Iraqi government documents could also have been easily used by the Bush Administration to maintain support for the war and undermine accusations of purposeful deceit. The Iraqi Perspectives Project reviewed over 600,000 documents and concluded that while there was no operational collaboration between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, substantial links existed. They found that “Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al-Qaeda…or that generally shared al-Qaeda’s stated goals and objectives.”
The documents show that Iraq’s links to Osama Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri went back to the early 1990s. Iraqi intelligence met with a representative of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, al-Zawahiri’s group, on December 14, 1990. The Iraqi document reads, “We agreed on a plan to move against the Egyptian regime by doing martyr operations on conditions that we should secure the finance, training and equipment.” In 1993, Osama Bin Laden was listed as a “collaborator” in an Iraqi file, which added that “he is in good relationship with our section in Syria.” Other documents from 1993 show that Iraq was contacting jihadists to help “hunt the Americans who are on Arabian land, especially in Somalia, by using Arabian elements, or Asian (Muslims) or friends.” The memo says that the Iraqis were reaching out to Arab forces who previously fought in Afghanistan but relocated to Sudan, Somalia and Egypt, a description that perfectly fits the forces that later formed Al-Qaeda.
One document details a meeting between Iraqi intelligence and Osama Bin Laden in 1995, where Bin Laden asked the Iraqis to broadcast the sermons of an extremist cleric. He also requested joint operations against foreign military forces in Saudi Arabia. Apparently, the Iraqis actively entertained this idea. The Iraqi Perspectives Project found a government manual from 2001 talking about how to overthrow the Saudi Royal Family involving the use of “martyrs.” A Kurdish newspaper published a 2002 document mentioning preparations for a meeting with Ayman al-Zawahiri in relation to a Saddam-approved “revenge operation” against the Saudis. One Al-Qaeda document confirms that some members of the terrorist group had gone to Iraq and that Ayman al-Zawahiri had visited both Iraq and Iran.
One document from 1999 talks about Iraqi intelligence operations to carry out assassinations and bombings in Kurdistan, Iran and the United Kingdom against Iraqi dissidents. Another one refers to plans being made to train Arab fedayeen in 2000. A top-secret letter dated March 11, 2001 asks for “the names of those who desire to volunteer for suicide missions to liberate Palestine and to strike American interests.” In another top-secret letter from 2003, regime officials talk about training Arab jihadists in how to carry out suicide bombings using cars, motorcycles and even camels. Other documents discuss plans to import 500 fighters from the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command through Syria, including suicide bombers. Saddam Hussein ordered the Arab fighters to be treated on par with the Iraqi special forces.
Former Justice Department prosecutor John Loftus has been a leading voice seeking to clarify the truth about the threat Saddam Hussein posed despite being a registered Democrat who did not vote for Bush either election. He says that one-quarter of Iraq’s WMD was destroyed by the U.N., one-quarter was sold to other countries, one-quarter went to Syria before the war, and one-quarter of the residual capabilities remained in Iraq but was mostly destroyed, looted or sent out of the country after the invasion.
Loftus also agrees that putting forth the significant evidence of Saddam’s WMD capabilities and ties to terrorism could have shifted public opinion.
“The Bush Administration didn’t make a competent argument to defend its position because they weren’t competent enough to assess the intelligence,” Loftus told FrontPage.
When anti-war critics and politicians seeking to question the President’s integrity took aim at the case for removing Saddam from power, the White House had all the evidence it needed to prove that the Iraqi regime had the means to bring about the most feared disasters. Saddam Hussein had acted aggressively with WMD in the past, and he and his sons were the only leaders to publicly praise the attacks of 9/11, demonstrating an unmistakable sympathy with those seeking to harm the United States in the worst ways. We now know Iraq was also actively planning actions to provoke Israel into a regional war, smuggle biological weapons into the West, and overthrow the Saudi Royal Family by allying with terrorists—three of the most horrid scenarios that policymakers strive every day to prevent.
Karl Rove’s admitted mistake in not exposing the hypocrisy and political opportunism of the war’s top critics is an important part of the public relations failure surrounding the war, but it isn’t all of it. Had the evidence outlined in this article been used, which is only a portion of the entire sum, history would tell a different story about the legitimacy of Operation Iraqi Freedom and U.S. credibility wouldn’t have been in tatters in the aftermath of the failure to discover WMD stockpiles. In a post-9/11 world, the threat that Saddam Hussein posed could not be tolerated—and the world should know why.
