|He That Has Ears To Hear, Let Him Hear|
See Liberals for current resource
The War On Terror
Democrats & 9/11, Iraq & al Qaeda, and Weapons of Mass Destruction
"No people on earth have more cause to be thankful than ours, and this is said reverently, in no spirit of boastfulness in our own strength, but with the gratitude to the Giver of good who has blessed us. Let us remember that, as much has been given us, much will be expected from us, and that true homage comes from the heart as well as from the lips, and shows itself in deeds." Theodore Roosevelt
Show This Column to Anyone Who Claims Bush Lied about WMDs in Iraq - By John Hawkins | Feb 21, 2016 - To begin with, numerous foreign intelligence agencies also believed that Saddam Hussein had an active WMD program. The "intelligence agencies of Germany, Israel, Russia, Britain, China and France" all believed Saddam had WMDs. CIA Director George Tenet also rather famously said that it was a “slam dunk” that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. ...Additionally, many prominent Democrats who had access to the same intelligence that George Bush did came to the same conclusion and said so publicly. If George W. Bush lied, then by default you have to also believe that Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, John Edwards, Robert Byrd, Tom Daschle, Nancy Pelosi and Bernie Sanders also lied. Some of them, like Hillary Clinton, even alleged that Saddam was working on nuclear weapons.
June 6, 2010 - Satellite photos support testimony that Iraqi WMD went to Syria PAJAMASMEDIA Ha'aretz has revived the mystery surrounding the inability to find weapons of mass destruction stockpiles in Iraq, the most commonly cited justification for Operation Iraqi Freedom and one of the most embarrassing episodes for the United States...
- Top Syrian Journalist Says Iraqi WMD in Three Sites in Syria - Posted by Ryan Mauro On January - 8 - 2004
- Satellite Photos Support Testimony That Iraqi WMD Went to Syria by Ryan Mauro June 6, 2010 - 12:08 am
- What is Assad hiding in his backyard? Satellite photos of secret Syrian site depict at least five guarded installations whose purpose is unclear. By Avi Scharf - May 30, 2010 | 2:37 AM
Update: March 29, 2008 - Saddam and al-Qa�ida: To link or not to link - When the Central Intelligence Agency published its Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq's WMD also known as the Duelfer Report in October 2004, Leftmedia journalists and pundits merely skimmed the 1,000-page tome and, having found what they were looking for, gleefully repeated just one of the reports conclusions to the exclusion of all others: When the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, Saddam Hussein did not have a militarily significant stockpile of weapons of mass destruction (Bush lied!). In fact, to hear most media outlets tell it, the Duelfer Report was a damning indictment of the Bush administration's rationale for the Iraq War, and Hussein was in fact mostly harmless. Only those who bothered to conduct a deeper analysis of the report (i.e., actually read it) know about the Iraq Survey Group's more ominous conclusions, such as the fact that Saddam was using the Oil-For-Food program to rearm Iraq and buy off politicians, and that he intended to resume production of weapons of mass destruction once sanctions were lifted.
Thus it should come as no surprise to Patriot readers that the latest government study on Saddam-era Iraq is being subjected to similar spin. Titled Iraqi Perspectives Project: Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents, the study was commissioned by Joint Forces Command (USJFCOM) and is based on a review of 600,000 documents that were captured by Coalition forces in Iraq. If you believe major media sources like The New York Times and The Washington Post, the study proves that there were no links between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein. (Oh, and Bush lied!)
Of course, the study actually says the opposite, noting that Captured documents reveal that the [Hussein] regime was willing to support organizations it knew to be part of al-Qaeda as long as that organization's near-term goals supported Saddam's long-term vision. The study also says that Iraq had a special relationship with Afghani warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, an ally of Osama bin Laden who allowed al-Qaida to train terrorists in his territory. Another recipient of Iraqi support was Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the brutal terrorist organization founded by al-Qaida's number-two man, Ayman al Zawahiri. When Zawahiri aligned himself with bin Laden and al-Qaida, most of Egyptian Islamic Jihad's members went on al-Qaida's payroll. And that's just the tip of the iceberg: Joint Forces Command's study contains 1,600 pages demonstrating Saddam�s relationship with jihadist groups in general and al-Qaida in particular, causing one to wonder just how much evidence The New York Times needs to prove the existence of links.
The next time someone repeats the myth that Saddam Hussein did not ally himself with Islamic extremists, tell him to stop reading The Times and start doing his own research. To that end, more information on the Leftmedia spin of the USJFCOM study is available in Saddam's Dangerous Friends at The Weekly Standard. To read the full USJFCOM study, go to the Joint Forces Command web site.
Briefs - Facts, quotes, liberation of Iraq, and more...
9/11 - Even With Hindsight Liberals Can't See Straight by Ann Coulter (5/6/2004) Over in the alternative universe of the 9/11 commission hearings watched only by me, Richard Ben-Veniste recently proposed an amazing new standard for investigating Arabs in this country.
Iraq & WMDs - "The fact is that there is now, we know well, a proliferation of nuclear weapons, and that many weapons that Saddam Hussein had, we don't know where they are," Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin stated. "That means terrorists have access to all of that." See video: Democrats: In their own words.
Iraq-Al Qaeda Link - "Al-Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al-Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al-Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq." --Clinton's Justice Department Spring 1998
The blaring hypocrisy and deception of Democrats capitalizing on the liberal biased media and apathy (Exception: Senator Joe Lieberman: "Saddam Hussein was a weapon of mass destruction.
Briefs: Facts, Quotes and more
"Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." --George Washington
The popular biased News Media would "Dan Rather" you not know this.
New documents reveal Saddam hid WMDs, was tied to al-Qaida
November 17, 2005
Recently discovered Iraqi documents now being translated by U.S. intelligence analysts indicate that Saddam Hussein's government made extensive plans to hide Iraq's weapons of mass destruction before the U.S. invasion in March 2003
The explosive evidence was discovered among "millions of pages of documents" unearthed by the Iraq Survey Group weapons search team, reports the Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes. In the magazine's Nov. 21 issue, Hayes reveals that the document cache now being examined contains "a thick stew of reports and findings from a variety of [Iraqi] intelligence agencies and military units" . . . [Click for more]
Iraq through Iraqis' eyes by Jeff Jacoby (12/17/2004) A year after Saddam Hussein was captured, how goes the liberation of Iraq?
Voices of Freedom - From the Iraqi people
Pictures from Iraq that Are Too Shocking & Graphic for The Mainstream Media
Voices of Iraq�they must be heard by Joel Mowbray (10/31) Two former MTV producers have accomplished what the entire mainstream media thus far has not: they�ve captured the real life and times of the Iraqi people.
