Mona ping!
Please FReepmail me if you would like to be added to, or removed from, the Mona Charen ping list...
Posted on 03/24/2006 10:03:18 AM PST by blitzgig
President Bush has made errors, as all humans do, but one thing he has not been guilty of is bad faith. The same cannot be said of his critics. One thinks of those liberals and Democrats who accused President Bush of "lying" about weapons of mass destruction and about ties between al Qaeda and Iraq particularly now, because last week, after an unaccountable delay of three years, the administration declassified and released thousands of documents captured from Saddam's regime. They offer more proof of what we've already learned from other sources: that Hussein was in collusion with al Qaeda; that he did instruct his people on hiding evidence of WMDs; and that he did support worldwide terror.
Before turning to the documents though it is worth pausing for a moment to dwell on the bad faith of Bush's opponents. The whole world knew that Saddam had used chemical weapons at least twice: once against the Iranians and once against the Kurds within Iraq. (He had also threatened to use them against Israel.) The whole world further knew that Saddam engaged in a protracted game of cat and mouse with UN weapons inspectors, first throwing roadblocks in their path and finally expelling them from the country (a violation of the cease-fire agreement that followed the 1991 Gulf War, which required Iraq to account for its weapons and prove that they had been dismantled and destroyed). The entire world also knew that the U.S. and Britain had not rushed to war with Iraq. To the contrary, the build-up to the 2003 invasion was lengthy and deliberate, giving ample time to the Iraqi dictator to hide or destroy his WMDs.
And yet when coalition forces failed to find caches of weapons, the cry on the left was "Bush lied." It doesn't even make logical sense. Why would Bush want to launch a war on false pretenses? Would he purposely create a political problem for himself? Why? To enrich Halliburton? This is fever swamp talk. Yet it was heard among leading members of the Democratic Party, not just in the MoveOn.org milieu. Nor was it correct to claim, as so many on the left did, that Bush altered the rationale for war after he failed to find WMDs. In a speech to the American Enterprise Institute in February 2003, on the eve of the invasion, the president sketched his vision of a democratic Iraq that he hoped would begin the transformation of the despotic and violent Middle East into something more enlightened and free. He mentioned "disarming" Iraq by force, but it was far from the sole rationale for war.
Three years in, we are hearing from the summer soldiers. The pacification of Iraq is proving more difficult than anticipated. Even some on the right are throwing in the towel. But as The Wall Street Journal wisely editorialized, the consequences of failure -- by which they mean capitulation on our part -- would be utterly catastrophic.
The radical Islamists will claim that they defeated the United States and chased us out of Iraq just as they defeated the Soviets and chased them out of Afghanistan. And every moderate-leaning Arab and Muslim in the world will shrug his shoulders and give up. It will embolden the terrorists tremendously to see the U.S. withdraw from Iraq. The corresponding plunge in morale at home will rival if not exceed post-Vietnam syndrome. Iran will seize the opportunity to impose a Shiite theocracy on Iraq, and Afghanistan will feel the reverberations and tremble on its still shaky foundations.
Oh yes, the documents. One shows that an official from Iraq's government met with Osama bin Laden on Feb. 19, 1995, with the explicit permission of Saddam Hussein. When bin Laden was forced to leave Sudan, the Iraqi documents contain a handwritten note saying, "The relationship with him is still through the Sudanese. We're currently working on activating this relationship through a new channel in light of his current location" (Afghanistan). The notes also reveal that Osama bin Laden suggested "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia.
The documents further disclose that the Iraqi intelligence service issued detailed instructions to directors and managers of weapons sites regarding UN inspections. They were to remove files from computers, "remove correspondence with the atomic energy and military industry departments concerning the prohibited weapons" and "remove prohibited materials and equipment, including documents and catalogs and making sure to clear labs and storages (sic) of any traces of chemical or biological materials that were previously used or stored . . ."
I'm sure the democraps knew this a while ago. But don't ever expect them to admit it, because that would only show just how full of steaming hot BS they have always been on this issue.
The GW Lied group will try their doggondest to try to suppress these documents as they continue to come out. There are millions of documents and 10's of thousands of boxes of them and only a small percent of 1% of them have even been translated. We have like 20 documents out now?
Excellent posting.
