Saddam supported at least two al-Qaeda groups: Pentagon Update: What it means

posted at 8:15 am on March 14, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Earlier this week, the Pentagon announced that an investigation into over 600,000 documents captured at the end of the invasion of Iraq showed no operational links to al-Qaeda — or at least, that’s how the media reported it. After a strange few days in which the Pentagon delayed the report, it finally hit the internet last night — and it’s clear that the analysis done by the media was superficial at best. If no operational “smoking gun” could be found, the report still shows that Saddam Hussein had plenty of ties to all sorts of terrorist groups, including radical Islamist jihadis.

For instance, how about their support for The Army of Muhammad, a known al-Qaeda subsidiary operating in Bahrain? On pages 34-35 of the report, we find communications between their Bahrain agent and IIS headquarters confirming Army of Mohammad’s loyalty to Osama bin Laden. What is the response from Baghdad?

The agent reports (Extract 25) that The Army of Muhammad is working with Osama bin Laden. …

A later memorandum from the same collection to the Director of the IIS reports that the Army of Muhammad is endeavoring to receive assistance [from Iraq] to implement its objectives, and that the local IIS station has been told to deal with them in accordance with priorities previously established. The IIS agent goes on to inform the Director that “this organization is an offshoot of bin Laden, but that their objectives are similar but with different names that can be a way of camouflaging the organization.”

AoM had ambitious plans — including attacks on American interests. On page 35, the Iraqis list their aims as attacking Jewish and American interests anywhere in the world, attacking American embassies, disrupting American oil supplies and tankers, and attacking the American military bases in the Middle East. The Iraqi support for AoM may not be an operational link, but it’s certainly a financial link that goes right to Osama bin Laden. The Iraqis certainly understood that much, and hoped to keep it quiet.

Nor was that Saddam’s only support for an AQ subsidiary. Saddam put money into Egypt’s Islamic Jihad. The IJ opposes the Hosni Mubarak regime for a number of reasons, but primarily because of Egypt’s shaky diplomatic relations with Israel. One leader of IJ that Westerners can easily name was Ayman al-Zawahiri, who became Osama’s chief deputy and primary mouthpiece to the world.

Even when working separately, the report notes that Saddam and Osama worked to develop the same terrorist pool from which they would draw support and operational agents. Put simply, Saddam’s more secular aims and Osama’s drive for an Islamic Caliphate worked in tandem to increase the threat of terrorism. Saddam endeavored to create a “business model” for terrorism, especially when it could assist in his own pan-Arab vision. He funded and trained terrorists of all stripes in Iraq, from secular Arab Marxists to radical jihadists (page 41-42).

The media also skipped over the conclusion of the study, which begins thusly:

One question remains regarding Iraq’s terrorism capability: Is there anything in the captured archives to indicate that Saddam had the will to use his terrorist capabilities directly against United States? Judging from examples of Saddam’s statements (Extract 34) before the 1991 Gulf War with the United tates, the answer is yes.

In the years between the two Gulf Wars, UN sanctions reduced Saddam’s ability to shape regional and world events, steadily draining his military, economic, and military powers. The rise of Islamist fundamentalism in the region gave Saddam the opportunity to make terrorism, one of the few tools remaining in Saddam’s “coercion” toolbox, not only cost effective but a formal instrument of state power. Saddam nurtured this capability with an infrastructure supporting (1) his own particular brand of state terrorism against internal and external threats, (2) the state sponsorship of suicide operations, and (3) organizational relationships and “outreach programs” for terrorist groups. Evidence that was uncovered and analyzed attests to the existence of a terrorist capability and a willingness to use it until the day Saddam was forced to flee Baghdad by Coalition forces.

So we have Saddam supporting at least two AQ subsidiaries, one of which had open aspirations to attack American interests, and evidence from these captured materials that Saddam planned to use his terrorist capabilities to conduct war on the United States. Perhaps in the world of the mainstream media the big news from this would be “no smoking gun” connection to an actual attack, but for the rest of us, it shows that Saddam needed to go — and the sooner, the better. (via the Weekly Standard)

Update and Bump: Several points need to be made more clear. First, it’s pretty apparent that the vast bulk of the reporting on this paper has come from leaks within the Pentagon, and not from a read of the paper itself. Stephen Hayes more generously attributes it to a shortsighted focus on the executive summary, but even that makes clear that Saddam used Islamist radical terrorist groups to his advantage, and that state support of terrorism grew so large as to require an expansion of government bureaucracy to manage it. Anyone who reads the executive summary would be compelled to look for the support within the body of the document.

Furthermore, one has to remember the purpose and structure of al-Qaeda. It is not a top-down hierarchical organization like the PLO. Rather, it serves as a framework for a web of affiliated terrorist organizations, both for funding and for inspiration. AQ’s leadership structure maintains communications and coordination with these groups, which often merge with and split into other organizations. The report itself tries to remind readers of this, and sees Saddam and Osama as using essentially the same network for the same ends, when their interests overlap. That’s why Iraq’s IIS winds up funding the Army of Mohammad and the Egyptian Islamic Jihad — both of which are authentically AQ, and in the case of AoM, Iraq funded it specifically because of its goals of attacking American interests.

Reader Sam Pender points out that Egyptian Islamic Jihad actually has more significance than most in the AQ network. EIJ at one time provided the lion’s share of AQ’s leadership, including Ayman al-Zawahiri, and certainly that was true in the period between 1991 and 2003. Saddam’s support for EIJ shows a more direct connection to AQ leadership than anyone had predicted before the capture of the documents on which this report is based.

Update: The FBI’s Deputy Director for counterterrorism testified before Congress about the connection between AQ and EIJ on December 18, 2001:

Although Al-Qaeda functions independently of other terrorist organizations, it also functions through some of the terrorist organizations that operate under its umbrella or with its support, including: the Al-Jihad, the Al-Gamma Al-Islamiyya (Islamic Group – led by Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and later by Ahmed Refai Taha, a/k/a “Abu Yasser al Masri,”), Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and a number of jihad groups in other countries, including the Sudan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bosnia, Croatia, Albania, Algeria, Tunisia, Lebanon, the Philippines, Tajikistan, Azerbaijan, the Kashmiri region of India, and the Chechen region of Russia. Al-Qaeda also maintained cells and personnel in a number of countries to facilitate its activities, including in Kenya, Tanzania, the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States. By banding together, Al-Qaeda proposed to work together against the perceived common enemies in the West – particularly the United States which Al-Qaeda regards as an “infidel” state which provides essential support for other “infidel” governments.

