Bush WMD Debacle Prompted by Salman Pak Blunder

NewsMax.Com ^ | May 31, 2003 | Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Saturday, May 31, 2003 11:45 a.m. EDT

Bush WMD Debacle Prompted by Salman Pak Blunder

President Bush shouldn't wait a second longer to introduce Iraqi defectors Sabah Khodada and Abu Zeinab to the American people, and fire whoever it was in his administration who advised him to ignore the defectors' eyewitness accounts tying the Baghdad terrorist training camp Salman Pak to the 9/11 attacks.

Instead of relying on evidence that would have dispelled all doubts about making war on Iraq, the as-yet-unidentified presidential adviser counseled Bush to hinge his Iraq war rationale on the threat of weapons of mass destruction, evidence that - so far, at least - has yet to materialize.

The blunder has given Democrats their most potent ammunition yet in their bid to unseat Bush in the 2004 presidential election.

In an embarrassing series of statements on Friday, Bush challenged reports contending that Iraqi WMDs were still MIA - only to be contradicted by U.S. experts on the ground.

"They're wrong, we found 'em," he told reporters in Poland. "We found weapons of mass destruction. We'll find more weapons," the president added.

But in a discrepancy that's sure to become the focus of the Sunday talk shows, U.S. intelligence and military officials contradicted Bush's claims.

"We were simply wrong" in expecting to find that Iraqi army and Republican Guard units had terror weapons, Lt. Gen. James Conway, commander of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, told the New York Daily News.

"It's not for lack of trying," Conway explained. "We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but [the Iraqi WMDs are] simply not there."

A lengthy report released by the CIA this week said that two suspected mobile biological weapons labs contained no traces of the actual toxins that would prove they were WMD facilities.

Adding to Bush's political humiliation, the British press quotes Secretary of State Colin Powell as fearing even before the war that tenuous WMD evidence "could explode in [our] faces."

Even before the news of the contradictory accounts surfaced, Democrats had seized on the fruitless WMD search as evidence that Bush had lied to lead America into war.

In one particularly odious comparison, former Clinton adviser Paul Begala charged that Bush's Iraq "lies" were far worse than his old boss's perjury about Monica Lewinsky.

"Which is worse: lying about a girlfriend or lying about a war?" Begala complained on Thursday. "There aren't 169 [U.S. troops] dead over Monica Lewinsky," the Democrat strategist added sarcastically.

While European and American intelligence services remain convinced that Saddam Hussein had substantial quantities of WMDs before Bush targeted the country as the lead member of the Axis of Evil in his 2002 State of the Union address, delays caused by United Nation's footdragging gave the Iraqi dictator plenty of time to hide or destroy his weapons cache.

Now, after U.S. forces have spent six weeks scouring Iraq in a fruitless search for Saddam's terror weapons, the decision to focus on WMDs has turned into a political nightmare for the White House.

Still, boneheaded administration strategists have refused to acknowledge evidence that might still spare the president the his worst political debacle to date - the accounts of two Iraqi defectors who say that, for years before the 9/11 attacks, they helped train al-Qaeda operatives to hijack U.S. aircraft using the tactics employed by Osama bin Laden's kamikazi crews.

In an account that would have dispelled any doubts about whether the U.S. was justified in making war on Iraq regardless of whether Saddam possessed WMDs, former Salman Pak instructor Sabah Khodada told the London Observer that Muslim fundamentalist recruits from throughout the Arab world were taught to hijack planes using small knives.

"The method used on 11 September perfectly coincides with the training I saw at the camp," Khodada revealed. "When I saw the twin towers attack, the first thought that came into my head was 'this has been done by graduates of Salman Pak.'"

Khodada's account is corroborated by a man identified by the Observer only by his code name, Abu Zeinab, a colonel in Saddam's Mukhabarat intelligence service who also helped train for 9/11-style operations.

"One of the highlights of the six-month curriculum was training to hijack aircraft using only knives or bare hands," he told the Observer. "Like the 11 September hijackers, the students worked in groups of four or five."

The accounts of the two Salman Pak instructors are further corroborated by former U.N. weapons inspector Charles Duelfer - a one-time vice chairman of UNSCOM - who said he personally witnessed some of the 9/11 training aboard the parked fuselage of a Boeing 707.

Duelfer told the British paper that the Iraqis even acknowledged that hijacking dress rehearsals were taking place at Salman Pak - but they insisted it was counterterrorism training.

"Of course we automatically took out the word 'counter,'" Duelfer explained.

The accounts of Khodada, Zeinab and Duelfer are backed by two other eyewitnesses - a third defector and a second U.N. inspector - all of whom testified earlier this year in a lawsuit brought by 9/11 victim families against Iraq.

