• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Pro-war evidence keeps piling up

Jungle

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
12
Points
430
Interesting article on some recent information, found here:
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Opinion/496263.html

Pro-war evidence keeps piling up

By PAUL SCHNEIDEREIT

FASCINATING.

Newly released audio-tapes of Saddam Hussein while in power, along with some of the thousands of Iraqi government documents seized in the invasion in 2003, now being declassified and translated, provide yet more reminders of the true nature and intentions of the former Baathist regime; at least, that is, for all those open to considering the evidence.

I say that not to provoke those in the anti-war movement, by the way, but merely to restate the obvious: Those diehards in the "Bush lied, people died" camp (otherwise known as the cult of the parrot) have been sadly oblivious, consciously or not, to all facts that tend to undermine those passionate, if misleading, chants. That’s highly unlikely to change.

According to media reports on the materials, the tapes and documents reveal Saddam and his officials openly gloating in the late ’90s about how easily they could mislead UN weapons inspectors; and as late as 2000, Saddam discussing ongoing plans for an Iraqi nuclear bomb. Meanwhile, other documents recount that Saddam’s regime held meetings with al-Qaida as early as 1995; the dictator later ordered his officials to form a "relationship" with Osama bin Laden; and Iraq provided financial aid to al-Qaida’s surrogate in the Philippines, Abu Sayyaf, in the summer of 2001. Yet another document, dated just before the war in March 2003, outlined an Iraqi plan to recruit suicide bombers for strikes against U.S. "interests."

Just a few weeks ago on, of all places, Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart show, former Iraqi general George Sada – who’s just released a book entitled Saddam’s Secrets – stated that the dictator moved materials for use in making weapons of mass destruction to Syria for safekeeping, months before the war. "Saddam wanted to rule that part of the world," Sada told Stewart. "He was always going to go for weapons, and of course he had weapons of mass destruction that he had managed to hide, and to mislead the United Nations countries."

This dovetails with what David Kay, the former UN weapons inspector and later director of the initial U.S. effort to find Iraq’s WMDs, speculated in his report; i.e., that some WMDs had been moved to Syria. Meanwhile, a Syrian journalist who defected in 2004 claimed that intelligence sources in his country had even told him the three underground locations where the WMD materials are now allegedly being stored.

The picture that emerges, for those paying attention and not otherwise welded to a conflicting agenda, is stark: a dangerous regime clearly bent on acquiring WMDs, having connections with, and an obvious interest in, terrorism, and exhibiting no compunction about misleading, or co-opting through graft of various forms, officials from the UN or countries – such as France or Russia – with extensive commercial ties with Iraq.

This much is certain: None of the aforementioned will do much to dissuade the anti-war (and thus pro-status quo, with all its implications) groups from continuing to churn out their populist misinformation. It’s sad that the same energy wouldn’t have gone into protesting Saddam’s genocidal attacks on his own people, the northern Kurds and southern Shiites, which killed hundreds of thousands. Or, for that matter, some of the many other atrocities committed, often while the UN and world preferred to look the other way, around the globe in the last decade or two.

But apparently the hypocrisy, as always, eludes them.

Speaking of the UN, the 2003 Iraq war, at its basest level, represents a complete – and, frankly, but the latest – failure of that so-called "protector" of international security. The first Gulf War ended only after Iraq promised, in a binding ceasefire agreement, to destroy all its WMD materials and, importantly, to allow for full UN inspections to be able to verify that result. Right.

What happened instead made a mockery of the UN and its most fundamental mandate. Iraq continually cheated on its obligations, provoking the Security Council to pass 16 different resolutions calling on Saddam to honour his ceasefire commitments. When he did not, there were no real consequences. In fact, under the urging of Secretary General Kofi Annan, the disastrous UN oil-for-food program was launched in the midst of this intransigence, enabling the Iraqi dictator to squirrel away billions undetected, for use on guns and palaces, while enriching friends of the regime, including, it turns out, many in the UN itself. Annan, of course, is a master of moral equivalence, even in the face of the most naked evil, as was amply underscored by his shocking inaction, despite desperate appeals by Canadian general Romeo Dallaire, during the Rwandan genocide. (Later investigations blamed Annan, and others, for not fully informing the Security Council about the reports he was receiving on the genocidal horror occurring in that central African nation. Annan, naturally, was later promoted to the UN’s top position.)