Saddam Hussein provided funding for EIJ for the same reasons. And when one starts to consider the differences between Afghanistan’s Taliban after 9/11 and Saddam, the gaps narrows considerably. The Taliban gave AQ shelter while probably not realizing the extent to which it made them a target; Saddam funded their main leadership source and at least one of their subsidiaries in order to help them succeed in their mission against the US. That’s at least arguably an act of war, attempting to use terrorists as a proxy to fight it — and it very clearly fell within the post-9/11 Bush doctrine.

Update: Eli Lake at the New York Sun gets the story correct: “Report Details Saddam’s Terrorist Ties”. I guess this means he actually read the report.

Update: Thanks to Andy McCarthy at The Corner for the link, and he has some further thoughts on this as well.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

You mean, the media lied to us? Again?

Shock and Awe.

BKennedy on March 14, 2008 at 6:33 AM

Shock and Awe.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA

Troika37 on March 14, 2008 at 6:49 AM

The NYT’s is working on it’s correction right now. Yeah right.

THE CHOSEN ONE on March 14, 2008 at 6:53 AM

Propaganda works to the extent that it feels like a good fit. The MSM beat the world over the head with their message to coerce servitude of the masses in the name of freedom. Shake off the shackles and give up. So long as the same mantra gets exploited and reiterated, when the truth is exposed it is largely rejected. An education is something most people don’t want to get their money’s worth. It hurts to think. It’s uncomfortable to not fit into the cast. It’s too logical to make sense. It’s too consistent to be relevant. It’s off topic and verboten.

maverick muse on March 14, 2008 at 7:02 AM

Question is, how high does the pile of facts have to get before it comes crashing down on a person and he believes what they point to? The ‘no links to al Qaeda’ meme has burrowed in deep, except perhaps in those who never believed it because it was simply implausible.

njcommuter on March 14, 2008 at 7:12 AM

I hear your straw excuse for the Iraq screw up, and I raise you connection Rumsfeld-Saddam, and K.Bacon-me.
You warmongering desperately clinging to any excuses guys are sooo pathetic…

sashal on March 14, 2008 at 7:20 AM

Cute. Non-responsive, but cute.

Ed Morrissey on March 14, 2008 at 7:30 AM

You warmongering desperately clinging to any excuses guys are sooo pathetic…

sashal on March 14, 2008 at 7:20 AM

Moonbat logic: “interested in actual truth” = “clinging to any excuses”

BuzzCrutcher on March 14, 2008 at 7:31 AM

The media will NEVER accept the fact Saddam knew of, helped and encouraged terrorist groups.

tx2654 on March 14, 2008 at 7:45 AM

Yawn. And all this means what? No American president, including the so called “tough on terror” Bush will fight to win, so all this is moot. If we were allowing our troops to fight to win AT ALL COST … the middle east would be a hole in the wall, not a billions of dollar drain on the economy and a social science experiment to see if we can give these “poor” people “democracy” (I am still looking for that in the constitution).

TOPV on March 14, 2008 at 7:48 AM

So which is it,Saddam did help AQ,or didn’t
help AQ.So while the media harped about the
intelligence of the WMD,looks like the media
SNAFU the connection between Saddam and AQ!

canopfor on March 14, 2008 at 7:49 AM

All over the world right now those opposed to the Iraq war are sticking their fingers in their ears and singing, “La, la, la, I can’t hear you.”

What are the odds someone in the press asks Obama about this- and whether or not he thinks that Saddam working to attack American interests should change his opinion of overthrowing the regime?

Jay Mac on March 14, 2008 at 7:56 AM

None so blind….

OldEnglish on March 14, 2008 at 8:01 AM

glad i saw this here, would have never known such a connection existed any other way.

trailortrash on March 14, 2008 at 8:04 AM

But I thought Saddam was to secular to work with terrorist.
All that bowing to Mecca and holding up the Koran was just for
show.

I mean,when would he have time to work with terrorist when
they were so busy flying all those kite’s Micheal Moore told
us about.

Baxter Greene on March 14, 2008 at 8:04 AM

…Iraq showed no operational links to al-Qaeda — or at least, that’s how the media reported it.

Well du-uh. OF COURSE there weren’t “operational links” between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Ladin. This is nothing but empty propaganda.

Of course Nazi Germany had no “operational links” to Imperial Japan. And of course Adolph Hitler didn’t personally order the raid on Peal Harbor any more than Saddam ordered the 9/11 bombing. There’s not even any rational reason to suspect that either man knew about the attacks ahead of time.

But only the most propaganda-addled moron would think that proves our sworn enemies weren’t ALLIES.

logis on March 14, 2008 at 8:08 AM

But I thought Saddam was to secular to work with terrorist.
Baxter Greene on March 14, 2008 at 8:04 AM

Saddam Hussien was too secular NOT to work with terrorists.

If Saddam been a religious fanatic, he might well have some sort of theological bone to pick with Osama bin Ladin. But as a power-mad opportunist, Hussein would have every reason to support anyone else who had a vendetta against the US.

logis on March 14, 2008 at 8:19 AM

Just a few bad apples, nothing so terrible as HALLIBURTON or BLACKWATER.

After all, Al Qaeda is a far left organization too, so left wing symps will always give them a free pass.

Capitalists? To the gulag.

NoDonkey on March 14, 2008 at 8:24 AM

According to ABC, the Pentagon buried the report as too “politically sensitive.”

Now exactly who in the Pentagon did not wish the news of clear ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda-linked organizations to get out?

It’s typical of the past seven years of inept public relations by the Bush administration, which can’t for love nor money seem to make its own case.

Or has that case been undermined at every turn by mid-level bureaucrats with an anti-war, anti-Bush axe to grind? Why else has the light of truth been hid under the bureaucratic barrel?

Stephen Hayes at the Weekly Standard documented Iraqi Intelligence ties to terrorist organizations years ago, based on Iraqi documents. There were terrorist-training camps in Iraq. Many sources have chemical weapons being moved out of Iraq prior to the Coalition attack. You would think the Administration would have trumpted these findings. Yet year after year we hear nothing official, and silence while the MSM and the Left repeat the “Bush lied” mantra.