In a May 7 decision that should have been seized upon by the Bush administration - but wasn't - Manhattan U.S. District Judge Harold Baer ruled that the Salman Pak evidence was persuasive enough to tie Baghdad to the 9/11 attacks.

It's probably too late for the Bush administration to abandon its WMD argument for going to war in Iraq. And indeed, Saddam's banned weapons may eventually be found.

In the meantime, the president needs to quickly focus attention on far more compelling evidence that every American would agree justified going to war - Iraq's role in the worst attack ever on U.S. soil.

And just as quickly, Bush should fire the officials whose advice to ignore the Salman Pak connection could conceivably cost him his re-election next year.

[AAABEST]

that more is known than is being told.

Doubt it. If that were so the info would be out now to stop this in it's tracks. Politicians don't enjoy getting rained upon like this, if was proof to the contrary they'd be screaming it from the rooftops.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Thanks, Your response is what I expected, When the "Direct" agression you are waiting for becomes a reality, it wont matter for you, you will be already DEAD Have a great evening, See ya

I'd rather Die, than Kill without justification.

To the Christian, Death is a minor (and quite temporary) inconvenience. Killing without righteous Biblical justification, OTOH... is a Sin.

Have a great evening.

[nunya bidness]

I've written two essays supporting the Bush administration that were largely overlooked. No matter. But I'll refer to them when I'm accused of being a Bush basher. I can't wait.

Meanwhile, Condi Rice is dispatched to the Sunday shows to support the contention that was offered before the UN before the Bush admin decided to circumvent the process and attack anyway.

One problem: If we didn't seek approval based on criteria of that august body what proof do we owe them? None.

The rest is flimsy politics at best. 1441 was an opening that was exploited despite its terms.

[HiTech RedNeck]

This was not a question of WMD in the hands of a mere "enemy." This was a question of WMD in the hands of a madman. You don't wait for the rabid dog to approach somebody to bite before shooting it.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Q. What's the connection between the 9/11 hijackers and Salman Pak? A. None Q. What's the connection of Salman Pak to Al Quaeda? A. None

I would reserve the counter argument that the connection between Salman Pak and Al-Queda is not "None", but rather (in legal terms), "Circumstantial".

"We know that at Salman Pak, on the southern edge of Baghdad, five different eyewitnesses - three Iraqi defectors and two American U.N. inspectors - have said - and now there are aerial photographs to show it - a Boeing 707 that was used for training of hijackers, including non-Iraqi hijackers trained very secretly to take over airplanes with knives." Another intriguing coincidence: Salman Pak's hijacking school reportedly opened for business in 1995, the same year al-Qaeda agents in the Philippines hatched a plot to hijack 12 airliners and slam some of them into U.S. landmarks.

A second defector said that conversations with the hijacker-trainees made it clear they came from a variety of countries, including Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Algeria, Egypt and Morocco. "We were training these people to attack installations important to the United States," he added chillingly. "The Gulf War never ended for Saddam Hussein. He is at war with the United States. We were repeatedly told this." ~~ http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2002/8/13/95502

I agree that Terrorists would be trained in non-firearm combat. But in fact, I would upgrade my assessment (as I did above) to "Strongly Circumstantial", unless you can point me to any other Nation which maintained a grounded Boeing for the purpose of "dry-run" training Al-Queda ops in the 5-man team hijacking of US planes with boxcutters.

As I said before, I never bought any other justification for the War on Iraq, until I read this -- what looks to me like a "strongly circumstantial" direct link to 9/11.

I always thought that Salman Pak shoulda been the keystone of the entire case. I feel unhappily vindicated, now that the "search for Iraqi WMDs" (a rationale I never accepted in the first place) has turned into an Easter Hunt with No Eggs.

[dsutah]

Yeah, now if you feel we're all so whacked out; why are you here? You have the choice to go elsewhere, don't you? That's what freedom of speech is all about, isn't it? But that's one thing you seem to forget in your tirade; is that "freedom of speech" is, after all, a two-way street! If you don't like that, you're free to go elsewhere.

My suggestion is, why don't you find some kindred spirits somewhere? There you'll have no one to challenge you; and you can preach all you want to the 'choir'. Then, none of us 'whacked out' ones will bother you. Now how does that sound?

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

This was not a question of WMD in the hands of a mere "enemy." This was a question of WMD in the hands of a madman. You don't wait for the rabid dog to approach somebody to bite before shooting it.

As it happens, this was not a question of Iraq having WMDs at all. Because they didn't, after 1995 (when they destroyed them, according to the CIA's best intel).