Exclusive: Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties (CNSNews.com) - Iraqi intelligence documents, confiscated by U.S. forces and obtained by CNSNews.com, show numerous efforts by Saddam Hussein's regime to work with some of the world's most notorious terror organizations, including al Qaeda, to target Americans.
The authoritative work of Michael Ledeen should be examined by anyone curious about Iran's continuing cooperation with terrorist groups of nearly every stripe, including al-Qa'ida. (http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen-archive.asp) Whether or not "proof" is ever found regarding 9/11, the United States must keep Iran fixed in its sights as a nexus of terrorism and a source of evil. Stay tuned...The Federalist Brief 04-29
"Repeatedly, [terrorists] had struck America [during the 1990s] with little cost or consequence. In none of these cases did the United States [under President Clinton] respond very forcefully. Under President Bush's leadership, we answered that challenge with decisive and relentless action. We did not fire million-dollar cruise missiles into empty tents, or drop bombs from 30,000 feet on abandoned obstacle courses. Instead, America launched a broad and sustained war on terrorist networks around the globe." --Vice President Dick Cheney
We in this country, in this generation are, by destiny rather than choice, the watchmen on the walls of world freedom. We ask, therefore, that we may be worthy of our power and responsibility, that we may exercise our strength with wisdom and restraint, and that we may achieve in our time and for all time the ancient vision of peace on earth, goodwill toward men. That must always be our goal. For as was written long ago, "Except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain." --John F. Kennedy
"Our enemies in Iraq are good at filling hospitals, but they do not build any. They can incite men to murder and suicide, but they cannot inspire men to live, and hope, and add to the progress of their country. The terrorists' only influence is violence, and their only agenda is death. Our agenda, in contrast, is freedom and independence, security and prosperity for the Iraqi people. And by removing a source of terrorist violence and instability in the Middle East, we also make our own country more secure." President Bush May 24, 2004
"I have had enough. I am the mother of an American Soldier. I watched in horror the news accounts today of an American son murdered by terrorists. I read the terrorists statement that said, 'For the Mothers and Wives of American Soldiers, you will not receive anything from us but coffins after coffins slaughtered in this way.' The Department of Defense warned CBS that airing the photos of the abuse of the Iraqi prisoners would result in endangering American Soldiers and American civilian lives in Iraq. But they did not care -- and neither do Kerry and Kennedy, who have recklessly used this story as political fodder against President Bush. They are the ones who should be apologizing to the Family of Nick Berg and the American people." Reader Comment - The Federalist Brief 04-20
In October 2002, the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraqi WMD estimated that Saddam had from 100 to 500 metric tons of chemical warfare agents." Indeed, we knew Saddam had WMD -- he killed tens-of-thousands of men, women and children with chemical WMD in 1988. Where are those stockpiles? We know he had large quantities (perhaps as much as 1600 liters) of weaponized anthrax. Where are those stockpiles? We recovered components of gaseous centrifuge equipment buried in the back yard of one of Saddam's nuclear engineers. Where is the rest of that equipment? As President Bush and the UN noted, Saddam failed to demonstrate that he destroyed any of these weapons. (He remembers full well how quickly he was defeated in Desert Storm, which is to say that had he destroyed these weapons, he would certainly have made some attempt at providing evidence of that destruction.) Now we have recovered one WMD round that he failed to bury or ship out before the Coalition arrived. But this, and the rest of the evidence that Saddam did have WMD will not be sufficient "proof positive" until some of it is detonated in some U.S. urban center. And go figure -- Bill Clinton treated al-Qa'ida as "criminals" rather than enemy combatants for eight long years after the first WTC bombing, leaving us exposed and unprepared for the second WTC attack. Now the Left would have us stick our head back in the sand! The Federalist Brief 04-21
Click here for Democrat Statements of hypocrisy on War in Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction
"History tells us that appeasement does not lead to peace. It invites an aggressor to test the will of a nation unprepared to meet that test. And... those who seemingly want peace the most, our young people, pay the heaviest price for our failure to maintain our strength." --Ronald Reagan
"No one in World War II demanded that President Roosevelt present them with a timetable for the end of the war, much less for when our military occupation would end in Europe. Nor did anyone demand to know how much the war would cost in dollars and cents. But the maturity to think beyond the moment has apparently become far more scarce today than it was in the days of the greatest generation. Will future historians call us the childish generation? How much today's childishness will cost this country in the long run only the future will tell -- and it may tell in blood." --Thomas Sowell -- The Federalist Brief 04-20
Not to be outdone by their American counterparts (the liberal biased media), the media in Egypt, Iran and Syria have resorted to ridiculous hyperbole. Those who never whispered a complaint about Saddam's systematic murder of hundreds of thousands of his own citizens are comparing the humiliation of Iraqi prisoners to genocide. All of the Middle Eastern media organizations, taking their cue from the American press, are asking President Bush for an apology -- though not one of them has ever offered a word of apology, much less condolence, for the Islamist attack on our nation 11 September, 2001. (Of course, not a single American Islamic leader has publicly condemned the 9/11 attack.) ...we challenge our readers to name the last time an American in Jihadi hands was treated in compliance with the Geneva Accords. (For a closer look at the sort of treatment American civilians can expect from Jihadis, please link to -- http://federalist.com/news/islamicjoy.asp) The Federalist Brief 04-18
A Soldier's Father Speaks Out - A gentleman from Virginia, proud parent of a decorated Army officer serving in Iraq, writes to us, "I am so fed up with the anti-American propaganda coming from some Americans that I wrote the open letter below. I will appreciate it very much if you include it":
An open letter to some political partisans, especially certain politicians and people in the media: I have a son who is an American soldier in Iraq. I care very much about what affects him and his comrades in arms. I am not fooled, when you partisans spew propaganda that helps our enemies and harms our soldiers, then tell us you support our troops. I am not fooled, when you focus on, highlight, and exaggerate the negative things that happen in Iraq, while ignoring our positive accomplishments, then tell us you support our troops. I am not fooled, when you focus attention on American soldiers killed and wounded in Iraq, to use these brave patriots as an anti-Iraq-war political football, then tell us you support our troops. I am not fooled, when you keep criticizing why and how we invaded Iraq - that is done; our troops are there - then tell us you support our troops. I am not fooled, when you engage in constant, carping criticism of what the U.S. has done and is doing in Iraq, then tell us you support our troops. I am not fooled, when you search for and trumpet to the world anything that will diminish respect for our soldiers and their leaders - even when it endangers greatly their lives, then tell us you support our troops. I am not fooled, when you tell our soldiers and the rest of us that they are stuck in a "quagmire" and will suffer a Vietnam-type defeat, then tell us you support our troops. I am not fooled, when you spout propaganda that undermines the morale of our soldiers and the American public and boosts the morale of our enemies, then tell us you support our troops. You are giving aid and comfort to our nation's deadly enemies! They know they cannot defeat us militarily in Iraq. However, you cause them to think they can win here politically by breaking our will, if they kill and wound enough of our soldiers. You despicable partisans! You are stimulating our enemies to attack our soldiers and the people working with them. The blood of many Americans and Iraqis is already on your hands. And your hands collect more blood every day! You are determined to regain the political power you have lost, and you believe your presidential candidate and congressional candidates will win, if the U.S. fails in Iraq. If your anti-American propaganda contributes to the deaths of many Americans and Iraqis, that is a price you are willing to make them pay. You are pathetic and dangerous! I am not fooled, when you contemptible politicians and other political partisans, including many in the media, tell us you support our troops. I know that is a lie! I am not fooled, when you claim spreading your pernicious, divisive, anti-American venom makes you patriotic. I know it does not - and I know you are not! NewsMax.com
Even With Hindsight Liberals Can't See Straight by Ann Coulter (5/6/2004) Over in the alternative universe of the 9/11 commission hearings watched only by me, Richard Ben-Veniste recently proposed an amazing new standard for investigating Arabs in this country.
