Short answer. . . .
Posted on 09/15/2006 9:54:14 PM PDT by jdm
Iraq war critics are trumpeting a Sept. 8 Senate Intelligence Committee report that concludes Saddam Hussein knew nothing about the Sept. 11 attacks. Hence, the argument goes, he had no connection to al-Qaeda, and therefore lacked ties to Islamic terrorists. In short: “Bush Lied. People Died.”
This seriously flawed report relies on unreliable witnesses, ignores potential and actual evidence of Saddam’s philanthropy of terror, and yet quietly acknowledges that he, in fact, worked with terrorists. If Saddam Hussein’s lawyers seek a clean bill of health for their client, this isn’t it.
For starters, the report’s sources include “multiple detainees - including Saddam Hussein and former Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz.” Both are on trial and could face severe punishment. Their exculpatory remarks should be highly suspect, but appear valid to Senate Intelligence staffers.
On page 67, the report paraphrases Saddam’s statement that he eschewed al-Qaeda’s anti-Americanism because “the United States was not Iraq’s enemy.” Perhaps he merely was being playful when he fired almost daily at U.S. aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone and attempted to assassinate President George H.W. Bush in 1993. Indeed, on page 68, Aziz offers the FBI Saddam’s response to al-Qaeda’s August 1998 bombing of America’s Kenyan and Tanzanian embassies. Saddam “was pleased at the act of terrorism because the U.S. had bombed Iraq during the first Gulf War and tried to kill Saddam.”
The report also quotes captured Iraqi documents. Among some 120 million such papers, only 34 million have been “translated and summarized to some extent” to speed analysis. Nevertheless, the report concludes: “Additional reviews of documents in Iraq are unlikely to provide information that would contradict the Committee’s findings or conclusions.” Or, in plain English: “Don’t confuse us with data. Trust us. We’re psychic.”
This report overlooks numerous indications that Saddam supported the 9/11 conspiracy specifically and al-Qaeda broadly, among other Islamic terrorists. Consider:
The report disregards the May 7, 2003, decision of U.S. District Judge Harold Baer Jr., an appointee of President Bill Clinton, that Baghdad backed the 9/11 attacks. Baer awarded $104 million in damages from the Baathist regime to the families of George Eric Smith and Timothy Soulas, both killed at the World Trade Center. As Baer ruled: “I conclude that plaintiffs have shown, albeit barely, ‘by evidence satisfactory to the court’ that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al-Qaeda.”
The report misses the fact that 1993 WTC attack architect Ramzi Yousef - nephew of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed - landed in America on an Iraqi passport. Nor does it mention Indiana-born, Iraqi-bred Abdul Rahman Yasin, the al-Qaeda operative who built the 1993 WTC bomb that killed six and injured 1,040. He fled to Iraq and, documents show, received a house and salary from Saddam’s regime. As Sheila MacVicar reported for ABC News on July 27, 1994: “Last week, (television program) ‘Day One’ confirmed (Yasin) is in Baghdad . . . Just a few days ago, he was seen at (his father’s) house by ABC News. Neighbors told us Yasin comes and goes freely.”
The report forgets that the Clinton State Department designated Iraq a state sponsor of terrorism as early as 1993. “Iraq continued to plan and sponsor international terrorism in 1999,” State later declared. Baghdad “continued to provide safe haven and support to various terrorist groups.”
The Senate document concedes “Saddam’s record of support for secular terrorist organizations like the Palestinian Liberation Front,” but then breezes past his $10,000, then $25,000, reward checks to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers. Between the $15,000 boost in these bonuses on March 11, 2002, and the March 20, 2003, launch of Operation Iraqi Freedom, 28 such killers wounded 1,209 people and murdered 223 more, including at least eight Americans.
While Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have tried to answer this paper, President Bush himself should deliver addresses detailing Saddam Hussein’s extensive terror record. Educating the public would help counteract the “Bush lied us into war” chorus. If this left-wing cantata goes unchallenged, it could cost Republicans control of Congress and leave Bush naked to greater indignities - including impeachment.
ping
WHAT'S UP WITH THIS? A yankee newspaper in the Bluest town in the USA......speaks the truth about Iraq?
Good Lord. Somebody please send Lucifer some insulated underwear, because it's cold down there!
We just keep proving it and the libs just keep plugging their ears and saying, "Didn't happen, didn't happen, didn't happen."
Saddam's own documents prove the connection. They could be the Iraqi Venona. Perhaps that is why liberals don't want anyone to know about them. After all, Anna Nicole Smith is much more important than any of this stuff.
Its the Boston Herald...not the Globe. The Herald is much more tolerable.
I remember the $25,000 rewards that SaDamn was offering the familes of pallies that done bload themselves up.
Today Mike Savage was using the Senate report to say Saddam didn't have any ties to terrorists to bash Bush.
Just imagine how this process would unfold. The scum would, in no time, be reduced to advancing arguments, in public, that would sound more or less exactly like those being used by the defense in the courtroom proceedings against Saddam.
The President and his staff would have months to place the whole record of the run-up to the war before the public. The feckless and inept posturing that has characterized the scum strategy from day one would be there for all to see.
Talk radio, led by Rush, would have a field day. The blogosphere would glow like a reactor way past critical.
And, what if, in the middle of all this, with foppish scum-buckets like John Conyers and Charlie Rangel and Nancy Pelosi and Henry Waxman and Alcee Hastings and William Jefferson, Scum-o-crat, Lousiana, all competing with one another to see which can sound more extreme and look more unattractive... what if right in the middle of this maelstrom, there is another terrorist attack on our country. The bad guys thought we were distracted, so they took a shot, and sank it.
As I said, a more cynical person than me might reason that such a chain of events would finish the Scum for the next 20 years.
Not me, of course. But then, I'm not worried about losing the House, either. I'm not sure why I care about the Senate, though, I'm bound to admit.
(steely)
Why doesn't the Administration promote this? Instead, tehy seem to want to be PC and bury it. They should be trumpeting this kind of evidence. How is it that Deroy Murdock can get it but the White House can't?
The Herald is owned by the owners of the New York Post.
I don't think you heard Savage correctly. He has been a major supporter of the War on Terro, including the war in Iraq. He is convinced, however, as I am, that we're not fighting hard enough. We seem to be pursuing a no-win strategy.
Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my ‘miscellaneous’ ping list.
I not at all sure the Islamos even know which end is up with respect to American politics. The few that I've ever talked to are unshakably convinced that our entire political system is a sham, and that the President and every other person in the government is put there by the Jews.
If there are any who care, I'm sure they root for the Democrats.
Thanks for that info.
Short answer. . . .
Don't you love it when chickens come home to roost? LOL
Ikez78 - you'll want to read this one too.
I've been saying this for almost three years now. I hope the Bush administration defends their pre-war assertions tooth and nail.
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.