Posted on 06/16/2004 10:18:55 AM PDT by pctech
On Monday, Vice President Cheney went to Florida, where he reasserted there were "long established ties" between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.
Yesterday, during a Rose Garden news conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, a reporter invited President Bush to dissociate himself from this crime against conventional wisdom. "As you know, this is disputed within the U.S. intelligence community," the reporter said. "Would you add any qualifiers? What do you think is the best evidence of it?"
An annoyed look came over the President's face. It was boiling in the midday Washington sun. Poor bald Karzai was standing there without his lambskin hat, sweating. Bush was hot, too, and hungry; He had already mentioned lunch.
"Zarqawi," he snapped at the questioner. "He's the one who's still killing."
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the current jihad commander in Iraq, lived in Baghdad before Saddam's overthrow. No foreigners - certainly no notorious international Islamic terrorist foreigners - lived in the Iraqi capital without connections to Saddam and his regime.
Bush would like the country to take this as prima facie evidence of the Saddam-Osama Bin Laden relationship. But it won't. The President hasn't made the case.
Partly, this is the press corps' fault. As a recent Pew study revealed, journalists who work for elite national organizations are almost entirely liberal or moderate. Most won't vote for Bush. Many want to see him lose.
The idea that Bush invaded Iraq under false pretenses - and that Saddam had nothing to do with Bin Laden - is an integral part of the case against the President. Nothing less than a videotape of Saddam being inducted into Al Qaeda would constitute the sort of proof the press is now demanding.
But Bush has mostly himself to blame for the public's skepticism. He earned it by not telling the truth about why the U.S. went after Saddam. This is what he should have said after 9/11: "The Arab world has declared war on us. For decades, a great anti-American front has been building from North Africa to the Persian Gulf. The Saudi royal family and its Wahhabi missionaries belong to this front. So do the ayatollahs of Iran and their Lebanese surrogates, Islamic and Palestinian terrorist groups and Baathist dictators like the Assads of Syria - and Saddam Hussein.
"Some of these enemies are Shiite; some Sunni. Some secular, some Wahhabi. These are meaningless distinctions. The anti-American forces in the Mideast know one another and cooperate in shifting alliances.
"Our job now is to end this jihad by knocking the wind out of it. We could start in a lot of places, but Iraq -the heart of the Arab world - seems most effective. Everyone in the Middle East knows that this is war and that Saddam is engaged in it. Knocking him off will demonstrate the danger of being on the wrong side."
This is the real reason that Bush went into Iraq. But he didn't say so. It would have sounded too harsh in America's politically correct climate. Worse, such frankness would have offended the Saudis. Bush chose a different approach. He declared war on terrorism. He was being intentionally ambiguous - and now his political rivals have turned that ambiguity against him.
The President would like to intone "Zarqawi" and close the case on Saddam. But it won't work. Before this election is over, he'll to have to name the real enemy -Islamic fascism - or wind up looking like a man who went to war by mistake.
Re: Salman Pak - I was using it to illustrate a point.
I believe that you have showed the link. To you, it is pretty undeniable... What I am saying, is that there are freepers, who come on your threads and make the opposite point using evidence that is just as compelling as your's.
Unless you are seeing the actual intelligence and not relying on leaks, you don't know what is and what is not. You can't know.
I am not taking away what your research. Heck, I believe it 100%...
All I saying is that the link between the two is very deniable... It's being denied by experts, intelligence leaks, commissions, politicians all the time.
What I'm trying to show is that the relationship that Iraq had with AQ is still in doubt... and your proof, as compelling as it is, is not enough for the President to go before the American people and prove the link. It just isn't.
They make America a target for terrorists and for any that seek to overcome this prime country. They tear down the American image, do all in their power to quell any defense of the country and minimize any danger.
Again, we have enemies of America that are Americans and I am sick and tired of having to fight Americans to save America and a great deal of these people are media types wielding the power of the pen.
Not much, just more leftist spin. The connection is out there, it's been reported for the past ten years. What Bush doesn't understand is that the press is lying about it.
I agree. But while the Administration is (hopefully) busying itself putting together its air-tight proof, the accusation continues to sink into the consciousness of the electorate that "Bush lied." The longer the White House waits to release its air-tight proof, the more likely it is that voters will see the announcement as a political tactic, and won't even bother to listen to it.
I hope what you say comes to pass...that the Administration will, someday soon, come forward with that air-tight case. But there have also been comments on this thread that the Bush Administration has been making the case all along. I concur in that, but if they think their case has been made in a persuasive manner, they're wrong.
You are correct and the media has not heard one of them. The only thing they hear are the dem talking points and repeat them like a mantra - "Bush lied", "Bush lied".
The ignorant press also fails to report on the finds of weapons and equipment traced back to Iraq in many other countries, they fail to report on the progress in Iraq, they fail to report on Saddam's tortures. Hm...wonder how come none of that is worth reporting?
