Posted on 06/02/2004 10:44:54 AM PDT by Nasty McPhilthy
Proponents of the war in Iraq traditionally point to three primary justifications: the threat of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), Saddam Hussein's torturous regime and Iraq's ties to international terrorism. All are legitimate areas of concern, and all are equally vulnerable to one nagging question: Why now? Did any of these represent a threat so pressing that it warranted opening another front in the middle of the unfinished business of fighting the war on terror?
Most experts and pundits answer this question by highlighting the perceived threat of Iraq's WMD program. There is no question that Hussein's totalitarian regime maintained a WMD program that not only experimented in chemical and biological weapons but also employed them against his neighbors (Iran) and his own population (the Kurds). This prewar intelligence on Iraq's WMD program showed the most clear and present threat to the United States, its allies and Iraq's neighbors, but the cloud hanging over that body of intelligence has grown more ominous with each passing day. (Such an assessment, it should be noted, is only via 20/20 hindsight. Based on the information available at the time, many analysts, myself included, supported the war because U.S. intelligence indicated that Iraq in fact possessed WMD capabilities and intended to put them to use.)
That Hussein had expansionist regional intentions, tortured his political opponents and employed the most heinous of tactics to subjugate large segments of his population are painfully well documented. These, however, were always add-on issues, not the fundamental reason for going to war. After all, many regimes with similar regional ambitions and human rights records have not prompted us to go to war.
As doubts about these features of the case for war in Iraq continue to gather force, Stephen F. Hayes takes a different tack. In "The Connection," Hayes argues that Hussein's ties to al Qaeda presented just such a pressing threat -- and, moreover, that this threat was not an interruption of but a critical component of the war on terror. This argument is not just "the most controversial casus belli," as Hayes acknowledges in his introduction -- it is also, in view of the failure to uncover significant evidence of WMDs and the rapidly spreading jihadist resistance in U.S.-occupied Iraq, the strongest remaining link in the chain of evidence for those who supported the war most vocally.
Not surprisingly, given his stand on the subject, Hayes gives the book a clearly partisan bent, including a chapter-long digression on "a skeptical press" that highlights the media's "bias" against such evidence as the purported meeting between Sept. 11, 2001, hijacker Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague (in fact, the media were echoing the assessments of the majority of the U.S. intelligence community, as Hayes later notes). Still, Hayes skillfully weaves old information with new revelations, and dutifully presents caveats about the veracity and verifiability of both. Much of the material he presents has been confirmed but, in large part because of the book's heavy reliance on a collection of possibilities, public statements and other circumstantial evidence, Hayes raises more questions than he answers.
Those facts that are confirmed -- e.g., meetings between senior Iraqi and al Qaeda envoys and Hussein's connections to the Kurdish al Qaeda affiliate Ansar al-Islam -- are pieces of a puzzle. On their own, and even together, they fall short of the certitude that the book's title leads readers to expect. The most explosive and damning material remains unconfirmed. Connecting these dots, one finds a disturbing outline of the former Iraqi regime's links to terrorists, but the picture still reveals no smoking gun.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Didn't you know? That's really anamusement park:) It's amazing how this intregal part in Saddam's terrorist network has been totally ignored by the media.
I just spent the weekend researching the very same thing.
Most people do not realise that after Arafat comes a crapload of splinter groups, and they were being organized By Damascus,Baghdad, and Tehran, in Concert with OBL.
I've always found it amazing how the people who blame Bush for not connecting the dots to 9/11, now disparage him for doing just that in Iraq. Heck, with Afghanistan all we had was non-specific chatter, with no history of violence aimed at us from this country. Yet, with over a decades worth of belligerence, threats, shooting at our planes...and a record of aggression and WMD production, these same people attack Bush for doing just what they demanded he do to prevent another 9/11.
I was particularily amused by Bob Kerrey who thought Bush should've preemptively attacked Afghanistan; I'm sure that would've went over well with the liberal crowd, who not only see Iraq as a joke, but in some cases, think our retaliation in Afghanistan was illegal. I can just see the US/Afghan commission saying..."and we went to war and destroyed a third world country because rumors and chatter said they were going to attack us." Impeach the war monger!
Absolutely. Saddam was the major hub for the Palestinian's war on Israel. There was never going to be a peace treaty because people like Arafat and Saddam didn't want one. We already know through disclosed documents that Saddam provided something like $25,000 to families of martyred suicide bombers. There is a reason we are finding conventional weapons caches in Iraq, that in some reports, are in excess of what our own armory's hold. Saddam never had an army (nor would he) this size...and these weapons were what were being used to supply groups like Hamas and Hezbullah...as some are still making there way into Israel through tunnels in Gaza. WMDs aside, Saddam was the armory for Mid-East terrorists.
Looks like the author missed something.
You left out Saddam sending officers and trainers from his Mukhabarat (sp?) into Afghanistan to train al Qaeda terrorists on the use and production of deadly chem-bio weapons. Crushing States sponsoring terrorism and terrorist IS a primary component of the war on terrorism.
Yep! Hayes has got a new book out and it lays out in pretty good detail the link between members of Saddam's intelligence agencies meeting with AQ operatives at different locales throughout the world. His article, here, details one such example.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/readarticles.asp?ID=13589
It's a rather lengthy piece, but it does a great job of also documenting the media's own news stories that were making the AQ/Saddam connection long before Bush was on the horizon...including the intel that Clinton/Clarke/Cohen all used to justify their so-called WOT...and specifically an indictment on UBL that links him to Saddam.
Sorry bad link. Make that:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/readarticle.asp?ID=13589
not true...this book shows a smoking gun, but the demolefts can't bring themselves to see it....
