Skip to comments.Smoking in the Background - The Bush administration sits on some telling documents (Saddam's Iraq).
Posted on 12/22/2005 10:01:53 PM PST by neverdem
December 21, 2005,
Smoking in the Background
The Bush administration sits on some telling documents.
President Bushs recent speeches and media appearances defending the Iraq war are welcome and much-needed. They also seem to be paying dividends. Support for his handling of Iraq stood at 46 percent, up 10 points since November, in a December 1518 ABC News/Washington Post poll. Nevertheless, Team Bush still fails to deploy readily available ammunition to combat those who demand Americas retreat from Iraq.
On two key fronts Saddam Husseins weapons of mass destruction and his generous support for Islamofascist terrorists the Bush administration maddeningly conceals evidence that justifies the presidents decision to topple Hussein. This information should be rolled out to counteract the destructive arguments of Democratic chief Howard Dean, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senator John Kerry, and other Bushophobes who relentlessly carpet-bomb American efforts in Iraq.
Stephen Hayes reveals the latest squandered opportunities in the December 19 Weekly Standard. Hayes the pioneering author of The Connection: How al Qaedas Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America reportshere, here, and here on the Pentagon papers. These mainly unclassified Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) materials implicate Husseins government in multifarious mischief. Much of it violated Article H, Clause 32 of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, which prohibited Baghdad from supporting or associating with terrorists. The Pentagons HARMONY database identifies these memos, photographs, videotapes, and other records via highly tantalizing summaries:
Does the correspondence between the Iraqi Embassy in Manila and the Iraqi Ministry of Foreign Affairs shed any new light on the $25 million ransom that Muammar Qaddafi paid Abu Sayyaf in the summer of 2000, ostensibly to secure the release of 25 Westerners held hostage by the Filipino al Qaeda affiliate? Hayes wonders. Who traveled to Pakistan? What was his involvement with bin Laden? Did he have anything to do with the Iraqi government?
The following text might offer answers:
So, a record dated ten months before 9/11 indicates that Saddam Husseins employees clandestinely met Taliban and al Qaeda agents regarding a decision to operate. Meditate on that.
According to documents Hayes cites, the former director of Iraqs Intelligence Directorate 4 met bin Laden on February 19, 1995. Baghdad considered bin Laden an Iraqi intelligence asset as far back as 1992, one communiqué reads. After bin Laden left Sudan for Afghanistan in May 1996, Hussein wanted other channels through which to handle the relationship, in light of his [bin Ladens] current location. The Iraqi intelligence memo continued: Cooperation between the two organizations should be allowed to develop freely through discussion and agreement.
Naturally, the White House and Pentagon are busy defending Bushs policies by translating and authenticating these and similar records and promoting them among congressional and journalistic supporters and detractors.
The Bush administration inexplicably suppresses such papers. They reject requests for unclassified files from Hayes, Americas most broadly published expert on Husseins terrorist credentials. Hayes, who generally supports the president on Iraq, is flummoxed: The Bush administration seems remarkably uninterested in discovering, now that we have reams of material from Saddams regime, what the actual terror-related and WMD-related activities of that regime were.
Incredibly, the Pentagons Doc-Ex, or document exploitation project, may close December 31. Its roughly 700 translators in Doha, Qatar have analyzed 50,000 items among some two million captured in Iraq. This public-diplomacy treasure trove could remain hidden from the public. Far worse, intelligence data on potential mass-murder conspiracies may stay unread until after a Baathist-inspired attack kills more Americans or our allies.
The White House should pump up the volume and showcase these papers. Even now, proof that Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and sponsored terrorist butchers, including Osama bin Laden, will demonstrate the necessity of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The alternative is to keep this vital evidence under wraps and hope that Howard Dean and the Congressional Defeat Caucus quietly disappear.
Deroy Murdock is a New York-based syndicated columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service and a senior fellow with the Atlas Economic Research Foundation. His research on Baathist terrorist philanthropy is at www.HUSSEINandTERROR.com.
It sure looks that way. That Karl Rove is a genius. :-)
Bush not only isn't 'using' the information, he out and out said in one of his last speeches - something to the effect - 'we were wrong on WMD.'
If Iran goes nuclear, they will protect Syria.
You're right he did say that. Then what would be your guess of what he's sitting on?
I suspect they know where they went and they are waiting, gathering intelligence, making connections, before moving in (probably to Syria). They don't want to tip their hand. Just a guess, though.
This sends a cold sweat down my back and a shiver up my spine.
However, with the news that's been coming out of Australia regarding their troubles with the Lebanese, I don't think we're going to find an ally or even an appreciative face in that country when we take care of that corner.
Posted on 10/09/2004 1:20:26 PM CDT by TexKat
Here's saddam himself discussing WMD's.
I don't know what Bush means when he said he was wrong about the WMD's.
Because that which involved Iraq is intertwined with ongoing investigations into a global proliferation network whose reach we have not yet determined, and which may yet require some covert diplomatic and or military creativity on our part, which is likely to be more successful if done by surprise. By releasing info we have on Iraq we could inadvertantly tell others what we know about their activities, giving them time to prepare.
To say that you know it....
indicates how you found out.
To set a new tone in Washington?
"Could they be saving ammunition for the 2006 election ?"
That would be my take. He declares his policies were right and justified by (this declassified) evidence made public, and timed for the fall elections.
If events in Iraq continue favorably; government is successfully "stood up"; troop drawdowns continue, etc.
Bush declares success and ask voters to strengthen his ability to protect America, by electing Republicans. Republican candidates rn on strong defense "platform" (RNC talking points).
Contrasts nicely against wobbly and inconsistent democrats.
I see the long term WOT in a serial fashion: One country at a time, by whatever means is necessary.
If that means force is needed elsewhere, after Iraq, it is best to be winding down in Iraq first.
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.