Posted on 11/09/2005 8:11:51 AM PST by KJC1
Among the many distortions, misrepresentations, and outright falsifications that have emerged from the debate over Iraq, one in particular stands out above all others. This is the charge that George W. Bush misled us into an immoral and/or unnecessary war in Iraq by telling a series of lies that have now been definitively exposed.
What makes this charge so special is the amazing success it has enjoyed in getting itself established as a self-evident truth even though it has been refuted and discredited over and over again by evidence and argument alike. In this it resembles nothing so much as those animated cartoon characters who, after being flattened, blown up, or pushed over a cliff, always spring back to life with their bodies perfectly intact. Perhaps, like those cartoon characters, this allegation simply cannot be killed off, no matter what.
Nevertheless, I want to take one more shot at exposing it for the lie that it itself really is. Although doing so will require going over ground that I and many others have covered before, I hope that revisiting this well-trodden terrain may also serve to refresh memories that have grown dim, to clarify thoughts that have grown confused, and to revive outrage that has grown commensurately dulled.
(Excerpt) Read more at commentarymagazine.com ...
The battle is fought on the ground, at the water cooler, over coffee, at a gathering of friends.
We are armed well, now we need to stay focused, sure and confident, we the bearers of truth.
We shall prevail.
Neither example you have shown stated who he was an imminent threat to. Ask the Kurds about imminent threats, ask Kuwait about imminent threats. Unfortunately, you can't ask the 200,000 people found in mass graves about imminent threats.
That's another good point and I agree with you there.
It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger’s exports, the intelligence was credible.The Butler Report affirmed what the British government had said about the Niger uranium story back in 2003, and specifically endorsed what Bush said as well.
By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa” was well-founded.
From the Senate Committee:
The U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reported July 7, 2004 that the CIA had received reports from a foreign government (not named, but probably Britain) that Iraq had actually concluded a deal with Niger to supply 500 tons a year of partially processed uranium ore, or "yellowcake." That is potentially enough to produce 50 nuclear warheads.The Senate report said the CIA then asked a "former ambassador" to go to Niger and report. That is a reference to Joseph Wilson -- who later became a vocal critic of the President's 16 words. The Senate report said Wilson brought back denials of any Niger-Iraq uranium sale, and argued that such a sale wasn't likely to happen. But the Intelligence Committee report also reveals that Wilson brought back something else as well -- evidence that Iraq may well have wanted to buy uranium.
Wilson reported that he had met with Niger's former Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki, who said that in June 1999 he was asked to meet with a delegation from Iraq to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between the two countries.
Based on what Wilson told them, CIA analysts wrote an intelligence report saying former Prime Minister Mayki "interpreted 'expanding commercial relations' to mean that the (Iraqi) delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales." In fact, the Intelligence Committee report said that "for most analysts" Wilson's trip to Niger "lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal."
He (the intelligence officer) said he judged that the most important fact in the report was that the Nigerian officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerian Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting.
Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium.
As for the aluminum tubes, high strength aluminum is a nuclear dual-use item, which means it has both nuclear and non-nuclear uses. Iraq was banned from possessing aluminum tubing above a certain strength under Security Council resolutions, unless these items are imported through the UN, used for civilian or non-banned purposes, and were subject to monitoring by inspectors. So...if you figure that they had the capability to procure these items legally, but under supervision, and instead they decided to procure them illegaly, then the logical assumption, as made by the CIA (not the Bush Admin.) would be that they were intended for illicit operations.
"Did the Administration see the glass half empty, when others saw it half full?"
The issue was that they often took a maximalist position, basically. They didn't say "half full." They said "full" for PR purposes. Which, again, is what governments do.
"Neither example you have shown stated who he was an imminent threat to. Ask the Kurds about imminent threats, ask Kuwait about imminent threats. Unfortunately, you can't ask the 200,000 people found in mass graves about imminent threats."