"In a post-9/11 world, the threat that Saddam Hussein posed could not be tolerated—and the world should know why."
Then how could an Iran with nuclear weapons be tolerated in a post 9/11 world?
The answer is it can’t! Iran must be stopped at all cost, and the USA and not Israel must lead the charge. If Saddam represented a threat that couldn’t be tolerated, then Iran represents a far greater threat than Saddam ever could. I just hope that we don’t make the same stupid mistake that Bush did and occupy another Muslim country to pursue another fantasy based nation-building mission with no hope of success.
Furthermore, because the global jihad is permanent in nature, the regimes that finance and fund it, primarily the House of Saud and the Emirs of the Gulf States, must also eventually be obliterated and their oil wealth confiscated. They must be made to forfeit their oil wealth for the crime of prosecuting a permanent jihad against the non-Muslim world. Otherwise the global jihad being prosecuted against us, which takes place through stealth non-violent means and also violent means, will be permanent and never ending.
I totally agree with all your comment, but look at who is leading this nation right now. The "IDIOTS" have this so-called Commander-in-Chief hiding under his desk in the Oval Office. Are we or are we not such lucky people. To have such leaders as this.
You wrote: "The answer is it can’t! Iran must be stopped at all cost, and the USA and not Israel must lead the charge."
Bush did everything in his power to dissuade Israel from attacking Iran's nuclear sites. Now Obama is following suite. Do you really believe the USA will lead the charge? Bush lied about Israel and Islam. Conservatives gave Bush an absolute pass. Now we have a Muslim-born president with deep sympathies for the world of Islam. Is it any wonder? What did you and others in the conservative movement write or say when Bush lied about our enemies, not to mention our friends and allies?
Not all conservatives. Maybe most RINO Republicans! With respect to this conservative, I consider Bush one of the worse presidents of all time. I mean Islam is a religion of peace? I mean lets occupy two Muslim countries to lift them up out of poverty when poverty doesn’t have anything to do with terrorism since terrorism is a product of Islamic supremacism. I mean Bush and his Secretary of State, Condi “Appeaser” Rice, couldn’t be more inept when it comes to Israel and the Middle East. I mean let’s not fire those responsible for the greatest intelligence failure in history and instead appoint a commission, call it the 9/11 commission, and then stack it with Leftists and RINO big government liberals exactly like Bush, so we will have an excuse to double the size of the federal government and at the same time not make the country any safer.
I agree that the oil rich arab countries should be neutered. They use their wealth for nothing more than the global jihad. They do nothing to help their own people while they live in luxury. They use their wealth to influence our government, and media which takes away knowledge ot the truth and our ability to do anything with it.
That oil money is obviously so temping that it causes our government to turn a blind eye to what is happening in Isreal. It makes our leaders believe the lie that terrorist good, victims bad.
I believe it will stop soon because the American people are not stupid. They may have been duped to vote in this current bunch, but they are not stupid enough not to realize what is happening.
Saudi Arabia influences the Western media through Fox News, which is 20% owned by Saudi royalty. So does that change how you view the news from Fox? Can the news from Fox be trusted?
Karl Rove's biggest mistake was in not managing the political fallout after Hurricane Katrina. The Democrats were licking their wounds after the 2004 elections and looking for a way to come back. A natural disaster presented the perfect opportunity to pounce on the Bush Adminstration. In a coordinated attack that included the media, the Bush Adminstration and all their advisors were caught off guard and made to appear like a deer in the headlights. Bush and the Republican congress were mortally wounded. Bush was rendered impotent as a president from that point onward, and the elections of 2006 and 2008 destroyed the Republican congress.
Bush's response to Hurricane Katrina wasn't bad, but the mismanagement of the political fallout from it was.
What seems to have passed with little notice is that it is inconceivable that Saddam would not have reactivated his WMD capability in plausible response Iran's nuclear programme. Even in 2003, he must have had some knowedge of it and apart from the assumption that Iran would want to develop nuclear weapons for at least regional and sectarian advantage.
bush did lie, and that is his legacy… there were no WMD's and Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Funny how easily you conservatives flip flop. Saddam was a darling of the Reagan administration.
If you are such a liberal, why are you posting in this magazine?
He's ignorant or dishonest enough to overlook the Reagan Administration hoped they would both lose, and that saddam was armed with soviet, not US equipment. That should tell you why. I think we call them trolls.