Maybe we should start calling them the Al Qaeda media.
Bush speaks somewhere every day but the media refuses to report it. There is not much a president can do. Look at how many times major policy was reported in a speech and it totally slipped past the press until much later.
So much easier to blame Bush than to realize he is not running a news outlet - he depends on the reporters surrounding him to give the news - but they won't because they want the power of the White House in the hands of democrats who will further their socialist agenda.
Another point: The original post referred to VP Cheney making a comment, yet again, this past Monday that there was a link between Saddam and al-Qaeda. My only point is this: What is it that Cheney knows that apparently the rest of the non-Freeper world doesn't know? If the Adm. is still putting together that air-tight proof, why does Cheney (and others) fuel the fires of doubt by making definitive statements that the press, the left, and the ignorant, consider to be a Big Lie, and not fire back with the irrefutable evidence?
2. This has never been about the media. The 9/11 Commission doesn't believe it. Many Middle Eastern experts don't believe it. Many people working in Intelligence doesn't believe it.
3. Again...not about the media.
4. I'm tired of this. Bush has used the bully pulpit. He has spoken about why we went to war with Iraq. He does go over the media's head... he did so again today.
5. Oh, I get tired of this... Bush may not be a glib, scripted speaker, but he is able to get his point across. Heck, he's President... he was able to convey something.
6. I don't think the President's communication is something the American people get all up in arms about. They recognize that he has integrity even if he does have a fractured syntax.
Again...talking about the strength of Peach's evidence.
Ronald Reagan? come on... stay on topic. We are talking about the post I responded to...Not comparing Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush.
You're right...no intelligence is "rock solid." The WMD are proof of that... but, after the WMD debacle, who can blame the President for not storming forward on the evidence of intelligence leaks... When he does come forward, I think he will want to make sure that his evidence is as "rock solid as possible."
Oh contrare my man, contrare - I have heard and seen the evil - that is why I just scan this nonsense. They have drummed it into my head - nothing new.
I now realize it is propaganda - pure and simple. It has no credibility. They are ignorant or anti-war or anti-Bush. Any of the three means they should not be reporting "news".
My2Cents ="What I'd like to see is some official publication, perhaps from the Department of Defense"
My2Cents ="a timing thing. What I hope is that Bush makes a major address to the nation and comes out with a formal "final report" on Saddam's WMD and his links to international terrorism, well before the election-"
vanmorrison = "At this point, you have to figure that anybody who hasn't already made up their minds don't have much of one to begin with. This airheaded segment can best be swayed at a point in time closer to the actual election. As long as Bush can keep it close 'till then, he has a good chance of prevailing. It is THEN that he must cut loose with everything he has in order to be effective."
pctech = "A part of me wonders, though, if he's waiting to really pound his message home until after the convention. That way, I would assume, he gets the message out when it does the most good, at least in his eyes. Could be wrong in this assumption?"
My2Cents = "I agree. I've dug up a bunch of articles which point to the connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda, but pulling together the evidence hasn't been easy. The media ignores the obvious connections, and the White House still hasn't made a strong case, or even given high profile to the reports and evidence that I've found from various news sources over the past year. Karen Hughes needs to give this top priority.
Peach = "We know Saddam worked with the PLO and other terrorists, he funded them. He at LEAST knew that 9/11 was coming."
With new Campaign Finance Reform going into effect in Oct. I think timing is the key word. President Bush and et al. have to hit with the facts and known and new information at just the right time.
It is like a good game of chess. But it is no game.
Peach, again, thanks for the great links.
I'm going to use my Borders gift certificate on Richard Miniter and Steven Hays, today.
No...I don't think so... I give the American people more credit than that. I don't believe the polls. I think they are cooked.
The longer the White House waits to release its air-tight proof,
Maybe they haven't released the evidence because it doesn't exist...
the more likely it is that voters will see the announcement as a political tactic, and won't even bother to listen to it.
The people will listen... I have faith in them.
but if they think their case has been made in a persuasive manner, they're wrong.
I don't know how to answer the criticism that the President isn't able to communicate. Peach got it. You got it. I got it. Seems to me he's doing a good job of communicating his position.
Bush has enough on his plate without running the news media also.
He has put the info out there - it is being propagandized, twisted, ignored, and maligned. Why keep on blaming Bush?
Why are so many blind to the fact of the media that lies? Instead of facing that fact (like an elephant in the room) of the incompetent media, all blame Bush for not getting his message out. His message has been out there clear and steady - it is the media, the liberals that twist that message and give the twisted mess airtime.
Bush needs to hire Peggy Noonan.
And when Cheney says it and David Kay says its not true...I have a tendency to believe Cheney and not Kay.
I don't think we are going to have the Stephenson UN moment during the Cuban Missle Crisis... I don't think its going to be a gotcha moment. I don't think its going to be a spike the ball in the end zone, take that you stupid leftist moment.
