Smoking in the Background - The Bush administration sits on some telling documents (Saddam's Iraq).

NRO ^ | December 21, 2005 | Deroy Murdock

[neverdem]

	E-mail Author Author Archive Send to a Friend Version

December 21, 2005,

4:25 p.m.

Smoking in the Background

The Bush administration sits on some telling documents.

President Bush’s recent speeches and media appearances defending the Iraq war are welcome and much-needed. They also seem to be paying dividends. Support for his handling of Iraq stood at 46 percent, up 10 points since November, in a December 15–18 ABC News/Washington Post poll. Nevertheless, Team Bush still fails to deploy readily available ammunition to combat those who demand America’s retreat from Iraq.

On two key fronts — Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction and his generous support for Islamofascist terrorists — the Bush administration maddeningly conceals evidence that justifies the president’s decision to topple Hussein. This information should be rolled out to counteract the destructive arguments of Democratic chief Howard Dean, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senator John Kerry, and other Bushophobes who relentlessly carpet-bomb American efforts in Iraq.

Stephen Hayes reveals the latest squandered opportunities in the December 19 Weekly Standard. Hayes — the pioneering author of The Connection: How al Qaeda’s Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America — reportshere, here, and here on the Pentagon papers. These mainly unclassified Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) materials implicate Hussein’s government in multifarious mischief. Much of it violated Article H, Clause 32 of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, which prohibited Baghdad from supporting or associating with terrorists. The Pentagon’s HARMONY database identifies these memos, photographs, videotapes, and other records via highly tantalizing summaries:

“Possible al Qaeda Terror Members in Iraq”

“Money Transfers from Iraq to Afghanistan”

“Improvised Explosive Devices Plan”

“Chemical Agent Purchase Orders (Dec. 2001)”

“Correspondence between various Iraq organizations giving instructions to hide chemicals and equipment”

“Title: Order from Saddam Hussein to present $25k to Palestinian Suicide Bombers’ Families

Short Description: Order from Saddam to give money to suicide bombers’ families, letters from al-Kilani Said Ahmed, a leader of the National Islamic Front in Afghanistan (and who used to receive payments from Saddam).

Agency: DIA

Document Date: Mar-02

Document #: ISGP-2003-00014647”

“Category: Al Qaida

Title: Letters, logbook, training manual from Al Qaida Chemical Plant regarding Chem Warfare

Short Description: Contains papers concerning Iraqi officials, prices of equipment, training plans, and actions by high level officers all concerning chemical warfare

Agency: DIA

Document Date: Feb-02

Document #: ICSQ-2003-00025586”

“Title: IIS Correspondence for the Iraq Embassy in the Philippines and Iraqi MFA [Ministry of Foreign Affairs].

Short Description: Various correspondence e.g. visa forms, trade delegations, full reports on the connections between Abu Sayaf and the Qadafi Charity Establishment. Report on a certain individual traveling to Pakistan and involvements with bin Laden.

Agency: DIA

Document Date: Mar-01

Document #: ISGP-2003-00014100”

“Does the correspondence between the Iraqi Embassy in Manila and the Iraqi Ministry of Foreign Affairs shed any new light on the $25 million ransom that Muammar Qaddafi paid Abu Sayyaf in the summer of 2000, ostensibly to secure the release of 25 Westerners held hostage by the Filipino al Qaeda affiliate?” Hayes wonders. “Who traveled to Pakistan? What was his involvement with bin Laden? Did he have anything to do with the Iraqi government?”

The following text might offer answers:

*“Title: Secret Meeting with Taliban Group member and Iraqi Government

Short Description: Mtg between al Qaida and Iraqi government and decision to operate

Agency: DIA

Document Date: Nov-00

Document #: ISGP-2003-00014127”

So, a record dated ten months before 9/11 indicates that Saddam Hussein’s employees clandestinely met Taliban and al Qaeda agents regarding a “decision to operate.” Meditate on that.

According to documents Hayes cites, the former director of Iraq’s Intelligence Directorate 4 met bin Laden on February 19, 1995. Baghdad considered bin Laden an “Iraqi intelligence asset” as far back as 1992, one communiqué reads. After bin Laden left Sudan for Afghanistan in May 1996, Hussein wanted “other channels through which to handle the relationship, in light of his [bin Laden’s] current location.” The Iraqi intelligence memo continued: “Cooperation between the two organizations should be allowed to develop freely through discussion and agreement.”

Naturally, the White House and Pentagon are busy defending Bush’s policies by translating and authenticating these and similar records and promoting them among congressional and journalistic supporters and detractors.

Wrong!