Well, for what it's worth there is an article in the Washington Post about a former head of Britain's domestic spy agency MI5 Eliza Manningham-Bullerthat. She contradicts what Mr. Mauro asserts. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti…
The MI5 director states that there was no connection between 9/11 and Al Quida in Iraq prior to the invasion by Bush. In fact she states,
" Arguably we gave Osama bin Laden his Iraqi jihad, so that he was able to move into Iraq in a way that he was not before,"
So someone is fabrication the truth in revisionist fashion. I have no idea who that might be and for what reason. Maybe someone is trying to lay the groundwork for another costly no win military conflict? In Iran perhaps?
Saddam was courted by Reagan administration officials, at least for a time. We conservatives must be honest. George Herbert Walker Bush (George W's father) courted Saddam as did former Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. Reagan administration oscillated between helping Iraq and then Iran and then Iraq, etc. Reagan sold the Iranians arms in exchange for hostages even after Reagan assured the American people he would not deal with terrorists. Remember is was Ronald Reagan who ordered Jeanne Kirkpatrick to condemn Israel in the United Nations for taking out Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor; a thing for which G. W. Bush was thankful in 2003.
VP George H. W. Bush, "Cap" Weinberger, James Baker and others were all for punishing Israel. Only Al Haig said Israel did the US a huge favor. Nonetheless, Reagan condemned Israel in the United Nations.
It was Reagan who became hysterical when Israel invaded Lebanon in order to root out the PLO gangsters — Operation Peace for the Galilee. Reagan pressured Begin to withdraw from Beirut where the PLO was surrounded. Reagan permitted arch-terrorist Yasser Arafat and his PLO thugs to leave Beirut with their side arms. We lost 241 Marines to a Hezbollah / Iranian suicide bombing due to Reagan's folly – Reagan cut and ran from Lebanon, something bin Laden and other jihadists noted. Reagan helped the PLO out of Lebanon to Tunis. Be honest Rifleman. Don't try to defend wrongdoing.
We gave saddam intel (courted is the wrong word) to keep the mad mullahs who were and are the bigger threat, from overrunning him. We were courting Syria however, in the misguided hope they would make peace like Jordan and Egypt, and though just, Israel's invasion of Lebanon complicated that. Assad's reaction when we went in to Lebanon ultimately showed it was folly in the first place.
Reagan's primary objective was to defeat the greatest threat, the warsaw pact. He subordinated all else to that, and like the commies, considered the islamists the lesser threat, to be used against the greater. I didn't and don't agree with him on that, but I can understand it, and he did succeed in his objective though nobody, including most of his own cabinet, believed he could.
Reagan pulled out of Lebanon after Tip O'Neal informed him he had the votes and would eliminate funding for the operation. I disagreed with that as well, because I considered putting the dp on record for the cut and run more important than shepherding the prestige of the Office of the Presidency.
Do you have reading comprehension issues?
Doesn't want/need to hear the truth. It interferes with the Democrat template.
you people need to remember you history:
"Starting in 1982 the United States made its backing of Iraq more pronounced, normalizing relations with the government, supplying it with economic aid, counter-insurgency training, operational intelligence on the battlefield, and weapons.
President Ronald Reagan initiated a strategic opening to Iraq, signing National Security Decision Directive 4-82 and selecting Donald Rumsfeld as his emissary to Hussein, whom he visited in December 1983 and March 1984.[14] According to U.S. ambassador Peter W. Galbraith, far from winning the conflict, "the Reagan administration was afraid Iraq might actually lose."[15]
In 1982, Iraq was removed from a list of State Sponsors of Terrorism to ease the transfer of dual-use technology to that country. According to investigative journalist Alan Friedman, Secretary of State Alexander Haig was "upset at the fact that the decision had been made at the White House, even though the State Department was responsible for the list."[3] "I was not consulted," Haig is said to have complained.
Howard Teicher served on the National Security Council as director of Political-Military Affairs. He accompanied Rumsfeld to Baghdad in 1983.[16] According to his 1995 affidavit and separate interviews with former Reagan and Bush administration officials, the Central Intelligence Agency secretly directed armaments and hi-tech components to Iraq through false fronts and friendly third parties such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Kuwait, and they quietly encouraged rogue arms dealers and other private military companies to do the same:
[T]he United States actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing U.S. military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure that Iraq had the military weaponry required. The United States also provided strategic operational advice to the Iraqis to better use their assets in combat… The CIA, including both CIA Director Casey and Deputy Director Gates, knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to Iraq. My notes, memoranda and other documents in my NSC files show or tend to show that the CIA knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, munitions and vehicles to Iraq.[17]
Donald Rumsfeld meets Saddām on 19 December – 20 December 1983. Rumsfeld visited again on 24 March 1984, the day the UN reported that Iraq had used mustard gas and tabun nerve agent against Iranian troops. The NY Times reported from Baghdad on 29 March 1984, that "American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with Iraq and the U.S., and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been established in all but name."[14]
what makes you think I'm a "democrat"? Republicans and Democrats are pretty much the same party both are corrupt clowns.