Thx, 'Pod.
they will say "These documents would not be able to be used in a court of law. They do not meet our standards for evidence. There is no proof here. But we liked Farenheit 9/11".
Good point.
Don't expect to see it on NBC Nightly News.
hehehe...Where's the pic?
Bump
Please FReepmail me if you would like to be added to, or removed from, the Mona Charen ping list...
Ping!
At the request of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the US Army Foreign Military Studies Office has created this portal to provide the general public with access to unclassified documents and media captured during Operation Iraqi Freedom. The US Government has made no determination regarding the authenticity of the documents, validity or factual accuracy of the information contained therein, or the quality of any translations, when available.
When the US Government is willing to stand behind these documents, then maybe I'll give them due consideration.
These come from the same administration that was disseminating to the unsuspecting US public, propaganda thinly disguised as video news releases to garner public support for the Medicare prescription drug benefits, paying journalists to write favorable columns and paying the Iraqi news organizations to publish favorable coverage of the war.
What the captured documents show (Mona Charen on the Saddam documents)
Release/Translation of Classified PreWar Docs ping. If you want to be added or removed to the ping list, please Freepmail me.
Please add the keyword prewardocs to any articles pertaining to this subject.
"When the US Government is willing to stand behind these documents, then maybe I'll give them due consideration.
These come from the same administration that was disseminating to the unsuspecting US public, propaganda thinly disguised as video news releases to garner public support for the Medicare prescription drug benefits, paying journalists to write favorable columns and paying the Iraqi news organizations to publish favorable coverage of the war."
Sounds like a contradiction to me? If you don't trust this administration for the reasons you've stated, how would a decision by this administration to stand behind the documents, lend more credibility to and influence your favorable consideration of them?
Don't confuse Ol Dan with logic!
I love Mona's writing. Too bad she is not on a TV panel show. She was great when she was.
I love Mona's writing. Too bad she is not on a TV panel show. She was great when she was.
Fantastic article. You know this has punctured a vein when the left is spinning madly already claiming that "there is a disclaimer on the bottom so they are fakes!" This shows the juvenile lengths they will go to defend their ludicrous position. I have always maintained that Saddam just spirited his weapons away when we were building up for invasion. It's ridiculous to conclude that the WHOLE WORLD had wrong intelligence about his weapons programs, and his ties to terrorism, but somehow President BUSH is the one who made it all up YEARS before he was even if office. Like my little boy would say, "DUH!"
It was conventional wisdom in the 90s (read: The Glory Years per MSM) that Saddam was a threat to the United States and our allies abroad, and that he maintained not only terrorist ties, but had a working relationship with bin Laden! It was in glaring headlines affirming Clinton's order to fire missiles into Iraq because Saddam was a madman with nasty weapons who was a sincere threat. To us, the United States and our interests. All you have to do is Google Saddam, Iraq, and Clinton and see for yourself. There is a treasure trove of info on this.
I am so sick and tired of the intentional amnesia of the media and their ilk and the sheeple who don't have enough sense to check the facts for themselves and believe that a sitting president of the United States of America would cook up a tall tail of WMD and terrorist ties to--what--capture oil in the Middle East, to benefit his "oil cronies" so they can...take over the oil industry (mwaaahahahahahaha)and sacrifice our brave men and women in the process. How stupid is this thinking? It's like really bad fiction writing. My 9-year-old could do better.
Whatever. **rolls eyes**. I think it's highly interesting that the documents speak of a bin Laden Saddam alliance to attack The West's interests and just a bit later the Khobar Towers were attacked. Oh BIG coincidence there.
Now that ABC has come out and printed the Iraqi/OBL meeting in 1996, they have moved the goalpost yet again. "Yes, we KNOW that they had a relationship, but that was waaaay back in 1996. It doesn't mean anything now." Again, whatever. Strange that there was a huge billboard of Saddam with the burning Twin Towers behind him that our troops discovered back in 2003. I'm sure that means nothing. Surely it does.
If you say it three times and click your pretty little red-shoed heels together, it will come true! /sarc and rant off.
Yep, no connection at all. That Bush is such a liar. I think he may even BE Osama bin Laden. Has anybody ever seen the two of them together, hmmmm? How about Karl Rove? /raving moonbat in highgear off.
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.