Why is ABC being allowed to report “no ties” without being forcefully challenged by the Pentagon and Administration officials themselves? It’s all well and good that the small coterie of right-wing public-affairs junkies here know the truth, but until it’s in the broadcast news, it’s unknown to most people.

MrLynn on March 14, 2008 at 8:41 AM

It’s typical of the past seven years of inept public relations by the Bush administration, which can’t for love nor money seem to make its own case.

Doesn’t that just make your head explode? We fight the left on behalf of the Bush Admin and they give us NO ammo, we hafta ddig it up ourseles. If it wasn’t for HotAir, Lucianne and many others, we’d be completely in the dark. Thanks, Dubya.

Tony737 on March 14, 2008 at 9:10 AM

MrLynn, agreed, the Bush communications people couldn’t organize a yard sale.

What I’ve never been able to understand is what the standard is — how many meetings? How many communiques? How many people cross-trained? What counts as “direct operational support”? Does that have to mean “Al Qaeda had a specific operation it was actively working on and the Hussein regime directly supported it”? If that’s the standard, what do we make of Hikmat Shakir facilitating meetings of the hijackers, even leaving the airport to accompany them to their hotel at one point?

Compare this to the outrage over the “dots” Bush is blamed for not “connecting,” and while you’re at it compare it to the modern law of conspiracy. People go to jail quite frequently on evidence of conspiracy far more circumstantial than what we already have on the GoI and Al-Qaeda. My goodness, look at what the Truthers honestly believe about 9-11.

And BTW, I see your Saddam-Rumsfeld picture and I’ll raise you a whole envelope of these.

DrSteve on March 14, 2008 at 9:11 AM

Of course Nazi Germany

Godwin strikes again!

Quatre on March 14, 2008 at 9:13 AM

This is the same conclusion reached by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence years ago. No direct operations, but lots of connections and aid.

Back then the press shrieked out their own conclusion: No Ties between AQ and Iraq. It’s deja vu.

The people will never understand the facts of these events. MSM has made sure of that. Most people won’t read past the headline or the first couple of paragraphs. Sometimes I think more harm is done to civil society by misleading headlines than by any other cause.

juliesa on March 14, 2008 at 9:14 AM

Dear Media and “peace demonstrators”:

Saddam Hussein didn’t think we all are people. He wanted to massacre us all, especially those of us who would never ever convert to Islam. Saddam Hussein sponsored terrorism in many other countries. He also massacred his own people, allowed his cra-zay sons to violate countless women, tortured his athletes when they didn’t win, imprisoned Christians and Jews, violated the UN enforced no-fly zone, tortured those who possibly maybe opposed him, and scammed the Oil For Food program for his own gains. If that’s not enough to put the little bugger out of business, I guess nothing is.

So well done, with the supporting of a tyrannical, psychotic leader. Too bad he’s in a really really warm place right now. Maybe Ahmadinejad will be the next belle of your ball. He is an Anti-Semitic, terrorist sponsoring, Holocaust denying jack-a(&, after all. Right up your alley, don’t cha know.

As for me, I’ll just keep fighting the fight and refusing to submit.

Media, “peace demonstrators”, you all annoy me.

mjk

mjk on March 14, 2008 at 9:16 AM

No worry, all of this will suddenly appear after the pantsuit takes office. Not so sure about Obama. They will bomb them into dust and of course we will have the evidence to do so. The dems will suddenly become the party of national security and government handouts and there will be no reason to ever vote them out of office. \\tinfoil hat off

yakwill83 on March 14, 2008 at 9:18 AM

Dare I go see what the Kos-Kiddies are going to say, or shall I just guess…?

The delay was so that Bushitler Darth Vader could censor the report, and add those things in, lying like they always do to steal the election and the oil and listen to all our phone calls.

JamesLee on March 14, 2008 at 9:18 AM

Ed,

You felt Sashal was cute, so you must have been able to figure out what he/she said.

Could you translate for the rest of us?

MarkTheGreat on March 14, 2008 at 9:19 AM

Or has that case been undermined at every turn by mid-level bureaucrats with an anti-war, anti-Bush axe to grind? Why else has the light of truth been hid under the bureaucratic barrel?

MrLynn on March 14, 2008 at 8:41 AM

My thoughts exactly. And I wonder, what other information is “too politically sensitive,” to release?

Troy Rasmussen on March 14, 2008 at 9:21 AM

I hear your straw excuse for the Iraq screw up, and I raise you connection Rumsfeld-Saddam, and K.Bacon-me.
You warmongering desperately clinging to any excuses guys are sooo pathetic…

sashal on March 14, 2008 at 7:20 AM

I would be more outraged if you used a language recognizable by anyone on earth.
From what I gather, I guess you believe providing support to a group that directly supports another group isn’t a good reason to give someone a little slap in the rear; then enjoy servitude as AQ will gladly put you to the blade.

TOPV on March 14, 2008 at 7:48 AM

there have been more than a few economists who’ve stated that the war has helped prop up the economy due to the massive number of jobs needed to continue it. The whole ‘drain on the economy’ argument holds no water. War has always been good for economies (assuming you are the one being bombed)
Where in the Constittution did it say we should bomb Sudanese aspirin factories or back Kosovar rebels in a civil war? The only thing the Constitution says about war is the Executive can order strikes wihtout authorization and officially declaring war requires Congressional consent.
Seems the Constitution doesn’t say much about how military force should be used does it? So I guess if the Executive wants to use it for democracy building he can go ahead and do it until the Congress says ‘hold up their, Chief’

Back OT: this is no shock. The idea of ‘journalism’ is dead in the world. People are more interested in editorializing and pushing political agendas than reporting facts anymore. I guess facts don’t get ratings/page views/ad clicks
Sad really.

MannyT-vA on March 14, 2008 at 9:21 AM

This linkage has been well documented in Richard Miniter’s book, “Disinformation.” The book is a good read and covers a number of widely accepted myths associated with our long war against Islamo-fascism.

http://www.amazon.com/Disinformation-Media-Myths-Undermine-Terror/dp/0895260069

moxie_neanderthal on March 14, 2008 at 9:22 AM

Saddam, all by himself, was a terrorist…That’s all I need to know.

A link to other terrorists, no matter how weak or tenuous, is just icing on the cake.