Well, for one thing, "now" was the time when the OP author was writing articles pressuring the adminstration to take down Saddam! It was the same time that middle of the road Washington Post columnists like Jim Hoagland were pressuring the administration to do it. And it was the same time that Washington Post editorials were pressuring the administration to invade Iraq.
While I don't think Bush's invasion timing was giving into pressure, it is strange for one of the pressurers to be asking the question.
This article reads like a job application for a position in the Kerry administration. I guess that Kerry could and would do worse than this guy, but this book review is still dishonest.
Well put. Kudos, for what they're worth ...
Thanks for the link ... going to print it out for reading in its entirety. Getting quite a collection now ...
Thanks Ravingnutter!!
I appreciate your time.
All links recorded for reading.
Whoa...Thanx again, I didnt realize both were from you.
8)
This is a great point. These people who are condemning Bush and asking "why now" are many of the same people who were demanding something be done. Here is a report from the Carnegie Endowment for Peace...the same outfit that only several months ago, accused Bush of lying about the Iraq threat.
Some things to note: This report was filed only a couple "days" after Bush's Inauguration...meaning that any intel they used was from the prior administration; notice, how at this time, the media is more than willing to admit that even Chlorine is a dual use weapon that can destroy lungs and tissue. This is far different than today, where the media is not only dismissing the Sarin and Mustard, but also finds nothing strange about boat-loads of these chemicals being found hidden near ammo depots. Also, not only is the NYTs essentially endorsing this Carnegie Report, they go further by indicating other "press reports" confirm the information.
Carnegie Analysis
Iraq Resumes WMD Activities, New York Times Reports
Monday, January 22, 2001
Press reports that Iraq has rebuilt chemical and biological weapons plants bombed by the United States in late 1998 present newly-inaugurated President George W. Bush with a serious non-proliferation challenge. A New York Times report that Iraq has rebuilt chemical and biological weapons-capable plants at Falluja demonstrates the continued threat posed to regional stability by Saddam Hussein.
A recently released Department of Defense report "Proliferation: Threat and Response: 2001" stated that Iraq "may have begun program reconstitution" of its chemical and biological weapons capabilities. The news story focuses on alleged development of these weapons at Falluja, an industrial complex west of Baghdad, and specifically mentions production of chlorine and ricin.
Chlorine is a dual-use chemical that, if weaponized, is a choking agent that destroys lung tissue. Ricin is a protein toxin produced from castor beans (ricin constitutes approximately 5% of the waste from castor oil production) that causes a variety of symptoms culminating in circulatory and respiratory failure in victims.
The reports and allegations highlight the fact that Iraq continues to block U.N. inspections of its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs, as required by the Gulf War cease-fire. Created by the U.N. Security Council in the aftermath of Iraq's defeat, the U.N. Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) inspected and dismantled much of Iraq's infrastructure for building WMD. However, its activities took place against a background of increasing Iraqi hostility towards the inspections that culminated with UNSCOM being kicked out of Iraq in December 1998.
In December 1999 the Security Council voted to establish a new U.N. presence in Iraq, the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC). By September 2000 UNMOVIC, led by former International Atomic Energy Agency Director Hans Blix, was assembled and prepared to begin inspections. Iraq continues to prevent any inspectors from entering the country, and insists that it has disarmed to the extent called for by U.N. resolutions. With the will of the Security Council to continue sanctions and inspections wavering, UNMOVIC remains in limbo.
In his inaugural address, Bush pledged to do more to confront the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction. Bush's foreign policy advisors have stated both publicly and privately that they wish to shore up flagging international support for economic sanctions on Iraq. Even as the Bush administration forms its Iraq policy, U.S. and British fighters remain on patrol in the no-fly zone, periodically drawing the fire of Iraqi air defense installations as the battle of wills between Washington and Baghdad continues.
~~~
Iraq Rebuilt Weapons Factories, Officials Say
Source: New York Times
Published: 1/22/01
By STEVEN LEE MYERS and ERIC SCHMITT
ASHINGTON, Jan. 21 — Iraq has rebuilt a series of factories that the United States has long suspected of producing chemical and biological weapons, according to senior government officials. The new intelligence estimate could confront President Bush with an early test of his pledge to take a tougher stance against President Saddam Hussein than the Clinton administration did.
The factories — in an industrial complex in Falluja, west of Baghdad — include two that were bombed and badly damaged by American and British air raids in December 1998 to punish Mr. Hussein for his refusal to cooperate with United Nations weapons inspectors, the government officials said.
The new intelligence estimates were mentioned, but without any such specific details, in a report on weapons threats released on Jan. 10 by the outgoing secretary of defense, William S. Cohen. It warned that Iraq had rebuilt at least its weapons infrastructure and may have begun covertly producing some chemical or biological agents.
Last week, the officials provided details on what they said was the reconstruction of the two factories, and the resumption of the production of chlorine at a third in the same complex.
The factories have ostensibly commercial purposes, but all three were previously involved in producing chemical or biological agents and were among those closely monitored by the United Nations inspectors, the officials said. One of the rebuilt factories, for example, is making castor oil used in brake fluid, the Iraqis say, but the mash from castor beans contains a deadly biological toxin called ricin, the officials said.
~~~~
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."
Also notice how Cohen, himself, contradicts all these Democrats who say that Clinton destroyed Saddam's WMD capabilites in 1998, with his missile strikes. According to that Administrations own intel, Saddam had already rebuilt those facilities within the ensuing years...and may have already reconsituted his WMD program.
You are right. That would be a smoking hole and they would complain about the damage to small animals and plants and rise in secondary smoking cancer deaths.
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.