Actually, in the Dan Bartlett and Ari Fleisher examples, it's pretty clear the imminent threat is to the U.S. In the Scott McClellan example, Scott makes it ambiguous. And of course, that's sort of the point. He wanted to give the impression that Saddam was an imminent threat to the U.S. but knew there would be fallout if he were too explicit about it. Like I said in previous posts, to intentionally give a skewed or false impression, even while telling a technical truth, is to tell a lie for all moral purposes. And of course, the administration very often used terms like "urgent" threat, which is essentially synonymous, and designed to give regular viewers the same impression.
My whole point from the beginning of this line of argument was that we should not dilute the standard of a lie just because it happens to be politically convenient for us at the moment. I never, ever, ever want to be so blinded by politics that I start splitting hairs in the way that's necessary to say the administration has been totally honest about the war.
What I'd rather say is that this is an imperfect world, where people often lie to achieve their objectives, Republican administrations included. For the moment, we can't make that go away. What matters most to us as citizens is that the general principle was right, and the moral course of action was to support the invasion, regardless of the little lies told along the way.
...the regime of Saddam Hussein harbored and provided tacit if not active support to a terrorist organization that attempted to kill hundreds if not thousands of innocent people last year. Such an action constitutes a clear example of an imminent threat to US if not global security and is in of itself a clear and rational if not moral justification for removing the Baathist regime from power.
Special Analysis: The Imminent Threat
So were they lying based on this assessment of the situation? I think not.
In in 1998, an Arab intelligence officer, who knows Saddam personally, predicted in Newsweek: "Very soon you will be witnessing large-scale terrorist activity run by the Iraqis." The Arab official said these terror operations would be run under "false flags" --spook-speak for front groups--including bin Laden's organization.
Then there were the predictions by an Iraqi with ties to Iraqi intelligence, Naeem Abd Mulhalhal, in Qusay's own newspaper several weeks before the attacks that stated bin Laden would “demolish the Pentagon after he destroys the White House and ”bin Laden would strike America “on the arm that is already hurting.” (referencing a second IRAQI sponsored attack on the World Trade Center). Another reference to New York was “[bin Laden] will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra everytime he hears his songs.” (e.g., “New York, New York”) which identified New York, New York as a target. Mulhalhal also stated, “The wings of a dove and the bullet are all but one and the same in the heart of a believer." which references an airplane attack.
The Arabic language daily newspaper Al-Quds Al-Arabic also cited the cooperation between Iraq, bin Laden and Al December 1998 editorial, which predicted that “President Saddam Hussein, whose country was subjected to a four day air strike, will look for support in taking revenge on the United States and Britain by cooperating with Saudi oppositionist Osama Bin-Laden, whom the United States considers to be the most wanted person in the world.” This info is in the link provided below. How could these people have had foreknowledge without Iraq being involved?
Warning...slow loading .pdf file. This was from a lawsuit filed against Iraq after 9/11...the court ruled against Iraq.
There was also another lawsuit filed by the family of John O’Neill (a former FBI agent who captured Ramzi Yousef after the 1993 WTC bombings) after he died in the WTC on 9/11. His personal files from his years of traveling around the world investigating al-Qaeda are were used as evidence in the lawsuit. The evidence includes documents unearthed in the headquarters of the Mukhabarat (Iraq's intelligence service) and information gleaned from the interrogation of both al-Qaeda and Iraqi prisoners. (Link below). It also quotes Vincent Cannistraro, the former CIA counter-terrorism chief, who stated in October 2000 that Iraq had been wanting to carry out terrorist attacks, and that the Iraqi military had been in contact with Osama bin Laden.
We know from these IIS documents that beginning in 1992 the former Iraqi regime regarded bin Laden as an Iraqi Intelligence asset. We know from IIS documents that the former Iraqi regime provided safe haven and financial support to an Iraqi who has admitted to mixing the chemicals for the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. We know from IIS documents that Saddam Hussein agreed to Osama bin Laden's request to broadcast anti-Saudi propaganda on Iraqi state-run television. We know from IIS documents that a "trusted confidante" of bin Laden stayed for more than two weeks at a posh Baghdad hotel as the guest of the Iraqi Intelligence Service.