Sending thousands of americans to die for a lie and just so U.S. corporations can control oil and gas pipelines is anti-american and unpatriotic.
You are not a Democrat, you can spell. However you are a either a Ron Pauly troll or a Chomskyite parrot.
Read the article, carefully. Now go back and compare what you wrote and what Mauro wrote. Mauro is the name of the guy who wrote the piece you are blasting without even having read it. Nothing in the article contradicts what you wrote and nothing you have written diminishes in any way the truth of what Mauro writes.
The fact that the US, in an effort to pit an enemy, Iraq, against another enemy-namely Iran, has no bearing on the subject of the article at hand. Are we going to blame Roosevelt and Churchill for the cold war simply because they helped the Soviet Union by supplying them weapons during WWII? No one knows apriori how geo-political strategies will turn out in the long run. The best you can ever do is neutralize the biggest threat at any given moment. Which was precisely the Reagan strategy. And for eight or nine years it worked. Iraq was too busy fighting with Iran to cause the rest of the Mideast problems. In addition Iran could not engage is supporting terror because it was also at war. Sounds like it was a good plan. And from the way the Iraq war played out with the capturing of Baghdad in less than 100 hours, no one can say we gave the weapons of any strategic consequence. Our European allies and other enemies did that for us.
You people just can seem to connect the dots- 220 Marines murdered by a homicide bomber in Lebanon, WTC I, USS Cole, Khobar Towers, 9/11. Is that so hard?
I know you won't read this article because it has not been approved by your Minister of Truth.
Besides "Bush lied, kids died" rhymes so it must true,huh?
I believe your explication above is essentially accurate as I understand it. When you say Republicans and Democrats are "pretty much the same party, both are corrupt clowns," I think this is treacherous dogma you are propagating in light of this alarming situation at hand.
I am as disappointed with the Republican party as the next conservative. Republicans and Democrats are not "pretty much the same party." Not in view of the terrible menace this nation faces.
If you cannot see this evil and dangerous man in the White House for the threat that poses to this nation, you have huge awareness and judgment problem. Mr. B. Hussein Obama is supported by Congressional Democrats, which makes them equally complicit in the evil he is doing to this nation. This coming November, Americans only have one recourse – until 2012 – to slow the hemorrhaging the nation is undergoing; that is vote for any Republican who will oppose this monster in the WH.
That you cannot appreciate nor perceive the danger this nation faces, leaves me wondering about your moral bearings.
A lie is told when you know the truth but say the lie anyway. Bush was proceeding on best information as were many other intelligence services and heads of state. Your tacit definition of a lie is childish. Hussein had WMDs before and would have developed them again. He was a state sponsor of terrorism. He had a rap sheet as long as your arm and it is a good thing he was deposed and hanged. For your information, we sided with Josef Stalin against Hitler, so this other childish belief is shown to be just that.
Haven't we learned not to trust those who are ALWAYS whooping it up for another war? Fortunately, the facts speak for themselves, and the facts clearly show that Iraq was an illegal, unnecessary war.
I used to pound my fist on my desk while shouting: "Why in the hell don't the Republicans defend themselves against the Liberal lies?" I almost agreed with the Liberal propaganda based on, what appeared to be , a tacit admission of guilt on the part of Bush et al because they were so silent on the Liberal charges. It was so frustrating.
I feel your pain, bro.
It's time "journalists" were called out for their assisted propaganda. It's time to get in the face of those who boldly assert things to try to shame thoughtful people into silence. Time to be on the OFFENSIVE for a change. The left has made DISSENT its weapon; it's time that they had a good steady dose of repudiation for being complicit slaves in the steady drivel we are being served. Olberman, Couric, Matthews and all the rest need to be served notice that we don't believe them anymore. They can babble into a microphone and find that no one is listening.