At best and as always, this was a question of whether or not Hussein trained terrorists for the 9/11 attacks. Which was always good enough for me.

There's not a conceivable WMD in Saddam's alleged arsenal (which, as it happens, doesn't exist) which could do worse than the 9/11 attacks, short of a nuke. Anthrax? Been there, done that. How many did "airborne anthrax" kill? Five?

And Hussein hasn't been anywhere near a nuke since Osirak in 1981.

None of the alleged Iraqi WMDs (given third-world deployment capabilities) could ever have killed anywhere near as many as the box-cutters did on 9/11, besides a Nuke -- and Iraq was never anywhere near a Nuke (maybe you bought the "centrifuge" schpiel. I read enough, that I didn't).

The WMDs were never anything but a smoke-screen for the gullible. 9/11 was, to me, always the red meat.

Unfortunately, Bush ain't seen fit to throw it on the barbecue. His advisors have told him instead to pursue less-deadly "WMDs" which don't even exist.

[dsutah]

Yeah, now if you feel we're all so whacked out; why are you here? You have the choice to go elsewhere, don't you? That's what freedom of speech is all about, isn't it? But that's one thing you seem to forget in your tirade; is that "freedom of speech" is, after all, a two-way street! If you don't like that, you're free to go elsewhere.

My suggestion is, why don't you find some kindred spirits somewhere? There you'll have no one to challenge you; and you can preach all you want to the 'choir'. Then, none of us 'whacked out' ones will bother you. Now how does that sound?

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

Two Palestinian terrorist organizations were funded and trained by Hussein and likely at Salman Pak (Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas?). There just isn't any evidence that the 9/11 hijackers were ever in SP let alone Iraq. There is that confirmed then denied story about Atta meeting with an Iraqi intel officer in Prague. Sorry it's weak.

[nunya bidness]

WMD was an inroad to the UN but we left them in the dust so I don't understand what importance they have now. Color me confounded.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Meanwhile, Condi Rice is dispatched to the Sunday shows to support the contention that was offered before the UN before the Bush admin decided to circumvent the process and attack anyway. One problem: If we didn't seek approval based on criteria of that august body what proof do we owe them? None. The rest is flimsy politics at best. 1441 was an opening that was exploited despite its terms.

AMEN and Amen!!

The only speech we shoulda ever given to the UN was our best Rhett Butler impersonation: "Frankly, my dear... I don't give a damn."

Going to the UN, grovelling for that "august body"s approval to prosecute a War, can never accomplish anything but Falsehood.

• In the case of a genuine, National Security War of self-defense.... by going to the UN, you create the impression that you need the UN's approval to prosecute a War of self-defense. Which is a blatant Falsehood under the Constitution.
• In the case of an elective, "Benevolent" War of "humanitarian" purpose... by going to the UN, you create the impression that it is morally okay to prosecute an Aggressive Invasion, as long as you have the approval of the UN. Which is also a blatant Falsehood under the Constitution.

All in all... both in terms of International Law and Augustinian "Just War" Ethics...

The US needs the UN... like a fish needs a bicycle. :-(

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Two Palestinian terrorist organizations were funded and trained by Hussein and likely at Salman Pak (Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas?). There just isn't any evidence that the 9/11 hijackers were ever in SP let alone Iraq. There is that confirmed then denied story about Atta meeting with an Iraqi intel officer in Prague. Sorry it's weak.

I probably take it back farther than that. I'll give you that the Atta story is up in the air... or up in smoke-and-mirrors, anyway. Last I checked, it was confirmed, denied, and then partially re-confirmed. But on top of that, you've got the Iraqi Passport of Ramzi Yousef (mastermind of the first big WTC Bombing in 1993) in addition to Jayna Davis's research on the OKC bombing in 1995 -- up to and including Tim McVeigh knocking back some cold ones in an OKC Bar with Hussain Hashem Al-Hussaini, an Iraqi Republican Guardsman, 4 days before the bombing.

Full Disclosure: Given that most of my best friends in low places are good-hearted white trash from Norman OK, many of whom were in the vicinity of the blast at the time, I admit both personal bias and interest in this matter.

If I were to invoke "sexual harassment" law (that great enemy of "due process" and "innocent until proven guilty"), we'd call that a "Pattern of Behavior" on the part of Iraq.

As I said, it's circumstantial. But it's a lot better evidence than these mythical WMDs ever had to go on, and it's a lot more interesting to me personally.

[HiTech RedNeck]

I know enough about Dubya that, while he may sometimes make an incorrect judgment, he will not consciously lie. The justification for the war was the knowledge before it, not the discovery in retrospect. And the knowledge before it said it was likely Saddam DID have WMD. He may still have WMD... in someplace like Syria.