There’s no doubt in my mind, Saddam had grasped the significance of the success of the terrorist attack against the United States, and would be willing to exploit this as a weapon.

franksalterego on March 14, 2008 at 9:27 AM

I hear your straw excuse for the Iraq screw up, and I raise you connection Rumsfeld-Saddam, and K.Bacon-me.
You warmongering desperately clinging to any excuses guys are sooo pathetic…
sashal on March 14, 2008 at 7:20 AM

Hey, we’d have happily kicked Iraqi butts for no reason at all. How’s that grab ya?

Akzed on March 14, 2008 at 9:32 AM

Earlier this week, the Pentagon announced that an investigation into over 600,000 documents captured at the end of the invasion of Iraq showed no operational links to al-Qaeda — or at least, that’s how the media reported it. After a strange few days in which the Pentagon delayed the report…

I’m sure the Pentagon knows how the Media functions.

I blame the Pentagon.

Don’t blame the Liberal Media, they are just doing what they do best: Distorting or hiding facts, and hating America.

Let’s see things clearly, shall we?

Let’s say exactly who is the culprit.

And in many cases it’s the source, not the Liberal Media.

Indy Conservative on March 14, 2008 at 9:40 AM

sashal

So, you would prefer Saddam was left in power to really torture, brutalize, and terrorize his people and his neighbours?

Leftist compassion at its best.

Richard Romano on March 14, 2008 at 9:42 AM

Did the Soviet Union ever have “operational ties” the Sandinistas? What about the Vietcong? How about the PLO?

Many in the press value their own byline over historical fact. Hearst was totally disinterested in making money.

gabriel sutherland on March 14, 2008 at 9:43 AM

glad i saw this here, would have never known such a connection existed any other way.

trailortrash on March 14, 2008 at 8:04 AM

The Weekly Standard has been pointing out these links for a few years now. The willful ignorance, spin, and lies of the MSM and democrats is beyond sickening. In another day and age it would have been traitorous.

04/07 – Who’s Spinning Intel?

11/06 – Unfounded Assumptions

09/06 – Rules of Evidence
06/06 – Spinning Zarqawi
06/06 – An Omission of Note
11/05 – The Naysayer
07/05 – Another Link in the Chain
04/05 – The Levin Spin
10/04 – Kerry on Zarqawi: Wrong
03/04 – Saddam’s Ambassador to Al-Qaeda

Rod on March 14, 2008 at 9:49 AM

The leftist narrative is so tedious. Give it a rest, already.

“Yes, we leftists you see, used our Reason to correctly deduce, on First Principles alone, the lack of operational connection, you see, between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. And so, you see, we predicted that this hegemonious occupation of Iraq would lead to precisely the consequences it has indeed led to.”

Nice on paper, but that’s not even close to what happened. What happened was hard leftists as usual obstructed the Iraq war on grounds that “war is not the answer,” and that we ought to be like children and “visualize world peace.”

In other words, the left had no coherent argument against the war in Iraq. Just hatred of America and vacuous slogans, which is all they’ve ever had.

jeff_from_mpls on March 14, 2008 at 10:00 AM

The conspiracy theorists have a serious breakdown in logic. In short, the Bush administration is willing to “manufacture evidence” or even be responsible for running a black flag operation to destroy the Twin Towers, howeverit lacks the smarts or expertise to “create evidence of Iraqi complicity in terrorist activities or chem/nuclear weapons? If the Bush cabal is so bad and so ruthless, why not create documents and stage a magical find of people, documents and artifacts that would support their claim?

There is little or no debate about his use of chemical weapons, his dual use technologies, paid bonuses to terrorist families, a plot to assasinate Bush 41, known terrorist training camps existed in Iraq.
1993 World Trade Center bombers entered the US on Iraqi passports and one terrorist fled to Iraq.

The reality is, we may not know. But is it reasonable to assume that Bill Clinton’s CIA Director was in a position to know? Did he have an alterior political agenda that discounts his conclussions or statements? I don’t know…I guess you’d have to be the judge.

Here are excerpts from a PBS interview with former CIA Director James Woolsey:

“Ramzi Yousef, is an Iraqi-American who fled to Iraq, had conversations with the FBI from Iraq, as far as we know, still lives in Iraq.”

“…I think it’s pretty clear that we have him (Saddam)dead to rights on trying to assassinate former President Bush in the spring of 1993. ”

“…President Clinton believed that. That’s why he launched the 24 cruise missiles at the empty building in the middle of the night in the summer of 1993, after Saddam tried to assassinate former President Bush and the bomb didn’t go off. The CIA looked into the forensics of the bomb and told President Clinton that it was an Iraqi government bomb. He then asked the FBI to double-check and sent an FBI forensics team over; they did the same thing. We both said, “Yes, this is an Iraqi government plot.” That was the occasion for the launching of the cruise missiles against the empty [Iraqi security service] building in the middle of the night.”

Clearly many mistakes have been made. However, this is common place. Given that backdrop, it is incredible that there has been such a concerted effort by many to discredit the administration and impune their motives. What is of little dispute is the demonstrable linkage between some of the earliest critics of the war and their motives. The Oil For Food program which demonstrably benefited some of the most vocal foreign critics, Total Oil’s contract and French intransigence etc…

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/woolsey.html

moxie_neanderthal on March 14, 2008 at 10:00 AM

Did the Soviet Union ever have “operational ties” the Sandinistas? What about the Vietcong? How about the PLO?

gabriel sutherland on March 14, 2008 at 9:43 AM

Naah, actually they all just happened to have an affinity for AK-47s, RPG-7s, and T-55s, because they’re just well-designed pieces of equipment (well, actually the AK-47 & RPG-7s were…); that, and the lines of the AK-47 went so well with what they wore….

BTW Did you notice Saddam, being so well supplied with American war-equipment (as moonbats so like to “factually” point out), apparently used none of it! Ask any US Military Personnel, ’cause seein’ is believing!

dmh0667 on March 14, 2008 at 10:13 AM

I hear your straw excuse for the Iraq screw up, and I raise you connection Rumsfeld-Saddam, and K.Bacon-me.
You warmongering desperately clinging to any excuses guys are sooo pathetic…
sashal on March 14, 2008 at 7:20 AM

I would be more outraged if you used a language recognizable by anyone on earth.
MannyT-vA on March 14, 2008 at 9:21 AM

He’s speaking “Moonbatese.” It’s basically a haphazard collection of anti-capitalist catch-phrases and conspiratorial pop kitsches. It contains no non-recursive definitions, and its syntax is entirely random.