History, of course, frequently reveals popular opinion to be utterly, embarrassingly wrong about the issues of the day. As more and more information comes out about the Baathists and their ruthless leader, and with the hindsight of subsequent events, the U.S. invasion of Iraq will doubtlessly be seen for what it was: unfortunate, but necessary.

( pauls@herald.ca)
Now we don't need the usual anti-war Bush-haters piling on with the usual arguments...
I always found it strange that al-qaeda was apparently absent from Iraq, but immediately after the fall of the regime, they appeared as an organised entity, conducting a large-scale guerilla war.
 
I always found it strange that AL-qaeda was apparently absent from Iraq, but immediately after the fall of the regime, they appeared as an organised entity, conducting a large-scale guerrilla war.

The article makes perfect sense, as does your commentary. I think part of the problem is the "hoof-and-mouth" disease the Bush administration suffered from. They didn't help themselves, which left a large part of the supporters scratching their heads.
I hope we don't fall into the same trap in a parallel situation.

There can be no doubt that Iraq had or was processing WMD. The US has the receipts to prove it.
 
the 9/11 commision report also touches on the relationship between UBL AQ and the Iraqi dictatorship. They made very little head way having such a difference in fundamantal beliefs- but they did make an attempt to bond over a common enemy. But to little avail- admitted by the Commision as well. That being said- the invasion has been completed time to stop arguing over it and everyone to roll up their sleeves and build a new iraq!

as for weapons of mass destruction there is an interesting take on that contained in a canadian book called "Ignorant Armies", a book written on the iraq war before it began. Pretty leftist but it was worth the afternoon it took to read it.

Cheers!

Screw
 
I think there is tremendous strides being made in Iraq. But nobody is reporting on it. All the media are concentrating on the killing and violence, because that's what sells. Being able to safely walk around in a neighbourhood doesn't sell advertising, but blowing things and people up does, so that's what gets reported and focused on. Kinda like the dog biting it's own tail, just a vicious circle.
 
Far be it from me to bring up the usual arguments in response to an inflamatory article...

/rant on
As for the up to 2000.... alright... you know, let us, for a moment, assume that this is correct........

.......2000 is not march 2003....

We all remember exactly what Bush said in 2003 right? It wasn't that Saddam hussein was talking in his sleep about WMD, or was pondering them over his morning coffee, etc. etc.... he HAD them.

On that note, I wonder what the context of these "documents" and "tapes" are... is Saddam Hussein sitting there at the cabinet table going "ok, well we're going to reinitiate our chemical weapons programs.".... or was it more at home, watch'in the game.... "Hey, hey guys, guess what? You know what would be awesome.... some WMD... yea, you heard me....WMD... man... awesome... I dunno"

And wait a minute... now Syria :eek: has WMD too? I thought that was Iran?!?!? And isn't there some crazy guy near China with them too?!?!?!?! Why aren't we doing anything about that?!?!?!?! OMGWTFBBQ WHO ARE WE GOING TO BOMB THE WORLD IS COMING TO AN END!!!!!

(edit - due to the lack of a sarcasm smily, I feel it is necessary to point out that this section of said post was more intended to provide off-colour humour and express an underlying frustration rather than actually put forth coherent arguments to be debated... look down for that)

/rant off

*ahem* Sorry about that. Sometimes my leftist, hypocritical self just gets the better of me.

On a more serious note...

I don't suppose you'd be able to post the original documents, translated, that he referrs to there Jungle? Since this article only seems to quote two words from them.... hard to tell what's really going on... for example:

"paul sheidereit...killed hundreds of thousands...[and] held meetings with al-Qaida as early as 1995"

If these documents do state what is being reported, then they of course deserve to be analysed in their whole context. As of yet, however, I have not seen them presented in anything but a triple digested form.