If that's what we are looking for, then the only ones who are going to be disappointed is us...
I understand and agree with you.
I'm just not sure he will ever use even rock solid information if it become available; it's like he's lost his will or thinks we should just believe him and he doesn't need to make his case.
If the White House is waiting for that "air tight" proof, then this is evidence that the Democrats, Joe Wilson, and all the anonymous backstabbers in the CIA who vociferously attacked Bush's "16 words" in the SOTU about Nigerian uranium won the debate. If this is the case, Bush has allowed himself to be backed into a corner where "air tight" proof is the only way out. As you state, that proof is unlikely to materialize.
My desire is this: That rather than rely upon various leaks -- a news report here, a tidbit from Iraqi intelligence papers there -- Bush should come out with a major address that pulls all of the tidbits together into a list of evidence for Saddam's ties to al-Qaeda, and while he's at it, Saddam's active WMD program. The media would likely say, "That's not convincing," but the public would likely respond more positively to such delineation of what we know.
I'm critical of the Administration for not making a bigger deal about the foiled plot in Jordan to use a chemical bomb to hit the US embassy (the perpetrator received his training in Iraq, and the materials clearly came from Iraq as well); and that the Administration didn't trumpet the sarin shell that was attempted to be used as a roadside bomb in Iraq. These are only two examples of Saddam's active WMD program -- examples in the news which the Administration simply believes will connect with the American people. No, the American people have to be told the significance of these examples, and how they justify our effort to topple Saddam as part of the overall war on terror.
My point is I'm frustrating connecting the dots on my own. It's time the Administration kicked it into high gear to connect the dots for the American people. Simply laying out what is already known would be sufficient, and damn the media response.
Not that I believe the "9/11 Commission" either way, but...
No they have not.
Again...newspapers articles are not rock solid evidence.
Look at the standard you've bought into. Media Reports are not enough!
By this standard, we still don't know whether there was an earthquake in San Diego yesterday. I heard about it in the Media, but that's not "rock solid evidence". What if it's wrong??
The truly dangerous part is that people have convinced you that this standard is appropriate when defending national security. Me being wrong about whether there was an earthquake in San Diego yesterday, will have little negative effect on anything. Our country being wrong about whether Saddam Hussein was aiding AQ, to use as a proxy army to attack us - the negative effects of *that* would have been (and, I dare say, probably were) deadly.
Salman Pak - Used for 9/11... can you make that link?
Here's the thing. You're speaking as if we are in a court of law, and this is a criminal trial of Saddam Hussein. I don't know who convinced you of that, but it is not true.
Terrorists hijacked planes on 9/11 with small implements. Meanwhile, I can give you mainstream media reports explaining that the site at Salman Pak was used to train Middle Easterners in hijacking planes with small implements.
If you know of another site where hijacking training took place, I'm all ears. However, lacking other information, "Salman Pak was used for training at least some of them" is a perfectly reasonable inference to draw, and act upon, if one is in a position of power and responsible for the national security of the United States.
Again, no it would not meet a courtroom "beyond reasonable doubt" standard, but that standard is inappropriate here in the first place. It is partially Bush's fault for allowing this standard to persist.
But if I were the President, I would not stand up before the American people with the evidence you think is rock solid and try to convince them that this evidence proves the link. I would fail...and fail miserably.
You would fail. Bush would fail. A better communicator, would not. That is what I'm saying.
Your standard of proof and the President's standard of proof are light years away. It can't be based on leaks, articles, and the conspiracy theories of authors who write books. It cannot be.
No, but it *can* be based on the *intelligence data* behind those leaks, articles, and conspiracy theories of authors who write books.
It has to be. Intelligence data is all that a President has to act upon.
But that disagreement aside... I think you have done a great job in the linking of Iraq and Al Qaida. I think you have done all of us a great service on Free Republic. Keep up the good work.
How many times now has the White House scheduled a prime-time speech by Bush, and the major networks have blown him off?
All our intelligence has are rumors, leaks, reports from insiders. As they indicated before the war - all of the evidence paints a total picture and that total picture is used to make a determination.
Without rock solid evidence do we just risk waiting until we can get "inside" and have Saddam tell us himself? Or, do we analyze all available information and put it together. As George Trent said the very nature of intelligence will be based on assumptions and often wrong at best.
Or, do we make Saddam obey the resolutions of years past and remove the threat? We were within rights to do that, we did, he did not and therefore we took serious consequences.
Threat gone.
What is all the flack about? Our primary purpose is to prevent another attack which will use nuclear/biological/chemical and wipe out entire cities. Do any want to see that carnage and the absolute destruction of the world economy?
Of course, the liberal media can claim - "Well, we were not positive of the threat and since we did not act, the world will now love us and help us rebuild."
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.