Moonbatese is ridiculously easy to recognize; it’s just impossible to UNDERSTAND – even (or perhaps especially) for those people who speak it as their sole language.

logis on March 14, 2008 at 10:14 AM

if anything this needs to be pushed down the throats of the “ron paul wing” of the party. They are the one’s that have been really brainwashed by the Soros funded infiltration…using this issue as the big wedge.

jp on March 14, 2008 at 10:15 AM

BTW Did you notice Saddam, being so well supplied with American war-equipment (as moonbats so like to “factually” point out), apparently used none of it! Ask any US Military Personnel, ’cause seein’ is believing!
dmh0667 on March 14, 2008 at 10:13 AM

Oh, great, another victim of the Haliburton hypno-beam. So I suppose all of Saddam’s M1 tanks looked exactly like T-72′s to you, huh?

logis on March 14, 2008 at 10:17 AM

You will never convince the people who refuse to be convinced. The facts speak for themselves. Thank you President Bush for striking out against Jihad in “two” countries, and let the rest of the world whine. If the only result was that the crazies didn’t hit us at home, it was worth it. It also showed the world that even with the level of AQ supporters we have in this country (including the Dems), we will hit back and stay until the job is done. A volunteer military and the folks to support those heroes to boot.

Hening on March 14, 2008 at 10:20 AM

logis on March 14, 2008 at 10:14 AM

Thanks for the info, Logis. I thought I had just suffered a mild stroke or something :)

OldEnglish on March 14, 2008 at 10:22 AM

Why is it that the blogoshere is so much better at defending the arguments for war with Iraq than the government? It sure ain’t from lack of funds.

No one, and I mean no one, outside of the small world of conservative blogs in the US will ever even see this information. And so it goes, the same old ‘rogue nation’ nonsense will be endlessly propagated and used to blame the US for everything from Iraq to Cuba to the price of oil to … well, just about everything.

It’s so annoying, dammit.

syg6 on March 14, 2008 at 10:31 AM

I’ve only briefly looked through this report so far and this thing is AWSOME. In all seriousness, except for the part where the report says “no smoking gun,” this thing IS A SMOKING GUN!

One nice tidbit, from the report. Here’s a list of weapons and explosives stored in IRAQI EMBASSIES around the world:

Romania – Missile launcher and missile
Athens [Greece] – Explosive charges
Vienna [Austria] – Explosive charges, rifles with silencers, hand grenades,
and Kalashnikov rifles
Pakistan – Explosive materials ofTNT
India – Plastic explosive charges and booby-trapped suitcases
Thailand – Plastic explosive charges and booby-trapped suitcases
Prague [Czech] – Missile launcher and missile
Turkey – Missile launcher, missile, and pistols with silencers
Sana’a [Yemen] – Missile launcher, missile, plastic explosives and explosive
charges
Baku [Azerbaijan] – American missile launcher, plastic explosives and
booby-trapped suitcases
Beirut [Lebanon] – American missile launcher, plastic explosives and
booby-trapped suitcases
Gulf nations – Explosive material outside the embassies

BohicaTwentyTwo on March 14, 2008 at 10:36 AM

Another example of the “drive-by media”.

TooTall on March 14, 2008 at 10:50 AM

I’m sure all the MSM outlets are preparing their corrections……… yeah, that’ll be a cold day in hell when that happens. For too long those who are against the war have stated that there were NO terror ties with Iraq and AQ and no amount of evidence proving otherwise is going to sway them…. ever.

Still, it seems someone at the Pentagon and/or the Bush Admin. dropped the ball on this too. So much evidence that vindicates them yet it’s seemingly suppressed willingly by them. WTF?

Thanks HA for bringing this to our attention…. again. I’m sure all this and more will need to be brought to light in the future.

Yakko77 on March 14, 2008 at 10:51 AM

One last nuggest of info from the report. This goes out to all of those people who say that Iraq was never attacked the US. Guess who else was in Somalia besides Osama?

In the first, from January 1993, and coinciding with the start of the US humanitarian intervention in Somalia, the Presidential Secretary informed the council member of Saddam’s decision to “form a group tostart hunting Americans present on Arab soil; especially Somalia.”

In the second memorandum, Saddam orders the IIS Director to revise a plan the IIS director had previously forwarded to include setting up operations inside Somalia.44 The overlap between bin Laden’s and Saddam’s interests in Somalia provides a tactical example of the parallel between Iraq and radical Islam: at the same time Saddam was ordering action in Somalia aimed at the American presence, Osama bin
Laden was doing the same thing.

BohicaTwentyTwo on March 14, 2008 at 10:57 AM

If a picture is worth a 1000 word.

How many words is this clip worth?

coffee260 on March 14, 2008 at 11:00 AM

Excellent post! If it weren’t for posts like this and talk radio, what would we know?

That’s why, after they shut down talk radio, they’ll be coming after the conservative blogosphere.

petefrt on March 14, 2008 at 11:01 AM

The real story has not been the lack of intel or data, rather why the Bush administration has not been more forceful in articulating their message and supplying the world with what we do know.

moxie_neanderthal on March 14, 2008 at 11:02 AM

The Iraqi support for AoM may not be an operational link, but it’s certainly a financial link that goes right to Osama bin Laden.

I beg to differ with the Pentagon’s conclusion. I argue a financial link is a form of an operational link, as stated by FBI testimony, provided by John S. Pistole, Deputy Director of the FBI.

This testimony was made to Congress in 2003, when he was Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division. Excerpts:

“Prior to the events of September 11, 2001 (9/11), the FBI had no mechanism to provide a comprehensive, centralized, focused and pro-active approach to terrorist financial matters. While the FBI examined financial records at the time of previous terrorist attacks, as part of the investigation into each of the attacks, the events of 9/11 identified a critical need for a more comprehensive, centralized approach to financial matters. The Terrorist Financing Operations Section (TFOS) of the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division was formed, after 9/11, in response to this critical need. The mission of the TFOS has since evolved into a broader strategy to identify, investigate, prosecute, disrupt and dismantle incrementally, all terrorist related financial and fund-raising activities.”

“The TFOS is both an operational and coordinating entity with pro-active and reactive responsibilities. As a coordinating entity, the TFOS is responsible for ensuring that a unified approach is pursued in investigating terrorist financing networks.”

