Posted on 07/12/2003 11:27:50 AM PDT by yonif
The Bush administration may already have hard evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that it is not sharing with the public, said Lt.-Gen. (ret.) Thomas McInerney, a military commentator for Fox News.
"The administration is willing to take the heat for now," McInerney yesterday told The Jerusalem Post, "then release the information next August." Doing so would put the Democrats who have been critical of the US president's policy on Iraq at a distinct disadvange in the run-up to the presidential election in November 2004.
Along with TV military commentators Maj.-Gen. (ret.) Paul Vallely and Col. (ret.) Jack Jacobs, McInerney came to Israel on Tuesday for a six-day study mission. The program was organized by the Foreign Ministry, the IDF Spokesman's Office, and the America-Israel Friendship League.
On Wednesday, the three commentators met with Deputy Defense Minister Ze'ev Boim. They are also scheduled to meet top IDF brass and tour the separation fence the goverment is building along the West Bank.
When the evidence of WMDs finally sees light, McInerney predicted that a number of countries, including France and Germany, will finds themselves in an uncomfortable diplomatic position.
"We know that these WMDs traveled through Syria," he said. "We know that a lot of these scientists had French passports."
A year before the Bush Administration planned for war in Iraq, McInerney and fellow Fox News analyst Vallely correctly predicted that the invasion would be an air-centered, technologically networked "war of liberation" that would last less than 30 days.
Both were critical of other ex-military officers such as former Army general Wesley Clark, who is now running for the Democratic presidential nomination who, they say, let political opinions paint a dire picture of the war.
"The credibility of CNN went way down," said Vallely.
Journalists traveling with soldiers were not the problem. McInerney said that, when properly used, embedded reporters proved of great value to commentators back in TV news studios.
"The embeds viewed the war through a straw," said McInerney, "but if you gathered up three or four of those straws, you got a general picture of what was going on."
But if one fails to pool together accounts from embedded reporters, the result is stories of a slowdown in the advance on Baghdad and a shortage of ammunition, neither of which happened. McInerney, Vallely, and Jacobs believe that negative coverage of the occupation stems from liberal circles disappointed with the success of the war.
"You have to remember that there's still leftover irritation from the election," said Jacobs, a Medal of Honor recepient and commentator for NBC. "If George Bush came out in favor of worldwide democracy, they would be against it."
Despite Wednesday night's killing of two American soldiers, one near Tikrit and the other near Baghad, Vallely said the occupation "is not going badly."
He notes buses are running, and students have gone back to school. In addition, oil is flowing, and the electrical and water utilities are being restored.
Nevertheless, all three men contend that an Iraqi interim government should have been established before the invasion a position long-advanced by the US Defense Department.
"But the CIA and State Department argued that you first have to get in-country and identify the players," said McInerney.
That Iraqi resistance exists at all, said Jacobs, is due to the rapid collapse of Saddam Hussein's army during the war. Coalition forces simply did not have the opportunity to hammer all his troops. "We are victims of our own success," he said. Jacobs went on to chide the Bush Administration for showing "insufficient ruthlessness" in rooting out pro-Saddam partisans hiding in the "Sunni triangle" of Tikrit, Baghdad, and Fallujah. Private arms held by the population must be confiscated with greater alacrity.
"It is inconceviable that you have people at a funeral shooting their AK-47s in the air," he said.
Vallely warned that Iraq is just one campaign in a larger American war against terrorism. "The next campaign may be against North Korea, Iran, or Syria," he said.
Commenting on Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations, McInerney argued that the US-sponsored road map is a positive development but only as a first step.
"Hope isn't a strategy," the ex-USAF officer said. "You still have to go after the terrorists."
It's possible that revealing any WMDs that they found now would impede on-going investigations into finding more.
If not, it would still make for solid political cover to delay releasing the information.
Impede them how?
But it was played as the primary justification, and in the minds of the simple and uncomplicated folks, both here and in other nations, who can only handle one reason, was the only one.
LOL, this from someone who was using the term 'Ad Hominem' not just a few post ago. He's welcome to his opinion. For his wife's sake, perhaps he should get out of the military if he seriously doubts his CIC.
Anger makes dull men witty, Cacophonous... but it keeps them poor.
Maybe they'll also say something about the anthrax mailings. Maybe they got something on Steven Hatfill out of that Maryland pond...? (not holding my breath)
But I don't think the justification issue is a killer poison: it is a poison of too much complex thinking at a surface level. The antidote is simple thinking at a deep level. Saddam with his regime were dangerous.
You may say (rightly) he could not have harmed us militarily and he was (rightly) too afraid of the Islamic terrorists to league with them. All that wealth and all that absolute power over a technologically sophisticated system means he had the capability, and certainly the will, to do something very harmful.
His enemies won't complain directly of unnecessarily putting our troops in harm's way. That is the criticism of the antiwar right, a position I respect though disagree with in this instance. No, Democrats will simply play the war is inherently bad card. Bush wanted the war and didn't give peace every possible chance.
It is a position that doesn't resonate.
The thing is, you're practically never going to get perfect intelligence. We knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that Saddam had used WMD before. We knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that he actively funded terrorists. We knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that he had not complied with numerous UN resolutions or his own cease fire agreements. We knew he tried to assassinate a former American president. We knew he was still managing to import weapons and parts for weapons in contravention to the Oil for Food program. We knew he was a major threat to the stability of the region. We knew that in order to prosecute the war on terror Saddam would have to be removed from the picture- we knew we had to take him down.
What more do people want?
I really do not get this "WMD scandal" that people are so busy squawking about. We've known since 1991 that we were going to have to finish Saddam. Now people are acting like this wasn't the case. It doesn't make any sense.
A three word soundbyte.. ;^) Short of that, they want to feel it, not think it.. Welcome to modern America....
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.