The Bush administration inexplicably suppresses such papers. They reject requests for unclassified files from Hayes, America’s most broadly published expert on Hussein’s terrorist credentials. Hayes, who generally supports the president on Iraq, is flummoxed: “The Bush administration seems remarkably uninterested in discovering, now that we have reams of material from Saddam’s regime, what the actual terror-related and WMD-related activities of that regime were.”

Incredibly, the Pentagon’s Doc-Ex, or document exploitation project, may close December 31. Its roughly 700 translators in Doha, Qatar have analyzed 50,000 items among some two million captured in Iraq. This public-diplomacy treasure trove could remain hidden from the public. Far worse, intelligence data on potential mass-murder conspiracies may stay unread until after a Baathist-inspired attack kills more Americans or our allies.

The White House should pump up the volume and showcase these papers. Even now, proof that Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and sponsored terrorist butchers, including Osama bin Laden, will demonstrate the necessity of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The alternative is to keep this vital evidence under wraps and hope that Howard Dean and the Congressional Defeat Caucus quietly disappear.

— Deroy Murdock is a New York-based syndicated columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service and a senior fellow with the Atlas Economic Research Foundation. His research on Baathist terrorist philanthropy is at www.HUSSEINandTERROR.com.

	http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200512211625.asp

[Names Ash Housewares]

I wonder, does anyone think that they will use Saddams connections to terrorism in the trial?

[Mr. Mojo]

On two key fronts — Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction and his generous support for Islamofascist terrorists — the Bush administration maddeningly conceals evidence that justifies the president’s decision to topple Hussein.

Why?

[processing please hold]

Odd. Why would he sit on it and not release it?

[Darkwolf377]

I think we're all wondering that. I can't think of a good reason. Bush has been struggling to defend his decision to go to Iraq, and it's long past time for it--fatally so. The myth that Bush lied to get us into Iraq is now part of history. Every history book from now on will begin talking about Iraq as a war that divided the country, that "to this day" is questioned as no war has been other than Vietnam (which isn't really questioned anymore).

Had he brought all this data out when it was discovered it would have brought HUGE dividends, politically and historically.

So I have my doubts that these documents are very damning at all.

[King Prout]

I assume "strategery" is involved in this nondisclosure

[lawnguy]

I wonder if they will release them during the trial.

I must admit there is a part of me that says all of his reasons were perfectly rational, and frankly the burden of proof is on the revisionists. Screw em' is a thought I have fairly frequently ;)

[Lurker]

Because some of those documents will show that the WMDs were moved into the Bekka Valley in Lebanon and Syria proper. If that information becomes widely known we'll have to open another front in the war.

So I think Bush is biding his time and waiting for the right moment to release it. Then we can smash those thugs in Damascus and clean out that rats nest in Lebanon.

The Lebanese people will love us for it.

L

[processing please hold]

Russia has muddied the waters concerning Syria. They have signed a pacy with them.

[processing please hold]

pacy = pact

[processing please hold]

Syria and Iran have also signed a pact. Now, russia has shipped Cruise missiles to Iran.

[Mr. Mojo]

You think Russia would attempt defend Syria if we invaded? Their army would have to go over the Caucasus and clean across Georgia and Turkey to even get there. ....and once they arrived they know they'd be slaughtered. Little to gain, everything to lose.

[Lancer_N3502A]

Me thinks all the real good stuff which more than justified the invasion is so top secret that we'll never hear about it or see it (EU, Russia, China, Syria, Iran, etc.

Which is how the Dims can dance all around the nail without actually hitting it. Of course there are those who slip in and out of the Mideast and tip our hand (Rockefeller/treason); and slither to the New York Slime (Polosi/Reid/treason) and undermine an effective counter-terrorism tool.

[rawcatslyentist]

>"Odd. Why would he sit on it and not release it?"

I believe it's the old Rove Ropadope Rug Yank. Be patient grasshopper.

ABC CBS NBC CNN its all the SAME, Propaganda.
Might as well call them all AmeriJazerra.
Show them how much Gravitas Hugh Bris has. Vote with your remote! Shut down the Alphabet channels.

He's Got A Plan
Zippo Hero

Kill A Commie For Mommie
Seven Dead Monkeys Page O Tunes

[oldbrowser]

Odd. Why would he sit on it and not release it?

Could they be saving ammunition for the 2006 election ?

[processing please hold]

You think Russia would attempt defend Syria if we invaded?

No. Not for a second. Syria isn't worth Moscow. But they give the world wide appearance of it. In this day and age, sometimes that's enough. They want a larger role on the world stage, and going against, even with just the appearance of it, will raise their stature in three quarters of the world.

[processing please hold]

Bush does seem to pull a rabbit out of his hat when need be. He has his reasons. I just wish he'd call me and tell me.

[processing please hold]

It has to be for that reason. There's no other reasonable explanation. He knows how important the elections coming up are.

Every time the media think they have Bush right where they want him, he slips through their fingers and leaves them with egg on their faces.