“TFOS has provided operational support to FBI Field Divisions across the United States to enhance the intelligence/criminal investigations of individuals and groups, associated with or providing material support to, terrorist organizations and activities…TFOS has provided this operational support in the Al Qa’ida sleeper cell cases in Buffalo and Portland, as well as in the Richard Reid, John Walker Lindh, Jose Padilla, Al Haramain, PIJ, and Mohamed Almoayad cases, among many others.”

http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress03/pistole073103.htm

Miss_Anthrope on March 14, 2008 at 11:02 AM

And so it goes, the same old ‘rogue nation’ nonsense will be endlessly propagated and used to blame the US for everything from Iraq to Cuba to the price of oil to … well, just about everything.
syg6 on March 14, 2008 at 10:31 AM

I still remember the Sandanistas. The moonbats still accuse Ronald Reagan of personally mudering everyone who died in that civil war – on both sides. And now they blame Bush for everyone who has died in Iraq within the past five years – of ALL causes, from Al Qaeda terrorism to pancreatic cancer.

…But nary a complaint from the left about all of the very, very REAL genocides committed by the people we’re trying to stop.

logis on March 14, 2008 at 11:03 AM

How many words is this clip worth?

coffee260 on March 14, 2008 at 11:00 AM

Brilliant!

A must see clip!

moxie_neanderthal on March 14, 2008 at 11:06 AM

Where in the Constittution did it say we should bomb Sudanese aspirin factories

Was it ever proved that it was an “aspirin factory”? I think the narrative at the time was that it was a “baby aspirin factory”. Why was that believed at the time?

This was the one time when the Republicans bought into the Amanpour narrative because they could use it against Clinton. The fact of the matter was that Saddam sent chemists there to help bin Laden make VX nerve gas. They had the links in place ( Iraq, al Qaeda, A.Q. Khan network ) and the VX precursor was found in the soil around the factory. The narrative was that it was “dual-use” so we were told to believe that these terrorists were making “baby aspirin” instead of WMDs.

This shows the absurdity of the “dual use” policies that were put in place by the UN. Saddam could make as much WMD components as wanted just as long as he could claim that each component could conceivably be used for a different purpose. Then he can just bring all the components together and combine them to make WMD when he wanted.

Buddahpundit on March 14, 2008 at 11:24 AM

Did you retype that part or did it really say

United tates

?

Mazztek on March 14, 2008 at 11:33 AM

didnt see it so I will say it. Inform me if it has been already said.
Dr. Sheik ayman al-zawahiri is one of the founders of Egyptian Islamic jihad.

blatantblue on March 14, 2008 at 11:34 AM

Oh, great, another victim of the Haliburton hypno-beam. So I suppose all of Saddam’s M1 tanks looked exactly like T-72’s to you, huh?

logis on March 14, 2008 at 10:17 AM

Pix of pre-invasion Iraqui M-1s? Linkie? Eyewitness testimony?

We have a moonbat cleanup on Aisle 5; please bring bucket and Hazmat gear...that is all...

dmh0667 on March 14, 2008 at 11:50 AM

If a picture is worth a 1000 word.

How many words is this clip worth?

coffee260 on March 14, 2008 at 11:00 AM

I’ve seen that clip before from the Media Research Center. It’s amazing how the media knew and reported this several years before 9/11 took place and ever since we took out Hussein they claim the opposite. When I see how contradictory and hypocritical the media is when it comes to this, is it any wonder why more and more people stop listening to them?

Planet Boulder on March 14, 2008 at 11:55 AM

Umm COUGH COUGH

Saddam Hussein offered asylum

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers

.

William Amos on March 14, 2008 at 11:59 AM

They had the links in place ( Iraq, al Qaeda, A.Q. Khan network ) and the VX precursor was found in the soil around the factory.

Indeed. I am reading The Nuclear Jihadist which chronicles the rise of A.Q. Khan and his successful efforts to establish a black market for nuclear technology. There is clear evidence that AQ Khan was able and willing to sell technology to anyone (Iran, North Korea, Iraq et al). It is also clear that Iraq had an interest in acquiring nuclear technology and had the means to do so. Moreover, there is little dispute that Iraq laid the groundwork for acquiring a nuclear bomb. This is not in dispute, by any knowledgable person. The question is only a review of some of the evidence and the timeline.

It is worthwhile noting that Saddam’s compartmentalization of intelligence and secret programs was relatively successful in protecting his secrets. However, his efforts have been well sourced and documented in a wide variety of places.

I direct your attention to the much overlooked book,
The Bomb in My Garden: The Secrets of Saddam’s Nuclear Mastermind by Mahdi Obeidi.

http://www.amazon.com/Bomb-My-Garden-Secrets-Mastermind/dp/0471679658

moxie_neanderthal on March 14, 2008 at 12:01 PM

The mass media actually did report on the ties between Osama bin Laden/al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein back in 1998-1999. The only difference was that their King was we had a Democrat in office then and they had to justify Bill Clinton’s bombings of Iraq. Of course, all of those reports went down the memory hole once George W. Bush took office.

Michael in MI on March 14, 2008 at 12:16 PM

“The Weekly Standard has been pointing out these links for a few years now. The willful ignorance, spin, and lies of the MSM and democrats is beyond sickening. In another day and age it would have been traitorous. – Rod on March 14, 2008 at 9:49 AM”

I think today is the day and the time is now to call out the MSM who have been hiding the truth from the American peoaple and the world……… and held accountable!

Seven Percent Solution on March 14, 2008 at 12:26 PM

Wait!!! These folks were in Mesopotamia at the time…not Iraq!

Nothing to see here…move along.

- your friendly MSM (we are not liars)

landlines on March 14, 2008 at 12:32 PM

Do you think Obama is all over this thing like the Captain?

Do you think Obama will now admit that he was wrong?

I have read the, uh, Pentagon report on this, and I have, ah, come to the conclusion that the, uh, position I took about opposing the war is, uh, wrong.

Alternate Universe Barack Obama, March 14, 2008.

unclesmrgol on March 14, 2008 at 12:45 PM

If you want some of the best reporting on the ties between Saddam and al Qaeda, all one has had to do for the past few years is go to Flopping Aces. Scott Malensek has been doing an outstanding job showing the numerous ties and relationship between Saddam’s Iraq and Osama bin Laden/al Qaeda.