From Federalist Briefs 04-15, 04-17, 04-22
"When [9/11] commissioner Bob Kerrey asked WTC director Alan Reiss whether he was 'angry' (is this 'Oprah'?) the FBI didn't reveal more about Al Qaeda before 9/11, Reiss, according to the New York Post, 'shot back' he was angry at '19 people in an airplane,' not the FBI. Nineteen men in an airplane is right. Of course, if the 'chatter' before 9/11 had been listened to, these men would have been racially profiled right off their flights. That's the only logical conclusion of any serious inquiry into how 9/11 might have been prevented -- one the 9/11 Commission will never get to." --Diana West
"Swatting flies" - a reference to the Clinton administration's practice of doing little to confront al-Qa'ida and viewing Islamist terrorism as a "law enforcement problem" rather than an act of war against the United States.
Attorney General John Ashcroft responded to accusations from Hillary Clinton ("What did Bush know and when did he know it?"), John Kerry and Ted Kennedy that the administration had actionable intelligence but failed to act. "Had I known a terrorist attack on the United States was imminent in 2001, I would have unloaded our full arsenal of weaponry against it -- despite the inevitable criticism, the simple fact of September 11th is this: We did not know an attack was coming because for nearly a decade our government had blinded itself to its enemies. Our agents were isolated by government-imposed walls, handcuffed by government-imposed restrictions and starved for basic information technology." On the subject of technology, Mr. Ashcroft noted that the Clinton administration had cut the FBI budget for technology so dramatically that it was "$36 million less than the last Bush budget eight years before." (It is important to note that on 11 September 2001 the Justice Department and CIA were operating under budgets and mandates set by the Clinton administration; the Bush administration had yet to have its first budget passed.) Mr. Ashcroft added that the Justice Department in 1995 under Janet Reno had "embraced flawed legal reasoning, imposing a series of restrictions on the FBI that went beyond what the law required" by establishing "a wall" between law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Said Mr. Ashcroft, "In the days before September 11th, the wall specifically impeded the investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui, the investigation of Khalid Almihdhar and of Nawaf Alhazmi. After the FBI arrested Moussaoui, agents became suspicious of his interest in commercial aircraft and sought approval for a criminal-search warrant to search his computer. The warrant was rejected because FBI officials feared breaching the wall." In the final analysis, 9/11 is, ultimately, the Clinton legacy. On 11 September of 2001, the Justice Department and CIA were operating under a Clinton budget and a series of restrictive mandates. In addition, Bill Clinton's final national security policy directive (from December 2000) did not mention "al-Qa'ida" once in its 45,000 word text and mentions "Osama bin Laden" only four times. The directive is thus a self-incriminating document that lays bare the Clinton administration's "strategy" of swatting flies -- of lobbing the occasional cruise missile at a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory and of treating terrorists as mere "fugitives" who should be extradited to "answer for their crimes." Ultimately, Clinton appeared far more interested in cracking down on "right-wing extremist" activities here at home. How else to explain the commitment of huge resources for politically-motivated investigations into such efforts as finding the suspected bomber of an Alabama abortion clinic? Thus, while the largest manhunt in history was attempting to track down a guy named Eric Robert Rudolph, al-Qa'ida operatives were busy developing their plans for 9/11. Not only were critical FBI resources diverted for political theater, but Hillary Clinton was busy promoting the celebration of Ramadan and FBI agents were being chastised for investigating Islamic groups. Indeed, they were told that such investigations reflected a "stereotypical culture bias." As for additional reasons why plans for the 9/11 attacks went undetected on George Bush's watch, perhaps Commission Vice Chair Lee Hamilton, a Democrat, said it best: "Policymakers face terrible dilemmas: information is incomplete, the inbox is huge; resources are limited, and there are only so many hours in the day. The choices are tough, and none is tougher than deciding what is a priority and what is not." Regarding criticism of the administration's "negligence" prior to 9/11 by one John F. Kerry, we'd remind Kerry of what he himself said on the evening of those attacks: "We have always known this could happen. ... I regret to say -- I served on the Intelligence Committee up until last year. I can remember after the bombings of the embassies, after TWA 800, we went through this flurry of activity, talking about it -- but not really doing the hard work of responding.'' A final note, the USA PATRIOT Act does, indeed, tear down "the wall" between law enforcement and intelligence investigators when it comes to terrorism. For a comprehensive essay on the Act -- both it's constructive aspects and potential civil liberty risks, link to -- http://www.federalist.com/papers/03-41_paper.asp You can also read the text of FBI director Robert Mueller's testimony at -- http://federalist.com/news/mueller.asp and CIA director George Tenet's testimony at -- http://federalist.com/news/tenet0404.asp
"The message from the 9/11 hearings is that we're a bit slow in connecting the dots --- about 25 years too slow. It was Feb. 1, 1979, when the dark side of Islam stepped off a plane from Paris in Iran. After 14 years in exile, Muslim cleric Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini had come triumphantly home to establish his revolutionary 'reign of virtue,' an Islamic theocracy designed to cleanse a nation of what Khomeini called 'Westoxification,' the poisonous influences of Western culture. With no delay, Khomeini urged a jihad against 'the Great Satan' and supported the storming of the American embassy in Tehran by student militants. ...Others followed in Khomeini's footsteps, getting 'new meaning' in their lives, getting 'perfect,' by killing Egyptian President Anwar Sadat in 1981; killing Lebanese Prime Minister Bashir Gemayel in 1982; bombing the U.S. Embassy and Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983; assassinating a U.S Navy officer in Greece in 1983; murdering a U.S. Embassy official in Beirut in 1984; killing American servicemen in 1984 in Torrejon, Spain; hijacking the Achille Lauro in 1985; killing American servicemen in the bombing of a Berlin nightclub in 1986; blowing up the Pan Am flight over Scotland in 1988; bombing the Israeli Embassy in Argentina in 1992; bombing the World Trade Center in February 1993; attempting to assassinate President George Bush in April 1993 in Kuwait; murdering American diplomats in Pakistan in 1995; bombing the Riyadh military compound in Saudi Arabia in 1995; bombing the Khobar Towers in Dhahran in 1996; blowing up American facilities in 1998 in Tanzania and Kenya; and bombing the USS Cole in 2000. Sept. 11, 2001, was simply more of the same, only larger." --Ralph R. Reiland
"We don't need a 'commission' to find out how 9-11 happened."
