Faruq Hijazi, now Iraq's ambassador to Turkey, made a secret trip to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden. Three intelligence agencies tell ABC News they cannot be certain what was discussed, but almost certainly, they say, bin Laden has been told he would be welcome in Baghdad."
NPR reporter Mike Shuster interviewed Vincent Cannistraro, former head of the CIA's counterterrorism center, and offered this report:
"Iraq's contacts with bin Laden go back some years, to at least 1994, when, according to one U.S. government source, Hijazi met him when bin Laden lived in Sudan." According to Cannistraro, Iraq invited bin Laden to live in Baghdad to be nearer to potential targets of terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
By mid-February 1999, journalists did not even feel the need to qualify the claims about WMDs and an Iraq-al Qaeda relationship. An Associated Press dispatch that ran in the Washington Post ended this way:
"The Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against Western powers." Where did journalists get the idea that Saddam and bin Laden might be coordinating efforts against Western interests? Among other places, from high-ranking Clinton administration officials. In the spring of 1998--well before the U.S. embassy bombings in East Africa--the Clinton administration held a sealed indicted of Osama bin Laden. The indictment, unsealed a few months later, prominently cited al Qaeda's agreement to 'collaborate with Iraq and Saddam on weapons of mass destruction'..."
There are stories all over the internet that can be found by the most novice of users on what the media (and Democrats) believed prior to the Bush Administration. Even Robert Kagan with the Washington Post noted this in his article ("It Wasn't Just Miller's Story"). "A quick search through the Times archives before 2001 produces such headlines as "Iraq Has Network of Outside Help on Arms, Experts Say" (November 1998), "U.S. Says Iraq Aided Production of Chemical Weapons in Sudan" (August 1998), "Iraq Suspected of Secret Germ War Effort" (February 2000), "Signs of Iraqi Arms Buildup Bedevil U.S. Administration" (February 2000), "Flight Tests Show Iraq Has Resumed a Missile Program" (July 2000)..."
What's so hypocritical and dangerous about the media is that they not only perpetuated these stories for the benefit of a Democrat president, they ignored even more outrageous instances of intelligence failures and perhaps manipulation on the part of the Clinton administration.
I just don't recall the media (or democrats) concern for the Clinton administration or the intelligence agencies when they "accidentally" bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade...or intentionally targeted Sudan's largest pharmaceutical plant at Al-Shifra, believing it was a VX-nerve facility. Whether is was the miscalculation of mass-graves and genocide in Kosovo or the mischaracterization of Racak, I just don't recall the criticism and incriminations for these obvious intelligence failures that, oh, by the way, helped set the pretext for war against that country.
Sadly, it is no longer just about what the media chooses or refuses to tell us; it is now about the very content and context of their stories. From the Kay and Duelfer Reports on WMDs to the Butler and Senate Intel Reports (discrediting Joe Wilson)....and even the 9/11 Commission Report, the media has either ignored or totally misprepresented the facts in each of these investigations to advance their (and the Democrats) anti-Bush/GOP agenda. And they have played these political games at the cost of endangering our soldiers lives and the lives of each and every one of us. This is no longer just a biased media; they have become a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democrat party, using the power of the press and their 1st Amendment privledges (and Shield Laws) to advance an agenda, even if it means lying.
This is superb. Any serious participant in the defense and security of this nation, whether military or civilian, would do well to down-load this so to have it immediately available.