While most other bloggers who support the war effort gave up on defending the lies of the Left and just moved to the talking point of “well, no matter why we went in, we’re there now and we have to finish the job”, Scott Malensek was continuing on showing the reason why we took the war effort to Iraq was a just one.

Michael in MI on March 14, 2008 at 12:46 PM

That picture won’t do – I didn’t recognize Osama without Bert over his shoulder.

gash on March 14, 2008 at 1:27 PM

Why else has the light of truth been hid under the bureaucratic barrel?

MrLynn on March 14, 2008 at 8:41 AM

My thoughts exactly. And I wonder, what other information is “too politically sensitive,” to release?

Troy Rasmussen on March 14, 2008 at 9:21 AM

As some commenters have already said, the Pentagon and the White House deserve the blame the most. Since 9/11/01 they have failed in communication. In fact they are rotten at it. That the media are rotten/biased is a given. The poor, and often missing, communication and lack of usage of this most powerful facet of warfare is really pathetic.

Entelechy on March 14, 2008 at 1:32 PM

Entelechy on March 14, 2008 at 1:32 PM

quite true

they could have done such a better job of making the case.

blatantblue on March 14, 2008 at 2:08 PM

If no operational “smoking gun” could be found, the report still shows that Saddam Hussein had plenty of ties to all sorts of terrorist groups, including radical Islamist jihadis.

Who else in the Middle East would qualify under that criteria? Egypt? Syria? Saudi Royals?

Saddam was a bad guy but the $2 trillion spent on the invasion and occupation could have been spent in other ways. I’m sure there are plenty of good ideas, but one would be energy efficiency and alternative fuel programs. The $110/barrell price of oil has quadrupled the revenues flowing into the region since planning for the war began.

dedalus on March 14, 2008 at 2:49 PM

Saddam was a bad guy but the $2 trillion spent on the invasion and occupation could have been spent in other ways.

And now we have heard from the esteemed lawfirm of Woulda, Coulda, and Shoulda, sponsors of the Loose Change sequel, “Backseat Drivers are Us”. We now return to the year 2008 CE, already in progress.

dmh0667 on March 14, 2008 at 3:18 PM

dedalus on March 14, 2008 at 2:49 PM

I would only agree with one of those three choices. Guess which one? As for the other two, although not perfect, they have about as many Fatwas against them as we do.

BohicaTwentyTwo on March 14, 2008 at 3:37 PM

So, what does this have to do with ‘Kristen’? Lets get back to the real news…. (/sarc)

AverageJoe on March 14, 2008 at 4:14 PM

dmh0667 on March 14, 2008 at 3:18 PM

Mostly skeptical of rosie scenarios and Wolfowitz and Co. seemed that way in 2002. Once we were in and toppled Saddam it became important for us to stay committed until we can leave the country stable. It doesn’t mean that the invasion itself was a good idea. It certainly doesn’t mean that the architects of the invasion did their jobs well.

Are you in favor of learning from or repeating history?

dedalus on March 14, 2008 at 4:30 PM

dedalus on March 14, 2008 at 4:30 PM

And this blathering and your “learning from history” has what to do with disproving the topic of the thread? Only that you don’t wish to accept facts surfacing RIGHT NOW which dispense for why you don’t like Wolfowitz(?) and his peeps, apparently…

So which is it? You don’t wish to accept things that prove the invasion was a good idea, after all? You don’t like rosy scenarios that don’t turn out “happily ever after”? (If this is it, don’t ever get married!) Or is it you don’t like people with names like Wolfowitz, Perle, Rumsfeld, Cohen, Lieberman, etc. making policy in this country? Hmmmmm?

dmh0667 on March 14, 2008 at 5:21 PM

So which is it? You don’t wish to accept things that prove the invasion was a good idea, after all? You don’t like rosy scenarios that don’t turn out “happily ever after”? (If this is it, don’t ever get married!) Or is it you don’t like people with names like Wolfowitz, Perle, Rumsfeld, Cohen, Lieberman, etc. making policy in this country? Hmmmmm?

dmh0667 on March 14, 2008 at 5:21 PM

Most people consider history worth studying.

Addressing the thread topic, the additional information doesn’t change my opinion from 2002 or now that the invasion and occupation don’t pass the cost/benefit test.

I agreed with then Secretary of State Powell that the Pottery Barn principle applied. Here in 2008 we’ve clearly bought it and we need to make it work. It doesn’t mean it was a good purchase.

What is it about the names Rumsfeld and Lieberman that you are reaching for? Not sure whether your point is inaccurate or illogical.

dedalus on March 14, 2008 at 5:38 PM

Most people consider history worth studying.

Didn’t say whether I did or not, so you’ve made an pompous ASSumption of yourself, once again. Again, what does this have to do with where we are RIGHT NOW? In other words, you can’t bring yourself to RE-EVALUATE, because you clearly can’t handle what answer you just know will spit out. I feel for you….but your willingness to admit your problem (i.e. “additional information doesn’t change my opinion”) is the first step to the cure.

What is it about the names Rumsfeld and Lieberman that you are reaching for? Not sure whether your point is inaccurate or illogical.

Yeah, I guess your obvious negative feelings about people who have names like the ones I mentioned doesn’t strike you as neither inaccurate or illogical, do you? Otherwise, why was Wolfowitz’ name right on the tip of your tongue when condemning OIF?

Methinks you’ve flown too near the Sun, much like your ill-fated son. Have a nice swim!

dmh0667 on March 14, 2008 at 6:11 PM

Did the “too politically sensitive” bit apply to the Saudi Royals?
If so, what’s changed?

OldEnglish on March 14, 2008 at 6:18 PM

Oh, you mean THAT Army of Mohammad, nevermind.

Angry Dumbo on March 14, 2008 at 6:20 PM

dmh0667 on March 14, 2008 at 6:11 PM

My position on what we should do has changed more than your’s has. In 2002 I thought containment was the best strategy. After the capture of Saddam I saw that we had to stay and have been critical of those who have favored withdrawal.

What is the obvious connection between Don Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz based on their names? It seems important to you, but you haven’t advanced an argument.

dedalus on March 14, 2008 at 6:25 PM

My position on what we should do has changed more than your’s has.