Abu Nidal, September 11 and Saddam The terrorist network may be closer knit than we think.
Weekly Standard: The Mother of All Connections
List of newspaper article in the 90's which mention the world's concern regarding the growing relationship between OBL and Saddam:
Son of Saddam coordinates OBL activities:
The AQ connection (excellent):
Western Nightmare:
Saddam's link to OBL:
NYT: Iraq and AQ agree to cooperate:
Document linking them:
Iraq and terrorism - no doubt about it:
A federal judge rules there are links:
Wall Street Journal on Iraq and AQ:
Iraq and Iran contact OBL:
More evidence:
Saddam's AQ connection:
Further connections:
What a court of law said about the connections:
Some miscellaneous stuff on connections:
Saddam's Ambassador to Al Qaeda: (February 2004, Weekly Standard)
Yes - it's NewsMax but loaded with interesting bullet points.
Saddam's Fingerprints on NY Bombing (Wall Street Journal, June 1993)
Colin Powell: Iraq and AQ Partners for Years (CNN, February 2003)
The Iraq-Al Qaeda Connections (September 2003, Richard Miniter)
Oil for Food Scandal Ties Iraq and Al Qaeda (June 2003)
Saddam and OBL Make a Pact (The New Yorker, February 2003):
Al Qaeda's Poison Gas (Wall Street Journal, April 2004):
Wolfowitz Says Saddam behind 9/11 Attacks:
Saddam behind first WTC attack - PBS, Laurie Mylroie:
Growing Evidence of Saddam and Al Qaeda Link, The Weekly Standard, July 2003:
Qusay Hussein Coordinated Iraq special operations with Bin Laden Terrorist Activities, Yossef Bodansky, National Press Club
The Western Nightmare: Saddam and Bin Laden vs. the Rest of the World, The Guardian Unlimited:
Saddam Link to Bin Laden, Julian Borger, The Guardian, February 1999
The Al Qaeda Connection, The Weekly Standard, July 2003
Cheney lectures Russert on Iraq/911 Link, September 2003:
No Question About It, National Review, September 2003
Iraq: A Federal Judges Point of View
Mohammed's Account links Iraq to 9/11 and OKC:
Free Republic Thread that mentions some books Freepers might be interested in on this topic:
The Proof that Saddam Worked with AQ, The Telegraph, April 2003:
Saddam's AQ Connection, The Weekly Standard, September 2003
September 11 Victims Sue Iraq:
Osama's Best Friend: The Further Connections Between Al Qaeda and Saddam, The Weekly Standard, November 2003
Terrorist Behind 9/11 Attacks Trained by Saddam, The Telegraph, December 2003
James Woolsey Links Iraq and AQ, CNN Interview, March 2004, Also see Posts #34 and #35
A Geocities Interesting Web Site with maps and connections:
Bin Laden indicted in federal court, read down to find information that Bin Laden agreed to not attack Iraq and to work cooperatively with Iraq:
Case Closed, The Weekly Standard, November 03
CBS - Lawsuit: Iraq involved in 9/11:
Exploring Iraq's Involvement in pre-9/11 Acts, The Indianapolis Star:
The Iraq/AQ Connection: Richard Minister again
Militia Defector says Baghdad trained Al Qaeda fighters in chemical weapons, July 2002
The Clinton View of Iraq/AQ Ties, The Weekly Standard, December 2003
Saddam Controlled the Camps (Iraq/AQ Ties): The London Observer, November 01
Saddam's Terror Ties that Critics Ignore, National Review, October 2003:
Tape Shows General Wesley Clark linking Iraq and AQ:
The Missing Link (What the Senate Ingelligence Report Said about Iraq/AQ Connections) Click Here
Credit to Peach for the above info.