"The truth is in the timeline....In February 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed by Muslim fanatics, killing five people and injuring hundreds. Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing. In October 1993, 18 American troops were killed in a savage firefight in Somalia. The body of one American was dragged through the streets of Mogadishu as the Somalian hordes cheered. Clinton responded by calling off the hunt for Mohammed Farrah Aidid and ordering our troops home. Osama bin Laden later told ABC News: 'The youth ... realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat.' In November 1995, five Americans were killed and 30 wounded by a car bomb in Saudi Arabia set by Muslim extremists. Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing. In June 1996, a U.S. Air Force housing complex in Saudi Arabia was bombed by Muslim extremists. Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing. Months later, Saddam attacked the Kurdish-controlled city of Erbil. Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, lobbed some bombs into Iraq hundreds of miles from Saddam's forces. In November 1997, Iraq refused to allow U.N. weapons inspections to do their jobs and threatened to shoot down a U.S. U-2 spy plane. Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing. In February 1998, Clinton threatened to bomb Iraq, but called it off when the United Nations said no. On Aug. 7, 1998, U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Muslim extremists. Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing. On Aug. 20, Monica Lewinsky appeared for the second time to testify before the grand jury. Clinton responded by bombing Afghanistan and Sudan, severely damaging a camel and an aspirin factory. On Dec. 16, the House of Representatives prepared to impeach Clinton the next day. Clinton retaliated by ordering major air strikes against Iraq, described by the New York Times as 'by far the largest military action in Iraq since the end of the Gulf War in 1991.' The only time Clinton decided to go to war with anyone in the vicinity of Muslim fanatics was in 1999 -- when Clinton attacked Serbians who were fighting Islamic fanatics. In October 2000, our warship, the USS Cole, was attacked by Muslim extremists. Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing. Bush came into office telling his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, he was 'tired of swatting flies' -- he wanted to eliminate al-Qaida. On Sept. 11, 2001, when Bush had been in office for barely seven months, 3,000 Americans were murdered in a savage terrorist attack on U.S. soil by Muslim extremists. Since then, Bush has won two wars against countries that harbored Muslim fanatics, captured Saddam Hussein, immobilized Osama bin Laden, destroyed al-Qaida's base, and begun to create the only functioning democracy in the Middle East other than Israel. Democrats opposed it all -- except their phony support for war with Afghanistan, which they immediately complained about and said would be a Vietnam quagmire. And now they claim to be outraged that in the months before 9-11, Bush did not do everything Democrats opposed doing after 9-11. What a surprise." --Ann Coulter
Everyone got it wrong before 9/11 - Jeff Jacoby (web version) April 12, 2004
We'll get to last week's big Washington story -- Condoleezza's Rice's testimony before the Sept. 11 Commission -- in a moment. But first, a short quiz: 1. Identify the following list of topics: "The World Bank's mission creep" "Getting debt relief right" "Russia's unformed foreign policy" "Japan, the reluctant reformer" "With a friend like Fox" "Caspian energy at the crossroads."
No clue? Don't feel bad. You would have to be suffering from acute foreign-policy wonkishness to recognize the table of contents from the September/ October 2001 issue of Foreign Affairs, the flagship publication of the Council on Foreign Relations. Like the curious incident of the dog in the night-time -- in the famous Sherlock Holmes tale, the "curious incident" was that the dog didn't bark -- the significance of these headlines is not in what they say but in what they don't say: The nation's leading journal of international relations was paying no attention to the threat from Islamist terror even as Islamist terrorists were planning the deadliest attack ever committed by foreign enemies on US soil.
2. Which US senator admitted on Sept. 11, 2001, "We have always known this could happen. . . . I regret to say -- I served on the Intelligence Committee up until last year. I can remember after the bombings of the embassies, after TWA 800, we went through this flurry of activity, talking about it -- but not really doing the hard work of responding.''
That was John Kerry on "Larry King Live," ruing his and his colleagues' pre-9/11 failure to give the threat from international terrorism the urgent attention and "hard work of responding" it should have had.
3. President Clinton's final national security policy paper, submitted to Congress in December 2000, was 45,000 words long. Yet it never once mentioned which international menace?
Al Qaeda. The document referred to Osama bin Laden just four times, and its discussion of terrorism spoke not of wiping out the killers in their nests but of extraditing "fugitives" to make them "answer for their crimes."
Which brings us back to Rice's appearance last week.
If anything has been obvious since 9/11, it is that the government of the United States, like the foreign-policy establishment generally, was grossly derelict in its understanding and handling of Islamist terrorism. That was true during the first eight months of the Bush presidency and it was true during the preceding 8 years of the Clinton presidency. For all the atmospherics of the Sept. 11 Commission, for all the partisan skirmishing of its Democrats and Republicans, there was no important difference between the two administrations prior to that terrible day. Rice's efforts to prove otherwise were largely unconvincing. So, a week earlier, were Richard Clarke's.
The simple truth was put bluntly by Rice in her opening statement: "The terrorists were at war with us, but we were not yet at war with them. For more than 20 years, the terrorist threat gathered, and America's response across several administrations of both parties was insufficient." Democracies rarely face up to the worst dangers they face until disaster strikes. Until then, political leaders find it much easier to do nothing than to press for unpopular reforms and face the public's wrath.
Imagine the backlash the administration would have faced, for example, if it had reacted aggressively to the CIA briefing in August 2001 that warned of possibile terrorist hijackings -- the one ominously titled "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the United States." If the Transportation Department, on the strength of that warning alone, had ordered air travelers to arrive at least two hours before their flights, banned a long list of common household objects -- knives, knitting needles, scissors -- from airplanes, and authorized pilots to eject "Middle Eastern" ticketholders they deemed suspicious, the public would have reacted with fury. And the administration would have backed down.