Years ago H.L. Mencken (I believe) labelled the GOP "the stupid party" and the Dim's "the crooked party" the motto of which was 'party before country; rule or ruin'. The Iraq "war" (actually nation-building) with the NYT publishing classified info; the non-stop canard about "Bush lied"; demogogoury about "war for oil"; generating falsehoods and wrongful imprisonment of U.S. troops for non-existent brutalities; endless sedition as in declaring the war "lost" (Reid) proves the point about the shameless CorruptoCrat's in their despicable lust for Power.
Fantastic, well said polipath.
Years ago,I took a taxi and talked with the driver. Seems he was from Iraq and he told me that it was well-known in the country that one of Saddam's son,Uday was a rapist and had done a lot of awful things in that country. I wonder how he felt about Saddam's overthrow or what happened to his two sons?
So, billions of dollars and thousands of American lives, not to mention the 10's of thousands wounded, to remove a couple of serial rapists? Why wasn't this cab driver back home where he belongs fighting to free his nation? Iraq was no danger to America and the sins of it's rulers were none of our business.
Bush's first big mistake was that he did not clean house of the Clintonite lawyers at DoJ, not clean house of the Clintonites in top positions at the CIA and NSA, and the Clintonites in high positions in the State Department. His second big mistake was trying to get along with Democrats who hated his guts and didn't respect him and never will.
Ryan you should read: A Matter of Principle: Humanitarian Arguments for War in Iraq.
So many arm chair thinkers working on worn fabric and broken springs.
The real lie was the notion that sanctions work.
I fought many a lonely fight on blogs years ago, quoting the reports that Ryan does. I really despaired of the Bushies incompetence, in defending themselves against mendacious political opponents, which pretty much included the mainstream media.
The jury decision on Scooter Libby was a disgrace to the US and its justice system, and proved nothing about the allegations that "Bush lied" . Armitage did the leak, not Libby; and whether Libby lied or was forgetful, it proved nothing about the allegations of Bush admin "conspiracies".
George W. was perennially hopeful that the truth would make its own fight. I hope his faith is vindicated some time before his death at a ripe old age. But it certainly looks like you can't rely on that dictum within your own Presidential term.
Phil,
I'm sorry I can't join you in the fight on the blogosphere, but know this.
I'm someone trying to keep my job… and I remember when the Iran Hostge Crisis happened. I really wish George W. Bush had put paid to both Iraq and Iran, but a nation has limited resources.
Even though most in my job are liberal, I still believe Bush was right in preventing Iraq from restarting their weapons program. There are times I wished he could have pulled a 'Ronald Reagan' on Iran and taken their nuclear facilities out with air strikes.
Even though I'm technologically literate, I still believe, like John Stuart Mill, that objective truth will win over error. I wish to thank you for defending the truth on the blogosphere… even though people like me must remain in the shadows.
PhilBest is right!
I dissagree with Karl Rove for this reason: The first and most important issue here is our ability to adapt to difficult political situations to able ourselve to take necessary military action without having to prove anything while still showing the rest of world that we use legal due process within our constitutional system — everyone knows opinions are diverse. One of the advantages the enemy has with terrorism is that we can't blame an attack on a specific country per say as it is difficult to pin them down. i.e Osama Bin Laden is still on the run.
It's better that we take what we want as we see fit. Karl just needs to let it go and stop bring attention to it.
Old Rebel and Sonne; your brains are GONNE! For any intelligent watcher of the ME it has ALWAYS been obvious that Iraq played a fundamental role as a Soviet ally in Soviet Union and then neo-Soviet Russia's strategy to push the United States out of the Middle East and establish herself as a leader of a global oil-gas cartel.
For that purpose, Iraq equipped with nuclear weapons was a perfect tool not only for exelling the US but also for blackmailling the entire region, Saudi Arabia included.
In a situation when Saddam Hussain's regime has been destroyed that role is being played now by Iran.
One doesn't have to be a political scientist to see that. You just have to be NOT BLIND!
Moderate; well America and her allies like Australia (hm… EUNUCHALIA no longer can be considered a reliable ally of the US) just has to stop playing by the rules in the now totally lawless world.
An example: If any Arabic or Islamic terrorist group targets a Russian, the Russkies will have no problem with sending the team of assassins and killing the entire extended families of a terrorrists. Hence, it doesn't calculate for them to target the neo-Soviets.
Appart from that, the the so called "world opinion" won't give a slightes damn about condemning the Rus.
Things are totally different with the US. If the American GI farts (accidently for that matter) directly into the terrorist's snout, the entire world bursts into an uncontrolable fury.
It is time to ignore that! Otherwise yoy are a TOAST. And so ist my own EUNUCHALIA.