[rawcatslyentist]

It's getting to the level of Road Runner vs Coyote in the USA vs the Dims

[Lurker]

What Syria and Iran have is a suicide pact.

Sooner or later we're going to have to clean out those rats nests as well.

First the Syrians. I want Bashir Assads head on a pike..

L

[freema]

Ping.

[processing please hold]

It sure looks that way. That Karl Rove is a genius. :-)

[freema]

Bush not only isn't 'using' the information, he out and out said in one of his last speeches - something to the effect - 'we were wrong on WMD.'

[processing please hold]

If Iran goes nuclear, they will protect Syria.

[processing please hold]

You're right he did say that. Then what would be your guess of what he's sitting on?

[jonrick46]

You have affirmed my thinking and beat me making your same point in your post.

What I praise is the skill that the Bush Administration has kept information hidden about the true situation of Saddam's WMDs. Time will tell.

When Syria offers to take Iran's nuclear weapons, we see an interesting parallel. Iran may be the next to go--either by US action or Israeli.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

I suspect they know where they went and they are waiting, gathering intelligence, making connections, before moving in (probably to Syria). They don't want to tip their hand. Just a guess, though.

[numberonepal]

“decision to operate.”

This sends a cold sweat down my back and a shiver up my spine.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

I agree. See my post 27.

Releasing the information would mean having to move in to gain control of those WMDs, which means invading a country we haven't declared war on...yet.

The Dems are either too stupid or too treasonous to consider this possible and keep their mouths shut about it and let the President run the WOT. Nope. They just gotta shove their greedy faces on the TV and try to promote themselves.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

However, with the news that's been coming out of Australia regarding their troubles with the Lebanese, I don't think we're going to find an ally or even an appreciative face in that country when we take care of that corner.

[T. Buzzard Trueblood]

The Bush administration inexplicably suppresses such papers. They reject requests for unclassified files from Hayes, America’s most broadly published expert on Hussein’s terrorist credentials. Hayes, who generally supports the president on Iraq, is flummoxed: “The Bush administration seems remarkably uninterested in discovering, now that we have reams of material from Saddam’s regime, what the actual terror-related and WMD-related activities of that regime were.”

???????????

[processing please hold]

Saddam's Personal Involvement in WMD Planning www.iraq.net ^ | 10/09/04

Posted on 10/09/2004 1:20:26 PM CDT by TexKat

Here's saddam himself discussing WMD's.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1240158/posts

[processing please hold]

He had 'em.

I don't know what Bush means when he said he was wrong about the WMD's.

[freema]

WMD.

[processing please hold]

Huh?

[pawdoggie]

I think that there's probably a question of "provenance" (or the perception thereof) with at least some of these documents insofar as they were "discovered" and/or translated by friendly Iraqis. If the Administration were to suddenly flood the news media with documents which purported to show that nearly everything we believed about prewar Iraq was, to some extent, true, the MSM boys (and their Left-Wing Democrat friends) would say in unison, "well, isn't that just so convenient".

[piasa]

Because that which involved Iraq is intertwined with ongoing investigations into a global proliferation network whose reach we have not yet determined, and which may yet require some covert diplomatic and or military creativity on our part, which is likely to be more successful if done by surprise. By releasing info we have on Iraq we could inadvertantly tell others what we know about their activities, giving them time to prepare.

[Nasty McPhilthy]

To say that you know it....

indicates how you found out.

[Political Junkie Too]

Why?

To set a new tone in Washington?

-PJ

[truth_seeker]

"Could they be saving ammunition for the 2006 election ?"

That would be my take. He declares his policies were right and justified by (this declassified) evidence made public, and timed for the fall elections.

If events in Iraq continue favorably; government is successfully "stood up"; troop drawdowns continue, etc.

Bush declares success and ask voters to strengthen his ability to protect America, by electing Republicans. Republican candidates rn on strong defense "platform" (RNC talking points).

Contrasts nicely against wobbly and inconsistent democrats.

I see the long term WOT in a serial fashion: One country at a time, by whatever means is necessary.

If that means force is needed elsewhere, after Iraq, it is best to be winding down in Iraq first.

[cookcounty]

"I have my doubts that these documents are very damning at all. "

That's my take as well. Even though they've translated only 2%, you can be sure they were not translated randomly. They've pretty much got all that's there and while circumstantially an argument, a good argument, can be made, that is not good enough for the press. They would require a smoking A-bomb, or maybe two, in case the first was just a fluke.

[cookcounty]

" "Could they be saving ammunition for the 2006 election ?"

I doubt it. Then again, it's said Bush wasknown as the best poker player at Yale.

[Lancer_N3502A]

Because of who all's involved. France, Germany, Spain, Russia, China, Syria, Iran, North Korea, etc.