Prior to 9/11, no president from Jimmy Carter through George W. Bush properly understood or reacted to the swelling danger of Islamist terrorism. None recognized that we were under attack by a ruthless enemy bent on global conquest and the destruction of Western liberty. Neither did leaders in Congress, nor elite opinionmakers in the media.
Far more important is what has happened since 9/11: The Bush administration went to war. It destroyed Al Qaeda's base in Afghanistan, toppled Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, turned Pakistan from a backer of terrorists into a terror-war ally, and intimidated Libya into ending its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Crucially, the administration has demolished the perception of America as -- in bin Laden's derisive term -- a "weak horse" that bolts at the first gunshot. And it did it all in the face of withering political fire at home and abroad.
How you regard that performance -- as invaluable wartime leadership by the president or as a fraud "made up in Texas" -- is likely to decide how you vote this November. For what matters now isn't who was wrong before 9/11. It is who has been right since. �2004 Boston Glob Contact Jeff Jacoby | Read Jacoby's biography
Clinton's Final National Security Report Fails to Mention Al Qaeda Former President Bill Clinton's last policy paper on national security that was submitted to Congress in December of 2000, fails to mention al Qaeda at any time in the entire report. >> Read Full Story
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. ... We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
Kerry Needs A New Mantra David Limbaugh - April 9, 2004 ...Kerry said the situation in Iraq is "one of the greatest failures of diplomacy and failures of judgment that I have seen in all the time that I've been in public life." What? Can you tell me what diplomacy has to do with the murderers in Fallujah or the sadistic, maniacal hitmen of Moktada al-Sadr? Is Kerry suggesting that if we had just organized a bigger international coalition we wouldn't be facing this post-war terrorist unrest? Or is he just talking to hear his head rattle? It's time Kerry understood that the terrorists are not into talking. Killing -- the killing of innocents -- is their game. Kerry needs a new mantra.
Thank God for President Bush, who has the vision to understand that this War on Terror is not just about Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda brigades, but an international phenomenon driven by Islamic radicals whose lifeblood is pumped from the heart of supporting terrorist states like Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Thank God President Bush had the courage to go forward to drain that rancid swamp, though the United Nations and much of the "enlightened" European community resisted, preferring to coddle and appease the terrorists. And thank God President Bush has the moral clarity to place the interests of this nation above his political ambitions.
Iraq's Liberation & WMDs
In war news, Britain's much-anticipated Butler Report on WMD intelligence leading up to the Iraq war finally and unequivocally put the lie to those wild-eyed BUSH LIED!!!!! legions. "We conclude," the report said, "that the statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that 'The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa' was well-founded." That deafening noise you DON'T hear is the Leftmedia reporting on this particular finding. CNN's website lists a "summary" of just 14 of the 216-page report's findings. Oddly, the uranium-from-Africa finding is not one of them.... Findings from the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee have also breathed new life into the Iraq-Africa question, committee chairman Sen. Pat Roberts saying, "Now, I don't know whether it's accurate or not. That's the whole question." The committee's report notes that the results of diplomat-turned-spook, turned-camera-hogging-book-peddler, turned-Kerry-functionary Joseph Wilson's 2002 fact-finding tour to Niger actually bolstered the view of some analysts of a Niger-Iraq uranium connection. Even former Nigerian Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki believes the Iraqis were seeking to acquire uranium from his country, citing a 1999 Iraqi delegation to Niger included in the committee's report. The report also cites separate foreign intelligence assessments of Iraq's pursuit of African uranium, received by U.S. intelligence on 15 October 2001, 5 February 2002, and 25 March 2002. And this from Jeff Jacoby: "Late last month, the Financial Times, a respected international newspaper, reported that according to European intelligence agencies, Iraq was one of five countries that had negotiated with smugglers in Niger for the illegal purchase of uranium yellowcake. 'These claims support the assertion made in the British government dossier...that Iraq sought to buy uranium from an African country,' the paper reported in a front-page story on June 27. For some reason, though, the US media showed virtually no interest in following up that revelation. ... A few days ago, the Financial Times was back with more news: An independent British commission investigating the government's use of intelligence during the runup to the war in Iraq, the paper reported on Wednesday, 'is expected to conclude that Britain's spies were correct to say that Saddam Hussein's regime sought to buy uranium from Niger.' ... But this, too, has been largely ignored by the American press. Curious, no? Journalists couldn't get enough of this topic when the story line was that Bush and the British had lied. Shouldn't they find it just as riveting when facts point in the other direction?" --Jeff Jacoby --The Federalist Brief 04-29
UN Confirms: WMDs Smuggled Out of Iraq - By Rod D. Martin - June 21, 2004 - In a report which might alternately be termed "stunning" or "terrifying", United Nations weapons inspectors confirmed last week not merely that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but that he smuggled them out of his country, before, during and after the war.
President Bush enacted sanctions against Syria for its collaboration with terrorist insurgents against the U.S.-led reconstruction of Iraq. Calling the "unusual and extraordinary threat" posed by Syria a "national emergency," Mr. Bush said of the Syrian Accountability Act, "Despite many months of diplomatic efforts to convince the Government of Syria to change its behavior, Syria has not taken significant, concrete steps to address the full range of U.S. concerns." Syria, you recall was the source of WMD recently recovered in Jordan -- WMD that Syria did not have the capability to produce -- WMD which, we suspect, originated in Iraq. The Federalist Brief 04-19
Kay's report said we hadn't found "stockpiles" of WMDs in Iraq, but we have
-- chemical and biological weapons systems, plans, "recipes" and equipment, all of which could have resumed production on a moment's notice with Saddam's approval;
-- reference strains of a wide variety of biological-weapons agents (found in the home of a prominent Iraqi biological warfare scientist);
-- new research on brucella and Congo-Crimean hemorrhagic fever, and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin;
-- a prison laboratory complex for testing biological weapons on humans;
-- long-range missiles (prohibited by United Nations resolutions) suitable for delivering WMDs;
-- documents showing Saddam tried to obtain long-range ballistic missiles from North Korea;
-- facilities for manufacturing fuel propellant useful only for prohibited Scud-variant missiles.