[BlackbirdSST]

What proof do you have besides they havn't been found yet, that the WMD's DO NOT EXIST? My goodness you sound like a liberal

"We were simply wrong" in expecting to find that Iraqi army and Republican Guard units had terror weapons, Lt. Gen. James Conway, commander of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, told the New York Daily News. "It's not for lack of trying," Conway explained. "We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but [the Iraqi WMDs are] simply not there."

Pretty compelling evidence from the front lines, I'd say. You'll probably start out with a character assassination of the General, he's no doubt a clintoon holdover, anti bush anti american. Dig that hole! Please! Blackbird.

[HiTech RedNeck]

I think an "ammunition supply point" would be about the last place one would expect to find an Iraqi WMD if there was any such thing. Some of these infernal devices could fit easily in somebody's house.

[Miss Marple]

Assuming for the sake of argument that the administration has the same information you do about Salman Pak, why do you think they didn't use it more ?

The logical answer is that they had more definitive proof about the WMD. Salman Pak required assumptions, while they had hard-core proof on the WMD.

Why haven't the WMD been found yet? Much of what is being looked for is small (vials and containers), some is dual use (chemicals) and we are talking about a huge country.

We haven't searched all known sites yet, let alone the weirdo places, like the dog kennels where all the money was found. We haven't searched Syria, where many Ba'ath Party members fled, and which had an open border with Iraq even during the war.

One has to assume that there was enough intelligence to indicate an effort to get WMD, intelligence that came not just from the CIA, but from multiple intelligence agencies in Europe and the Middle East. Somehow I don't think that Tony Blair was into manufacturing evidence, nor the French, nor the Germans, etc.

If you will remember, prior to the war there was never an argument that the WMD did not exist. The argument in the UN was simply that inspectors were the best way to contain them.

It is beyond rational belief that the administration would have gone with a less provable rationale for the war and instead chosen something that they had doubts about.

Regarding Newsmax, Bill Kristol, and other figures discussed here on this thread: they are media people, not officials within this administration. They do not have access to all of the intelligence, they occasionally are wrong, and if I had to base the security of the nation on a group of individuals, I believe I would take Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Powell over Carl Limbacher and Bill Kristol, well-intentioned though they may be. (Although I have my doubts about Kristol.)

The War on Terror is much larger than apparently some people realize, and Iraq was only a theater of that war. We sit now in the center of the Middle East, a dynamic that Syria and Iran have not faced before, and those are two of the most egregious of the terror-sponsoring countries in the Middle East. The war isn't over, not by a long shot.

As far as the WMD, I remain confident they will be found, and then your concern will have been for naught.

[BlackbirdSST]

I think an "ammunition supply point" would be about the last place one would expect to find an Iraqi WMD if there was any such thing. Some of these infernal devices could fit easily in somebody's house.

I believe that was a generalized statement made by the General. Specifically, we've inspected some 230 site's, that were supposedly WMD rich. It was bolstered that these weapons were to be field deliverable within 45 minute's, remember that? We were expecting them to be used on our troop's as they approached the rep guard unit's. Some people will believe anything. Surely, if these weapon's were spirited off to the average iraqi house, as you imply, surely one iraqi, just one, would take us to them, just one! Please. Blackbird.

[grania]

If GWB really felt that he was doing right by God and was honest in his actions, then I hope he's not being unfairly maligned. Although mistakes of such magnitude are unacceptable, at least it can be called a blunder. If however, he had an agenda and was anything less than 100% honest in regard to such grave matters, I hope he's impeached and then burns in hell where he belongs.

If he was deliberately given false intelligence, then the officials of countries or individuals responsible should be turned over to an Iraqui court of law. (not appointed by the US).

That'll save GWB's credibility. Finding WMD's now won't do it. It would mean they were either (1) planted or at the very least (2) we didn't really know where any WMD's were.

[UbIwerks]

When I was at that protest to counter the pro Sadaam protest in Massachusetts, at least I had the foresight to use the Salman Park argument and not this WMD debacle.

If Bush had used that argument too instead of listening to Colin Powell, he wouldn't be in the mess he is today.

[joesbucks]

You folks are beyond whacked. You have no idea what you believe anymore, no solid political philosophy (just as GWB). All you know is "Talk nice about Bush = Gooooooood, second guess Bush = baaaaaaaaad".

Look, it's always been about comfort zone. I hate a dem, I love a rep.

I used to speculate what FR would go through when clinton left office. Those who played nice together would suddenly turn on each other. Clinton, in many cases was the focal point.......not cleaning up problems and corruption in general. If the corruption is good for me, then it's good for the country.