Credit to joesbucks for the following links:
Dozens of links here:
Just a few of those links include:
The Clinton Justice Department's indictment against OBL in federal court which mentions the terrorist's connections to Iraq. November 4, 1998. The federal indictment:
Iraq and AQ agree to cooperate. The federal indictment against OBL working in concert with Iraq and Iran is mentioned. November 1998. The New York Times
Saddam reaching out to OBL January 1, 1999. Newsweek
ABC news reports on the Osama/Saddam connections January 14, 1999. ABC News
Western Nightmare: Saddam and OBL versus the World. Iraq recruited OBL. February 6, 1999. The Guardian
Saddam's Link to OBL February 6, 1999. The Guardian
Saddam offered asylum to bin Laden February 13, 1999. AP
And kabar submitted these two little gems showing Bin Laden supported Iraq and its struggle against the US and the West.
1996 Fatwa: "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places."
A little reading comprehension goes a long way:
QUESTION: What about NATO's role? Belgium now says it will veto any attempt to provide help to Turkey to defend itself. Is this something the administration can live with, or is it a major obstacle?Taken in context, given the highlighted part, he does mean Turkey. Also, maybe you didn't notice when they redefined "imminent threat"...MR. McCLELLAN: Two points. We support the request under Article IV of Turkey. And I think it's important to note that the request from a country under Article IV that faces an imminent threat goes to the very core of the NATO alliance and its purpose.
QUESTION: What can you do about this veto threat?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, I think what's important to remind NATO members, remind the international community is that this type of request under Article IV goes to the core of the NATO alliance.
QUESTION: Is this some kind of ultimate test of the alliance?
MR. McCLELLAN: This is about an imminent threat.
For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack. Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threat—most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces preparing to attack.
We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today’s adversaries. Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means. They know such attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction—weapons that can be easily concealed, delivered covertly, and used without warning.
Who is lying about Iraq? The Democrats. It's been their MO since the Clinton Administration. Bill taught them well.
By that standard, we are facing an imminent threat from every government in the Middle East and should invade them all instantly. I think that sort of dilutes the meaning of "imminent."
Bookmarked for later reading. Good info to refute those who like to parrot the nightly MSM news.
This is possibly the longest post I've ever seen, and I'm not sure if I have time to dive into it at the depth it deserves. I also know that Condi's saying the aluminimum tubes "only" purpose was centrifuge was flat out wrong, and she never corrected that. She very assiduously avoided any mention of disagreement on those, of which there were many. And though there is evidence that the 16 words statement is true, the White House itself later admitted that there was not enough proof to justify putting it in the State of the Union, and just a couple months earlier, the same line had been removed from a speech in Cincinnati.
Look, what happened was the administration took all the evidence it could muster, put the worst spin on it possible and ignored the nuance, and then claimed that it never REALLY lied when it turned out the situation was a lot more complicated than previously disclosed.
If the White House was using a revised definition of "imminent threat," why did it go to such great pains later to (falsely) deny the fact that it had ever used the term?
Thank you for posting this. The idea that Bush fabricated the war (forcing, somehow, every intelligence agency in government to go along with it) is a damnable lie and slander. I am so sick of hearing it from every leftist that gets his or her head in front of a camera. Most of these leftists were wailing and moaning about Saddam Hussein's WMD program in years previous. The hypocrisy in this is just astonishing.
President Commemorates Veterans Day, Discusses War on Terror
Tobyhanna Army Depot
Tobyhanna, Pennsylvania
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/11/20051111-1.html
There were plenty of reasons for removing Saddam. The most important of which wa that his country was becoming an open haven for jihadist activity. The Ansar al Islam chemical weapons plant in northern Iraq was just one. Baghdad was full of terrorist safehouses for another, also Salmon Pak. Iraqi agents were involved in the first WTC bombing, the OKC bombing, and in 9-11 (a colonel in Saddam's fedayeen was present during the planning). These are facts. WMDs were just the icing on the cake.
I supported the war; not sure what you're responding to.
BUSH!!
Sunday Morning After Church Pot of Coffee Ping Out! Thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.