"If 5,000 Iraqi children were dying every month under Saddam, and we have now been in Iraq one year, it means that 60,000 children have been saved. That's a number worth remembering." --Helle Dale
BOOK FOCUSES ON AMERICA'S FIGHTING FORCES, FAITH, AND IRAQ'S FUTURE - The national networks' news reports routinely showcase the death, destruction, and reported animosity of Iraqis directed toward American troops. However, a Christian journalist says there is another, less-publicized side to the war in Iraq. Retired Marine officer Oliver North served as executive editor for the book. He says it is important for Americans to realize that the view of the troops presented by the mainstream media is not always a reliable perspective. The military expert is critical of the way some of the liberal media are portraying the U.S. fighters to the public. "Recently the New York Times described [the troops in Iraq] as 'poor kids from Mississippi, Texas, and Alabama, who couldn't get a decent job or health insurance and joined the military because that's all we offered them.' That, my friends, is dead wrong," North says. More details: http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/5/102004c.asp
The curious lack of curiosity about WMD - by Larry Elder (5/6/2004) "Week after week after week after week," said Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., about President Bush's rationale for going to war with Iraq, "we were told lie after lie after lie after lie." Were we? Jordan recently seized 20 tons of chemicals trucked in by confessed al Qaeda members who brought the stuff in from Syria. The chemicals included VX, Sarin and 70 others. But the media seems curiously incurious about whether one could reasonably trace this stuff back to Iraq. Had the terrorists released a "toxic cloud," Jordanian officials say 80,000 would have died! So, I interviewed terrorism expert John Loftus, who once held some of the highest security clearances in the world. (See interview.)
Syria and the WMD Shell Game by Joe Mariani - (Excerpts) An al-Qaeda cell linked to Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi (currently hiding out in Iraq), recently planned to set off simultaneous chemical weapon attacks in Jordan which might have killed up to 20,000 people. It might have been the worst terrorist attack ever, had it not been foiled by Jordanian officials before the plot could be carried out. One of the attack points was to have been the US embassy in Amman; the rest were public and government buildings. Where did these would-be bombers come from? Where did they get their chemical weapons? According to Jordan... from our old friend, Syria. But how did Syria get chemical weapons?
During the last few months leading up to the Iraq war, some of Saddam's arsenal of WMDs was apparently being shipped across the Syrian border for safe-keeping. The Israelis believed that the bulk of it kept going, to be buried in Lebanon's Beka'a Valley, under Hezbollah control.
The first part of this report matches what David Kay learnedafter spending several months in Iraq searching for the whereabouts of Saddam's arsenal. "We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons," he said. "But we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD programme. Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved." The report was further corroborated by CIA satellite photos showing fleets of trucks moving from Iraq to Syria during February and March 2003. A Syrian journalist named Nizar Nayuf defected to the West in January 2004. He claimed to know of three locations in Syria where Saddam's WMDs were buried in February 2003.
US officials have repeatedly warned Syria that their covert support of the terrorists in Iraq will not be tolerated. Syria has consistently worked against the Coalition and against the formation of a new democracy in Iraq. They provided safe haven for former members of Saddam's regime and have probably been hiding Saddam's WMD arsenal all along. If Bashar Assad has allowed terrorists to acquire some of it, things will go very badly for him... and in the very near future.
"Our son is career enlisted as specialist first class, 40th Combat Engineering Battalion, presently affixed to the First Armored Division, which is presently redeploying from Baghdad to Kuwait on the way back to Germany. We service families are generally offended by the left's actually patronizing our son's risks for their political purposes. They do not like the military, and generally think that people who join are losers who can't do anything else and are of lowbrow intelligence. They are consistently wrong but never in doubt. And they operate from a template disconnected from reality and they never update their template. Another aspect that is offensive is their referring to casualties as resulting from President Bush sending them into harm's way with a sense in their comments as if it were largely against their will or desire. This results from their 'stuck in the '60s' mentality. One fact never enters their comments or the thinking behind them: My son volunteered for this fight and so did every single person over there, as well. That's something they simply can't comprehend. In summary, they are so disconnected from reality, their comments are self-serving and offensive." --Charles Brown -- The Federalist Brief 04-15
Syria Shipping WMD Components to Sudan 4/13/2004 - Syria, long suspected for hiding some of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD), is reportedly smuggling missiles and WMD components to Sudan in an effort to conceal them from western intelligence sources. >> Read Full Story
Marines in Fallujah by Oliver North (4/9/2004) Kennedy, whose own honesty, integrity and judgment have been called into question on numerous occasions throughout his career, charged the Bush administration with 'creat(ing) the largest credibility gap since Richard Nixon. ...'Those who continue to carp and complain about the war defend themselves by saying they have a First Amendment right to do so, but there is an inherent duty of responsibility in the exercise of free speech. Now that terrorists are mastering the manipulation of the media, war critics must consider the consequences that their criticisms may have on their countrymen who are fighting for freedom.
"[Saddam's WMD] was the administration's rallying cry for war. But...Saddam did not have a nuclear weapon, and probably would have been unable to make one until 2007 to 2009." --Teddy Kennedy, (D-Baghdad) Memo to Teddy: Are we to understand that you would've preferred to wait until 2007 before removing Saddam from power and neutralizing his nuke capabilities? What if the current estimates were wrong? What if he was able to develop a bomb by, say, 2006? The Federalist Brief 04-10
Kay vindicates Bush by David Limbaugh (2/3/2004) In light of weapons inspector David Kay's recent statements, it is mystifying to me that President Bush and Republicans aren't claiming vindication and challenging Democrats for exploiting the issue. Some observations about this...(Observations 2 & 7 included here) 2. Bill Clinton recently said that when he ordered the bombing of Iraq's suspected WMD sites, we couldn't be sure whether we (and Britain) destroyed all of them, 50 percent or 10 percent -- because we didn't have inspectors on the ground to determine the extent of the damage. While Clinton was trying to take credit for possibly destroying Iraq's WMD, he inadvertently exposed his party's hypocrisy. Did Democrats complain that he bombed these sites when we didn't even know if WMD were there? Did Democrats complain about weaknesses in our intelligence because we never learned whether we struck pay dirt with those bombing attacks? Did they call for an investigation? 7. And with all due respect to Mr. Kay and others, we did not, as I've written many times before, have the burden of proving Saddam had WMD. He had the duty of proving he had destroyed them and his programs. This he deliberately and defiantly failed to do. Our "preemptive" attack was justified with or without the continued existence of WMD. In this sense, it wasn't even preemptive; it was to enforce already violated resolutions.
During the January 2004 interview of Dr. David Kay, the CIA's chief weapons inspector in Iraq until January 2004, he was asked by Sen. John McCain if he agreed "with the fundamental principle here that what we did was justified and enhanced the security of the United States and the world by removing Saddam Hussein from power." Dr. Kay responded, "Absolutely. ... If you read the total body of intelligence in the last 12 to 15 years that flowed on Iraq, I quite frankly think it would be hard to come to a conclusion other than that Iraq was a gathering, serious threat to the world with regard to WMD."