Imagine what would happen if we exposed France, Germany and Russia as having helped Iraq develop a whole new line of WMDs while Clinton stood by and did nothing. Alot of alliances would crumble. Not that I'd shed any tears on some, but we're gonna need the EU AND Russia in the coming war with China.

It would also reveal what we really know and how we know it. Could get alot of deep cover operatives killed.

Of special note is that more terrorist attacks occurred against the United States during the Clinton years than any other President in history. And Slick Willy did little or nothing about it, except take a payoffs from the UN.

[Pagey]

Read tomorrow BUMP!

[Once-Ler]

The Bush administration inexplicably suppresses such papers.

I think one reason the Bush Administration is not making the case for the Iraq war is there is not much advantage in do it at this time. The people who support the war today vastly out number those who do not. These reports are unlikely to sway liberals who believe all war is wrong and Bush's war doubly so. Moderates are not watching news and conservatives already support Dubya or oppose the war for reasons of a conspiracy of freemasons, communists, corporations, media, and all but a handful of politicians.

Taken to an extreme I'm not sure I would want irrefutable proof that WMD exist in Iraq, or the DNA remain of Bin Laden, if I was fighting this war. The vindication would be nice, but it would lead to an backhanded apology and a demand by the UN and our good allies France, Germany, Syria, and Saudi Arabia to get involved with reconstruction. Because of the unpopularity of the war outside of the US the terrorist have less access to the future of the Middle East.

I think these reports will be much more effective and convincing coming from the democratically elected government of Iraq. Maybe in about 10 months in an official report from Iraq intelligence a couple days before Saddam is executed.

[neverdem]

Crossing the Delaware, the Tigris, and the Euphrates - 1776 and 2003.

From time to time, I’ll ping on noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs. IMHO, it's been more interesting lately. FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.

[Lancer_N3502A]

I think the four of us are on the same frequency...scary isn't it? Maybe we should start a conspiracy website...hehe

I have little doubt that we not only know who helped Saddam redevelop his WMD program after Gulf War I; but that we trailed French, German and Russian agents around Iraq watching them destroy relevant information to that effect before we invaded in Gulf War II. IMHO, Rockefeller should be tried for treason for tipping our hand as to WHEN we were going to invade as opposed to IF we were going to invade.

There can't be any doubt that Turkey blocked the 4th ID from moving down from the north and running head on into those convoys that were heading into Syria. I mean for the Love of God, NSA/CIA/CENTCOM probably had a dozen Keyhole satellites over the Middle east and watched it live on television.

[Echo Talon]

If you talk to a liberal and site facts they just plug their ears and start screaming. They need someone they can trust i.e. katie couric or dan rather you know someone like that to tell them, otherwise they wont listen.

[Once-Ler]

I see the long term WOT in a serial fashion: One country at a time, by whatever means is necessary.

Even before Iraq has faded from memory, all eyes are on Iran. We will mix American bases on both sides and ships and subs to the south with the paranoia of Mahmood Ahmadinejad. If he screws up and gives us an excuse Iran will be liberated by force. I bet he does nothing but rant until internal pressures replace him for his inaction with a kookier martyr. One who is more likely to give us the excuse we need.

If that takes too long I'm sure an opportunity to advance the WOT has already been laid out. I might go with a strategy that has proved successful already. Just like Iraq Dubya might hint at it in the SOTU. He and his administration could begin making the charges against Iran. The old media, the UN, and the rats will shriek and declare Dubya a madman bent of global domination. The rats will demand Dubya consult them and the President will merely say he has the authority to act as Command in Chief. This will push the rats over the cliff. Stories will leak of troop movements and the military will verify without explanation.

At the hight of the rat and media hysteria, I would reveal irrefutable proof of WMD in Iraq if I had it. Preferably found by the Iraq military.

Then in a prime time address to Congress, the President would calmly lay out a convincing presentation for the next phase of the WOT. He will ask Congress for it's approval. The rats will be screwed again. If they capitulate they lose their base voters, and they lose moderate voters when they obstruct. However when they lose their base they also lose their donors so they will choose political suicide over financial suicide. Dubya will ask the American people to give him a Congress who will work with him.

This point might actually be a better time to reveal any secret proof of WMDs.

Once Dubya gets approval from Congress, he then talks to the UN and tells them he has all the authority he needs. He is going to defend America and there are only 2 things they can do.
1. nothing
2. like it

[SFC Chromey]

My guess, is to limit the US from ever protecting itself "arbitrarily" again. T

he UN will say, "Look at the mistakes you made with Iraq, how can we believe what the US is telling us?"

Bush meanwhile will play his games at correspondents dinners, even though we really DID find yellow cake in Iraq.
I know, I'm a complete conspiracy nut, but nothing else explains it cleanly.