Oooh, my position’s changed more than yours has! Nanny, nanny, boo, boo! I’m hurt…

Maybe my position hasn’t changed (you’re ASSuming, again, that it hasn’t, and that you’ve known what it has been, since 2003) because information (say, like, the topic at hand) has confirmed my “position”, rather than created a necessity to change it, as, obviously, it has with your incorrect position. As you’ve just admitted.

Exit question: Why did you mention Wolfowitz, as opposed to other, much better-known members of the Bush Administration? Just words?

dmh0667 on March 14, 2008 at 6:57 PM

Did the “too politically sensitive” bit apply to the Saudi Royals?
If so, what’s changed?

OldEnglish on March 14, 2008 at 6:18 PM

Oh, you mean THAT Army of Mohammad, nevermind.

Angry Dumbo on March 14, 2008 at 6:20 PM

It seems that I was remiss in not further expanding my last comment. What I was referring to was the enormous power wielded by this small group of individuals in areas such as ideological guidance and financial patronage, throughout the Islamic world.

OldEnglish on March 14, 2008 at 8:19 PM

Oooh, my position’s changed more than yours has! Nanny, nanny, boo, boo! I’m hurt…

My point was in response to your assertion at 6:11 PM that I was unable to bring myself to reevaluate.

Exit question: Why did you mention Wolfowitz, as opposed to other, much better-known members of the Bush Administration? Just words?

Wolfowitz was the policy architect most focused on the Iraq invasion and favored doing so with a small troop footprint. I brought his name up because of the disgreements he had with Anthony Zinni over the policy of containment, a policy which Wolfowitz famously criticized in a 1998 article in Foreign Affairs. Four days after 9/11 Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz met with the President with three options for military action–Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Iraq. It was Wolfowitz who made the strongest case for Iraq.

Wolfowitz was also providing senior level analysis while Rumsfeld failed to react properly to the insurgency. Wolfowitz said during one of the meetings with the military, where senior officers were requesting more forces be deployed into Iraq: “I don’t see why it would take more troops to occupy the country thant to take down the regime.”

I think McCain has been pretty good with Iraq. He supported the invasion, criticized the Pentagon, called for Rumsfeld to be fired, supported the surge, and given credit to Petraeus

dedalus on March 14, 2008 at 8:25 PM

On the Planet BDS, recorded history didn’t begin until January of 2001, when the evil Bush took office after being “appointed” by the Supreme Court. On their world, if Gore had prevailed, it would be irrelevant that he was “appointed” by 2 DIFFERENT Supreme Courts, as that would have been the result if SCOTUS had upheld the all-Democrat Florida Supreme Court’s blatant attempt to steal a national election for partisan political purposes.

Likewise, in their land of milk and honey (and other illegal substances), with three suns rising every morning, Bill Clinton’s Justice Department’s 1998 indictment of bin Laden, which specifically mentioned ties between OBL and Saddam, never existed. In fact, I’ve repetaedly posted the actual indictment text to many blogs, and the BDS’ers all deny that it’s “real” or even happened. Likewise when I give specific news reporting examples from the late 1990s from such non-right wing sources as the BBC, they stick their fingers in their ears and go “La-La-La, I can’t hear you!”

Let’s face it-the modern Left’s second-worst nightmare is that bin Laden and Saddam had some sort of relationship. And their worst nightmare is that Iraq could possibly had some sort of role in terrorist attacks AQ made against the US. They would rather be waterboarded and then fed into a Usay Hussein people shredder than admit such a possibilty. Because that would (1) destroy the Bill Clinton “legacy” and in turn enhance the legacy of Chimpy Bush.

The vast majority of these deniers are college kids, who are fed on a weekly and even daily basis such BS by their “professors” that there is no way Saddam would work with Ozzie. But they are blinded by their own hate to see reality. In their warped vision, al Qaeda existed in nearly every country on the planet except one-the one we invaded in 2003. HELLO?

Let’s remember what an ancient sage once said, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”.

Del Dolemonte on March 14, 2008 at 10:17 PM

I’ve been tooting this horn for five years at http://www.regimeofterror.com and to be honest the depth to which Saddam was involved in terrorism, detailed in this report, even surprises me.

I hope to see more reporting on this in the coming days and will do a post of my own with quotes from naysayers.

ikez78 on March 14, 2008 at 10:30 PM

I’ve only briefly looked through this report so far and this thing is AWSOME. In all seriousness, except for the part where the report says “no smoking gun,” this thing IS A SMOKING GUN!

One nice tidbit, from the report. Here’s a list of weapons and explosives stored in IRAQI EMBASSIES around the world:

Romania – Missile launcher and missile
Athens [Greece] – Explosive charges
Vienna [Austria] – Explosive charges, rifles with silencers, hand grenades,
and Kalashnikov rifles
Pakistan – Explosive materials ofTNT
India – Plastic explosive charges and booby-trapped suitcases
Thailand – Plastic explosive charges and booby-trapped suitcases
Prague [Czech] – Missile launcher and missile
Turkey – Missile launcher, missile, and pistols with silencers
Sana’a [Yemen] – Missile launcher, missile, plastic explosives and explosive
charges
Baku [Azerbaijan] – American missile launcher, plastic explosives and
booby-trapped suitcases
Beirut [Lebanon] – American missile launcher, plastic explosives and
booby-trapped suitcases
Gulf nations – Explosive material outside the embassies

BohicaTwentyTwo on March 14, 2008 at 10:36 AM

Great post. I hope to couple this stuff with some old posts I did about what was found in Saddam’s embassies that I wrote about at my site.

ikez78 on March 14, 2008 at 11:38 PM

Nice on paper, but that’s not even close to what happened. What happened was hard leftists as usual obstructed the Iraq war on grounds that “war is not the answer,” and that we ought to be like children and “visualize world peace.”

In other words, the left had no coherent argument against the war in Iraq. Just hatred of America and vacuous slogans, which is all they’ve ever had.

Actually, the Left did have some (semi)coherent arguments against the war, and I still remember them well;

1) Saddam is in a box, he’s got now friends internationally, and has no way to sell oil for anything other then humanitarian needs.

2) If we do go to war, Saddam will use his WMD on our soldiers or our allies.

3) If it looks like he is losing said war, Saddam will turn over his WMDs to his terrorists allies.

We don’t hear these anymore, of course, because #1 turned out to be false, and #2 and #3 directly contradict the current lefty talking point that everyone knew Saddam didn’t really have WMD…

18-1 on March 15, 2008 at 12:10 AM

Comment pages: 1 2