This makes me very wary and suspicious that if they were in fact properly quoted in full context, things wouldn't seem quite as they are made to be here. I could of course be wrong, I would just like to see what this... writer... is referring to before passing judgement.

Screw is correct though, regardless of who screwed what up, we should be helping the Iraqi people.
 
Couch Commander is correct- without actual transcripts of these tapes and documents it does nothing for either side. Id like to read them in their entirety and conclude for myself the evidence. As should any person who wants to be objective about this.
 
This stuff does get published eventualy, but even having it published in a book or on line dosn't change much for some people. As an article about the upcoming movie "United 93" http://tks.nationalreview.com/archives/094131.asp points out:

I came across the reaction on Ain't It Cool News - a site where the commenters are raucous and foul-mouthed all the time, funny and insightful sometimes.

In the comments reacting to the trailer, plenty of folks get into predictable Iraq arguments, etc. But then I came across the comment from “tripp5” stating, “9/11 Commission says this scenario is bunk... The 9/11 Commission Report stated that there was absolutely no evidence of a passenger uprising or anyone breaking into the cockpit. The plane got shot down, pure and simple. But i doubt that'll be in the movie.”

Um... no. I have the Commission report on my bookshelf and just looked up what they said.

Evidently there are very different standards of proof depending on the messenger. I trust most people on this board actually do open the book and read it for themselves when it is finally available.
 
Why is there this obsession with finding evidence to support the war?  Can't we just invade a country without justifying it?  What's wrong with going to war over oil anyways?  I mean either you want to go to war or you don't.  There's good reasons supporting both the pro and anti war argument.
 
Guess said:
Why is there this obsession with finding evidence to support the war?  Can't we just invade a country without justifying it?  What's wrong with going to war over oil anyways?  I mean either you want to go to war or you don't.  There's good reasons supporting both the pro and anti war argument.

didnt Caeser say "you dont ask a soldier if you need a war".....or something like that.
 
More evidence (which will fall on deaf ears)

http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.p?ref=/mccarthy/mccarthy200604170640.asp

Iraq Is the War on Terror
As the administration stays curiously mum, the evidence that it was right mounts.

The Bush administration evidently believes revisiting the case for toppling Saddam Hussein is a political loser. That this conclusion — which, of course, has played in the media like a tacit admission of guilt — is a terrible miscalculation becomes clearer with each passing day. As journalists, scholars, and analysts pore over more of the intelligence haul seized when U.S. forces toppled the Iraqi regime, the case for removing an America-hating terror-monger responsible for the brutal torture and murder of — literally — tens of thousands of people looks better and better. Still, the administration maddeningly refuses to go on offense in its defense.

This is at least the second occasion of this politically suicidal default. Top administration officials also gratuitously handed their critics a cudgel when, for reasons still explicable only by panic, they retracted — and, indeed, apologized for — an entirely accurate assertion in the president's 2003 State of the Union Address.

As Michael Ledeen recounted here on NRO a few days ago, President Bush's claim that the Iraqi regime had sought uranium in Africa was not only true and, as the British parliamentary investigation later concluded, "well-founded"; it was probably an understatement. Christopher Hitchens observes — based on the Duelfer Report — that Iraq's efforts to acquire uranium from Niger stretch back a quarter century. Unless you are inclined to believe Saddam was interested in procuring goats in 1999 when he dispatched a high-ranking emissary to that cash-starved but uranium-rich African nation — a nation with which he had previously done uranium business — there can be little doubt that nuclear-weapons development was the impetus.

Now, onto suicidal default, chapter two. The president's poll numbers are plummeting, largely due to the success the opposition has had in portraying Iraq as a misadventure — a diversion from the "real" war on terror, disintegrating into a chaotic mess of dubious nation-building. Why? Because the administration put most of its eggs in a shaky WMD basket; failed to make and sustain the case — i.e., the abundantly supportable case — that Saddam was both a committed terrorist and terrorist-abettor; and has since allowed Iraq to be etched as the test-case for its Middle East democracy project rather than as a logical phase of the war on terror. Even today, if you ask most Americans, "What does Iraq have to do with the war on terror?" you'll get a blank stare — if not a curt "Nothing." Why should it be otherwise? That, effectively, has been the administration's own answer.

