yes... it was the best stratigic explanation i've ever heard that ties as many threads together it he did
Posted on 08/24/2004 11:44:34 AM PDT by Thrusher
What is the story on Bodansky? As the Director of the Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare of the U. S. Congress, it seems like he would have some credibility. He set forth some pretty articulate explanations of where Saddam's WMDs may be (Syria) and that al Quada did receive support and training from Iraq. Is he just pushing a book or does he know what he's talking about? And if any of what he is saying is true, why hasn't anyone else picked it up? I know that the "mainstream" media would totally ignore it, of course, but I haven't seen anything about his theories on any of the more independent news sites.
The left spends too much time sitting in the green room at CNN, going over their talking points before appearing on Judy Woodruff's show. They should spend more time out in the world (like Bodansky).
One of the reasons, IMHO, that the Bushies have failed to articulate this connection is that whenever they do, CYA analysts leak stories that there was no connection, the intelligence is bogus, etc, etc. For example: Czech intelligence reported that Atta met with IIS in Prague. The Czechs have never doubted that this meeting took place, and have never retracted the story. Yet, every time the thing pops up, out comes some anonymous source at CYA who says, "Czech intelligence has said this never happened." In response to the most recent leak/lie, the Czech President himself said, "they keep saying we've repudiated this meeting. It isn't true. We believe it happened."
There is a war going on between Bush and the State Department/CYA. Unfortunately, this is one war Bush is either not willing to fight, or not aware that he's fighting. It's time to dismantle the CYA once and for all, and turn foreign intelligence back over to the military. Military people have a culture, tradition, and genuine understanding of why they must be subordinate to a civilian authority in a free country. The CYA doesn't understand that they're supposed to answer to the Commander-in-Chief.
Finally, people keep focusing on connections between al-Q and Iraq, as if bin Laden is the only enemy we have. Bush stated the dimensions of this fight: it is a war against terrorism with global reach, and countries which harbor those kinds of terrorists are our ENEMIES. Iraq not only sponsored bin Laden, but many other terrorist organizations as well. But most importantly, the Iraqi Intelligence Service was a terrorist organization in its own right. Its global reach was undoubted. It had already planned and promised (and may have executed) terror strikes against the United States. So, there is no need to connect Saddam to al-Q. He had his own personal terrorist organization already.
Exactly. There are darned few investigative reporters in the MSM; Bill Gertz may be the only one.
Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard has been outstanding on this issue.
Old Media is finding themselves more and more irrelevant. Sort of like Old Europe and the UN.
I have the interview on audiotape.
Man, what a great exchange. Thanks.
Bodansky is an interesting guy. can't comment on his prediction success rate, but he talks about alot of stuff that the MSM does not. both he and Loftus appear on Batchelor's WABC radio show.
ask Karl Rove why there wasn't a more organized defense of Bush to those lies. they ceded the premise of those issues to the Dems, and barring some major revelation, won't get them back.
That's just inconceivable to me. What possible strategy or justification could there be for ceding the entire basis of the war to the Dems? Its political hari-kari. It seems like the Bushes could make some defense of their positions rather than just throwing up their hands and quitting, even if it might damage some hum-intel resources. The truth is, if the Repubs lose the White House, those hum-intels are gonna get f*#ked by Kerry anyway.
"Personally, I believe that if Bush loses this election, it will be because of their refusal to be more forthcoming about what is known about Saddam's WMDs."
Exactly. But doesn't this observation beg another, perhaps more important question? I mean, the Bush administration is full of some very smart and cagey people, not to mention the king of shrewdness himself -- Dubya. So WHY IS IT that they haven't done a better job? They certainly have the info and the wherewithall. I can only conclude that the stakes must be so terribly high that that they simply cannot jeapordize their intel yet -- or something of that nature. Seriously -- things just don't add up.
Excellent point. And Bush's policy is based on the belief (a justified belief) that by taking out or checking the state sponsors of terrorism, terrorist organizations like AQ will fall apart.
90% of the news media depends on daily press releases from the Democrat National Committee to write their stories. Bodansky obviously has spent his life cultivating too many contacts to count -- and many of them are in nations that are unfriendly to the U.S. Bodansky does his homework. Ths US news media largely parrots back what they're told by their partisan allies.
Yes, and kudos to Mr. Copley of ISSA. I've emailed a number of folks over the years, but he actually took the time to write a detailed response. I was impressed.
I agree. It's a mystery. But, then, the campaign still has 2-1/4 months to go. Again, the ISG is set to release their latest findings in September. If the Administration doesn't give this a high profile, I'll be further mystified. Congress got a preview of this report last month, and have you noticed how the Dems have remained pretty silent on the "Bush lied!" tactic? Even John Kerry has backtracked and said that knowing what we know now, he still would have voted for the Iraq war resolution. I think they realize that if they pound the "Bush lied!" line regarding WMDs, it will eventually bite them back before the election.
yes... it was the best stratigic explanation i've ever heard that ties as many threads together it he did
Here's my theory: The US knows Saddams' WMDs went to Syria, and the US is putting pressure on Assad Jr., the same way the US and Britain pressured Quaddafi. I would not be surprised to see an announcement (the last weekend of October, if we're lucky) from Little Assad admitting that Syria received Saddam's WMDs before and during the Iraq war, and "in the interest of regional peace" is turning them over to the US or some international entity like the UN.
I had the same thoughts/hopes. If only it becomes so.
its simple saddam sent his chem/bio weapons to Syria. special forces tracked convoy of big trucks leaving Iraq headed to syria. main reason for war was saddam was going to his nukes from libia in a undergrond mountain complex and the iraqi scientists in cash by the north koreans. this would have much faster than waiting for sacntions to expire.
I've heard it stated several times that the WMD's are likely in Syria.
I wonder if the CIA has verified this yet? Or whether we've sent any Special Forces in to verify it?
It's hard but not impossible to penetrate Syria but to look around for WMD we'd have to know exactly where they are. Which is possible but unlikely, I'd say.
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.