Getting rid of Saddam was U.S. policy long before Bush by Kathleen Parker (1/14/2004) Anti-war constituents apparently felt vindicated by O'Neill's assertion that President Bush was mapping out strategies for ousting Saddam Hussein soon after taking office and months before the Sept. 11 attacks.
The death of Abu Abbas -- and hope in the Middle East by Paul Greenberg (3/22/2004) The body was shipped out of Baghdad. That's where Abu Abbas, aka Abul Abbas, ne Muhammad Abbas, had been apprehended by American forces last April....But he found sanctuary in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. (Tell us again that Saddam had no links to terrorism.) And now he's escaped justice once again.
31 October 2003 Federalist No. 03-44 Friday Digest
One year ago,
The Federalist first reported that Allied Forces would be unlikely
to discover Saddam's WMD stores in Iraq -- that the UN Security Council's
foot-dragging had provided Saddam with plenty of time to export his biological
and nuclear WMD. Back then, we wrote, "There is a substantial body of
intelligence supporting our position that Iraq shipped some or all of its
biological and nuclear WMD stores to Syria and Lebanon's heavily fortified
Bekaa Valley." In December, a senior-level
intelligence source confirmed again that much of Iraq's WMD had, in fact, been
moved to and through Syria.
This week, there was, for the first time, official public confirmation of our report. (In case you missed it as the Leftmedia's lead story, don�t fret; we missed it too.) Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. James Clapper, former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, now director of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, told reporters that U.S. surveillance satellites captured images of vehicle traffic dispersing WMD materiel to urban locations in Iraq and moving large quantities into Syria as well. "Those below the senior leadership saw what was coming, and I think they went to extraordinary lengths to [dispose, destroy and disperse] the evidence," said Gen. Clapper. "By the time that we got to a lot of these facilities...there wasn't that much there to look at. There was clearly an effort to disperse, bury and conceal certain equipment prior to inspections." Gen. Clapper added that there is "no question" that people and WMD materiel were moved by truck convoys into Syria.
So why wait until now to release this information? First, as we noted last year, the extent and accuracy of this information is a valuable intelligence asset, and the CIA, DIA and NSA are responsive only to U.S. national-security interests. Finding and destroying these WMD stores has everything to do with the likelihood that what we don't find now will visit our shores in a most terrible way later. Undoubtedly General Clapper's remarks were thoroughly vetted for their national security implications as we endeavor to contain Saddam's WMD and make clear that any effort to move them will confirm their current location. Secondly, because some Americans and their Leftmedia opinion-shapers have very short attention spans, recent claims by Ted Kennedy et al. that President George Bush "misled" the nation regarding the "imminent threat" posed by Iraqi WMD, have undermined some domestic resolve. It is critical that our national resolve remain high and that Americans understand how important it is to keep the frontlines of our war with Jihadistan on their turf, not ours. And third, because this merely confirms what many Americans not blinded by political ambition, already knew: that Saddam's most deadly WMD are still out there, still capable of inflicting catastrophic devastation in one or more major U.S. urban centers of an al-Qa'ida sleeper cell's choosing, and still capable of wreaking havoc on the economic recovery now underway.
U.S. intel: WMD went to Syria last year (Posted: January 30, 2004) Evidence includes satellite photographs of Iraqi convoys. The U.S. intelligence community has found evidence Syria received Iraqi missiles and WMD in late 2002 and early 2003, U.S. officials said, according to Geostrategy-Direct, the global intelligence news service.-
Deception + Coercion +Apathy = The Fall of America
Quote of the week... "I want to tell you
something about this war against terror we are fighting in Iraq and around the
world. The foreign terrorists, the Ba'ath Party sympathizers, the Islamic
extremists who wantonly kill Americans and innocent people from many nations,
have no idea what they are up against. ... When we say we are going to win
this global war on terrorism, we mean exactly that. We don't mean a moral
victory, or victory in some abstract sense. The reality of more than 3,000
dead in New York, Pennsylvania and the Pentagon does not allow for such
nuances." --Gen. John M. Keane, Army vice chief of staff, at his retirement
ceremony earlier this month
On cross-examination...RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie: "When it comes to whether or not we are going to wage this war against terror in places like Kabul or Baghdad or be more likely to have it waged in places like Boston or Kansas, the American people understand the front line has become Iraq. ... We saw it again over the weekend, but that's where it needs to be. We need to take this fight to them and we need to support our troops in that effort." In a draft memo to the Republican congressional leadership, Mr. Gillespie added: "Last week a significant minority, including leading Democrats, moved to the left of Syria and France by opposing funding for troops and reconstruction in Iraq. ... When it comes to winning the war against terror, the president's critics are adopting a policy that will make us more vulnerable in a dangerous world. ... Specifically, they now reject the policy of pre-emptive self-defense and would return us to a policy of reacting to terrorism in its aftermath."
The following was released 10/16/2003 by the Office of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay:
Iraq By The Numbers:
Here is what was known about Iraq based on its own admissions:
3.9 -- Number of tons of VX nerve gas Iraq produced in the years immediately prior to the first Gulf War
25 -- Number of missile warheads containing germ agents (anthrax, aflatoxin, and botulinum) Iraq produced
157 -- Number of aerial bombs Iraq produced that were filled with germ agents
500 -- Number of bombs Iraq had fitted with parachutes for the purpose of delivering poison gas or germ payloads
550 -- Number of artillery shells Iraq had filled with mustard gas
805 -- Number of tons of ingredients for the production of more VX
4,000 -- Number of tons of ingredients to produce certain types of poison gas Saddam produced or imported
8,500 -- Number of liters of anthrax Saddam produced
107,500 -- Number of casings for chemical weapons Iraq had produced or imported
(Robert Kagan, William Kristol, Weekly Standard, October 10, 2003)
0 -- Number of Americans made safer by Ted Kennedy and the Democrats' weak and indecisive foreign policy
9 -- Number of presidential candidates who will pathetically claim DeLay is questioning their patriotism
http://www.usnewswire.com/ /� 2003 U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/ � 2003 U.S. Newswire
"Clinton said all the same things about Iraq that Bush did --that Saddam had WMDs, that he would use them, that he was a threat, etc. But he didn't do anything about it because he couldn't get French and Russian support for taking any action. Under Clinton, the inspections had ended, and the sanctions would eventually have ended too --because that's what the French wanted." --Rich Lowry
What Democrats believe by Rich Lowry (9/25/03) This credo is often nonsensical and hypocritical, but it is clearly discernible. The Democrats of '04 believe: Excerpt: That anyone who said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction prior to the war was lying, unless his or her name is Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Madeleine Albright, Bill Cohen, John Kerry or Joe Lieberman, or the person ever served in the Clinton cabinet or as a Democratic senator.