All the while, the evidence continues to mount that Saddam was a gathering threat against the United States — just as the president said he was. And the mounting has now been accelerated by the recent public availability of intelligence files — which the administration, for some reason, refused for years either to make available or to use in its own much needed defense.

Already, thanks to diligent work by the likes of Steve Hayes of The Weekly Standard (author of The Connection and numerous articles about Iraq and al Qaeda), Tom Joscelyn (find his website here), Ed Morrissey (of Captain's Quarters), and Edward Jay Epstein (find his website here) we have seen, among other things:

direct contacts between high-ranking Iraqi regime officials and both Osama bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri (bin Laden's top deputy);

an apparent payment of hundreds of thousands of dollars by Iraq to Zawahiri in 1998;

elaborate mentions of Iraq in bin Laden's infamous 1998 fatwa calling for the murder of all Americans, anywhere they could be found — the fatwa that presaged the bombing of the U.S. embassies five months later;

an Iraqi al Qaeda member held in Guantanamo Bay, charged with traveling to Pakistan with an Iraqi Intelligence official in August 1998 (the same month the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed) to study the possibility of bombing the American and British embassies there;

the attempt by Iraq to recruit jihadists in the late 1990s to bomb an American target, Radio Free Europe, in Prague;

the continued insistence to the 9/11 Commission by top Clinton officials (including President Clinton himself) that the retaliatory strike against the al Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Sudan following the embassy bombings was justified by intelligence indicating that the target was home to a joint chemical weapons venture of Iraq, al Qaeda and Sudan;

the Clinton administration so convinced of an asylum arrangement between Iraq and al Qaeda that its top counter-terrorism official, Richard Clarke, opined to National Security Adviser Sandy Berger in 1999 that bin Laden would "boogie to Baghdad" if things became too hot for him in Afghanistan (it wouldn't, after all, have been a first: Saddam was already harboring one of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers);

the still open allegation that Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in April 2001, during the plotting stages of the 9/11 attacks;

the still unexplained presence of an Iraqi intelligence operative, Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, at the initial January 2000 planning meetings in Kuala Lampur for the 9/11 attacks;

the recent revelation that Saddam's regime was, since at least 1994, conducting training for thousands of terrorists — training which, from 1998 forward, drew in thousands of jihadists from outside Iraq;

the recent revelation that Saddam's son Uday ordered preparations in 1999 for a wave of "special operations, assassinations, and bombings, for the centers and traitor symbols in London, Iran and the self-ruled areas [Kurdistan]"; and

the exercises in January 2003 — on the eve of the U.S. invasion — known as "the "Heroes' attack," which was designed to prepare regional terror units to fight exactly the kind of insurgency war that has been waged against coalition forces for the last three years.

Now, the intelligence haul has produced another notable disclosure — which is startling only if you continue to gulp the popular Kool-aid that depicts Iraq as nothing more than a disastrous Bush blunder. About a week ago, Morrissey (crediting Iraq scholar Laurie Mylroie) published a striking memorandum, apparently authored by an Iraqi air-force general in March 2001. The memo, excerpted below (italics are mine), sought volunteers for suicide missions against American targets:

    In the Name of God the Merciful The Compassionate
    Top Secret

    The Command of Ali Bin Abi Taleb Air Force Base

    No 3/6/104

    Date 11 March 2001

    To all the Units

    Subject: Volunteer for Suicide Mission

    The top secret letter 2205 of the Military Branch of Al Qadisya on 4/3/2001 announced by the top secret letter 246 from the Command of the military sector of Zi Kar on 8/3/2001 announced to us by the top secret letter 154 from the Command of Ali Military Division on 10/3/2001 we ask to provide that Division with the names of those who desire to volunteer for Suicide Mission to liberate Palestine and to strike American Interests and according what is shown below to please review and inform us.