The WMD Mystery by Clifford D. May (10/2/2003) The question is not whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. The mystery is: What did he do with them? ...First, as noted, rule out the possibility � often misleadingly implied by the anti-war/pro-appeasement crowd � that Saddam never had WMD.
Weapons of Mass Destruction -- and Obstruction... by Mark Alexander (10/10/2003) The U.S. inspection team has uncovered significant evidence of chemical- and biological-weapons programs, and even more extensive evidence of Iraq's missile program -- all banned under UN resolutions.
Where Did The WMD, Poison Gas, and Anthrax Go?
Blix said Iraq was unable to account
for its cache of VX poison gas or its stockpile of anthrax. The VX gas, Blix
told the panel, appeared to have been "weaponized." In addition there were
concerned about the fate of VX precursor chemicals, which Iraq told inspectors
were lost in the Gulf War bombing or destroyed by Iraq.
Iraq declared that it had destroyed its store of 8,500 liters of anthrax in 1991, but Blix said no "convincing evidence" existed of its destruction.
"There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist," Blix said.
29,984 Chemical Warheads Missing
The U.N. report issued at the end of
the 1990s found that Iraq possessed 30,000 chemical warheads, Fleischer said.
But in the past eight weeks since inspectors have been back, they had found only
16 chemical warheads.
"At the pace that Iraq is cooperating with the inspectors, it will take the
inspectors another almost 300 years to find the remaining weapons that the
United Nations says Saddam Hussein possesses," Flesicher said.
"And the fear is that this is a submerged tip of the iceberg in terms of the
little that has been found already."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83821,00.html for one, then there are the chemical barrels found, then there is the "white powder" being analyzed, then there's the http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83768,00.html, like http://espn.go.com/oly/news/2002/1205/1472043.html
Even if it was ONLY for liberating the Iraqi's - which most Americans can not fathom the loss of individual freedoms, or living in fear, or being repressed from obtaining a reasonable living.
Why not until Iraq's Information Minister did not show up for work did the Iraqi's begin to display American flags, pictures of Bush and Blair, and slapping their sandals against Saddamm's picture which is considered a major cultural insult? What were they afraid of until those 4 bombs dropped in Baghdad? Is it most American liberals can not fathom living in fear and subjection for the better part of the last 20 years?
Hypocrisy of Democrats on WMD
"Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." --George Washington
"Saddam Hussein took us to war once before. In that war, young Americans were killed. He went to war in order to take over the oil fields. It wasn't just an invasion of Kuwait. He was heading for the oil fields of Saudi Arabia. And that would have had a profound effect on the security of the United States. This is a man who has used weapons of mass destruction, unlike other people on this Earth today, not only against other people but against his own people. This is a man who tried to assassinate a former president of the United States, a man who lobbed 36 missiles into Israel in order to destabilize the Middle East, a man who is so capable of miscalculation that he even brought this war on himself. This is a man who, if he was left uncaptured, would have continued to be able to organize the Ba'athists. He would have continued to terrorize the people, just in their minds, because of 30 years of terror in Iraq." and "Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture don't have the judgment to be president." John Kerry
What a Tangled Web They Weave....By Rod D. Martin - August 17, 2004 - Did George W. Bush lie about WMDs? Not according to senior Democrats; and though many of them have about-faced post-Michael Moore, their collective testimony bears close examination. See article quoting Democrats urging President Clinton to take a stand against Saddam Hussein and WMD's. Including, Hillary, Daschle, Kerry, Albright, Levin, Pelosi, Graham, and more...while Al Gore and Michael Moore call Bush a "liar" what do they say about President Clinton and fellow Democrats?
Laptoplobbyist.com Daily Digest: November 25, 2003
Today's Daily Digest comes from one of our community members, Colleen Russell. We'll leave the question of trusting Democrats up to the reader, but the quotes give us a great deal of food for thought. If anyone is interested in further attribution, please contact us.
By Colleen Russell
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." -- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." -- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here] but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Feb 18, 1998
"He [Saddam Hussein] will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." -- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D, MI), Tom Daschle (D), John Kerry (D, MA) and others Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has . . . chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that . . . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he [Saddam Hussein] has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Vice President Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Vice President Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons. . . ." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . . . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He [Saddam Hussein] has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. . . . It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime . . . He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. . . . And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. . . . So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real. . . ." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
SO NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES???
Iraq-al Qaeda Link
Clinton First Made Osama-Hussein Connection Jon E. Dougherty, NewsMax.com - Monday, July 12, 2004
Media Blatantly Distorts Iraq-Al Qaeda Link - By Bobby Eberle - June 21, 2004 The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States published a number of staff reports this past week which describe the unfolding of events leading up to and during the fateful day of September 11, 2001. One such report provides background on the rise of Usama bin Laden and al Qaeda, the terror network known to be responsible for the 9-11 attacks. Among the many conclusions drawn by the 9-11 Commission staff was a particular statement regarding Iraq and al Qaeda which the media has spun into an indictment of the Bush administration, but which, to the media's discredit, has no basis in fact.
Evidence verifying Iraq's support of al-Qa'ida is beginning to pile up. Most recent is the discovery of an appointment book of Iraqi intelligence officer Ahmed al-Ani, showing an entry for a meeting on April 8, 2001, in Prague, Czechoslovakia, with a "Hamburg student" -- which would be 9/11 linchpin Mohammed Atta. In January of 2002, The Federalist reported confirmation of this meeting from a Czech intelligence official. The Federalist Brief 04-25
Clinton was right: Saddam and al Qaeda had numerous connections. BY ROBERT L. POLLOCK Tuesday, June 22, 2004 - Saddam's long history of sheltering terrorists, including Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas--as well as 1993 World Trade Center bomber Abdul Rahman Yassin--is a matter of undisputed public record. So is his funding of Palestinian terror and his attempt to assassinate President George H.W. Bush--not to mention numerous smaller attempts at anti-American terror abroad following the first Gulf War. Damningly, Mr. Hayes reminds us that Saddam's connections to terrorism and al Qaeda were taken as a given before the 2000 election by both the establishment media and former officials--such as Richard Clarke and Al Gore--who are now at pains to deny them. The connection was even cited in the Clinton administration's 1998 indictment of bin Laden. Surely the former president will want to remind Americans of this fact as he embarks on his book tour.
The Iraq-Al Qaeda-terrorism connection explained by Cal Thomas (6/22/2004) The commission looking into the causes of the 9/11 terror attacks on the United States did not conclude that claims by the Bush administration of ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda were pure myth, as many newspaper headlines and broadcast reports asserted.