    Air Brigadier General

    Abdel Magid Hammot Ali

    Commander of Ali Bin Abi Taleb Air Force Base

    Air Colonel

    Mohamad Majed Mohamadi.

Morrissey has now confirmed the translation through two experts, working independently. Assuming the document is authentic, it is a powerful confirmation of what was already palpable: The Iraqi dictator who attempted to murder a former U.S. president in 1993, who assiduously attacked the U.S. in his state-controlled media, who colluded with the terrorist network that attacked the U.S. throughout the 1990s, who defied sanctions and expelled weapons inspectors, who shot at U.S. planes in the no-fly zone throughout the 1990s, and who conducted frenetic terrorist training in preparation for a bloody, long-term insurgency against the U.S., was a threat to the United States.

The question lingers: Would an Iraqi air-force general in 2001 have had good reason to think he could get volunteers from within the Iraqi ranks for suicide missions?

There's good reason to think the answer to that question is "yes." As Tom Joscelyn points out to me, the new memorandum on which Morrissey has reported should be considered in conjunction with another piece of information that has attracted little media attention. This one comes from the December 2002 Report of the Joint Inquiry into the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 by the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.

One section of that Report (at pp. 209-13) studied what the U.S. intelligence community had, prior to 9/11, in the way of "Intelligence Information on Possible Terrorist Use of Airplanes as Weapons." Over a seven-year period, the joint inquiry found there were at least twelve such indications. Included among them was this one (p. 211):

    In February 1999, the Intelligence Community obtained information that Iraq had formed a suicide pilot unit that it planned to use against British and U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf. The CIA commented that this was highly unlikely and probably disinformation.

The purpose here is not to take yet another shot at the intelligence community. As the joint inquiry observed, the sources for the twelve reports it outlined were believed to be dubious or to have provided sketchy information at best. The CIA did not have access to the files we are now, finally, scrutinizing.

Nevertheless, the new memo, coupled with the finding by the joint inquiry, does underscore that: (a) our intelligence in Iraq (and elsewhere) was very poor; (b) that intelligence was not sufficient for making categorical conclusions about Iraq's intentions (including the absurd claim, made by many in intelligence circles, that Saddam would never collaborate with jihadists); (c) it is wishful thinking to conclude, as do many Bush critics, that President Clinton intimidated Saddam into foreswearing attacks against the U.S. by a 1993 air strike against an empty Iraqi-government building (in "retaliation" for the attempt to murder the first President Bush); and (d) it is critical for the historical record and the legacy of American military operations in Iraq to continue translating and studying the intelligence trove we have seized.

Most important for present purposes: The evidence is there, as it has always been, to prove that removing Saddam Hussein's regime from power was a significant advance in the war on terror. But all the evidence in the world proves nothing unless the administration gets out and makes the case. Publicly. Those who have given their lives to a noble cause deserve nothing less.

— Andrew C. McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200604170640.asp
 
I am in serious doubt as to the authenticity of that 'memo'... AQ methodology does not include putting out 'want ads'.

 
Centurian1985 said:
I am in serious doubt as to the authenticity of that 'memo'... AQ methodology does not include putting out 'want ads'.
I agree AQ does not issue memos, but according to this:
... a striking memorandum, apparently authored by an Iraqi air-force general...
the memo was issued by a Military organisation. And from my experience, and yours certainly, memos are part of Military methodology.
 
Yes, but if you look back to the news at that time, the memo is easily explained:

(Note the word 'Palestinian' in this memo)

Sharon had just recently (28 Sep 2000) caused an uproar by 'violating' the sanctity of a mosque in Gaza or the West Bank (can check it on search if you want).  Later seen as a move to gain power by destabilizing the ongoing peace process with the Palestinians.    The various militia groups responded with a renewed campaign of suicide bombings (which contionues to this day).  Later in 2001, Saddam came out with his announcment that he supported Palestinian bombings, and would pledge x amount of dollars to the family of every suicide bomber. 

This memo appears related the this incident, not the 9/11 event. 
 
Back
Top