Sitting on Evidence of Saddam's WMDs, Al Qaeda Ties

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT 12:32 PM EST
Let me address this business. I said I'm getting e-mails from people upset, worried about what's happening with the coverage of the war. And I said yesterday these are going to be defining times, and I think more and more people are coming to understand it. All these terrorists are pouring into Iraq now, and they are from all over. They are from the Far East and they are from the Middle East, because they know that if we succeed in establishing an open and free Iraq, that's it. I mean, this is the final battleground as far as they're concerned, and they are vowing not to allow this to happen. This is serious.

There's no question about it, and any of you who think that there is no Saddam/ Al-Qaeda link, and that this is a break from our attention on the war on terror which ought to be focusing on Afghanistan, think again. This is the war on terror, and this is a huge chapter. And in fact, Stephen Hayes has a long piece. I printed it out from the Weekly Standard website - seven pages when I printed it out. But it's an amazing piece. It documents - well, I don't want to go that far. It's pretty convincing on the ties between Al-Qaeda and Saddam, even prior to now, and it also says the administration knows all this, and one of the points that Mr. Hayes raises: Why is the administration holding this information back? They know it; they can prove it. It's sort of like the weapons of mass destruction news. They've got it. They have some of it. They're holding it for release, sometime, we are told, in mid-December.

And Mr. Hayes concludes his piece in the Weekly Standard by saying, [paraphrased] Look, release this stuff pretty soon, because after a while when you release it, nobody is going to believe it. If you let the critics have unfettered access to the media that there is no linkage, that this is not part of the war on terror, and then all of the sudden the government issues facts to prove otherwise is going to be difficult with that one release to overcome months and months and months of dripping news to the contrary. So he's a little perplexed as to why the administration is holding their cards on this, not only on, as I say, the links between Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups to Saddam and the Ba'ath Party in Iraq, but also in the weapons of mass destruction.

There's a piece in the World Tribune today - one of the papers in the United Kingdom - exactly as theorized on this program early on. It's unconfirmed, but it's a story that many of the weapons of mass destruction are at present buried in the Bekaa Valley of Lebanon, which is nothing more than a satellite state of Syria. But let me go through what it is that has people concerned here. Look, I'm concerned, too, but I'm not anywhere near approaching panic on this. I wish I could give you the reasons for my optimism. One of the reasons, folks, I just am not afraid of the media anymore. And I have to tell you this: I'm getting a little frustrated with people who are.

It's a new day. I know they're still who they are and I know they're still dominant. I know that they are still powerful and all, but they're not a monopoly anymore, and they don't... Maybe if you were in my shoes, maybe if you had a microphone and you were talking to 20 million-plus people every week, 12 million a day, maybe you wouldn't be as concerned about the threat of the mainstream media, because you would then have a personal outlet like I do. I'm able to counter it myself with the knowledge that tens of millions of people are hearing me do so. But even without that, I don't think they carry the day.

I mean, looking at the statistics now on the approval numbers for the president, the approval numbers on Iraq. They're still a 60% or 69% despite this. I mean, this has been going on since Bush took office, not just during the period of time that defines the Iraq war. From the time he took office this incessant, never ending criticism, personal and otherwise has been going on, and it hasn't really had any profound effect at all. You consider: were he a lesser person in terms of character and honesty, I think the numbers probably would have fallen a lot more than they have, but there's just.... Look it, folks, the people of this country, en masse, I mean the vast majority of them, I don't care what the press is saying about Howard Dean's juggernaut.

I don't care what the press is saying about the Democrats or Hillary or any of that; the majority of voters in this country know damn well it's not time and safe to trust this country's national security to the Democrats. It just isn't. And there's nothing they can do with all their incessant criticism. I mean, what is their "We should be going with the UN! We should be doing this; we should be doing that!" You add it all up, they think we should subordinate our own protection to others who have none of our interests at heart. Nobody is going to buy that. Don't panic. And the press can't make people buy that, because if they could it would have happened already.

Now, my days of thinking that this monolithic media with their constant impact on the people of this country is over. It doesn't exist anymore. Yes, I think there's still far more left-wing media outlets, far more left-wing professors in colleges - no question about it. But in the realm of the media, they don't own it the way they used to. And their numbers, their audience numbers are continually declining. Their audience is shrinking and they know it. And the left-wing cable audiences are hardly existent. I always keep them in the radar. I always know where they are, but they just affect me the way they used to. They don't ruin my day. They don't even make me mad anymore. I chuckle at them.

Now, again: I have a chance to come in here and tell you what I think, and most of you don't have the outlet that I do - other than to talk to your friends about it. But suffice it to say they no longer oppose this huge, omnivorous threat to me that I will admit that they once did. But let me go through, I think, what it is that is so troubling to a lot of people. It's the daily drip, drip, drip of the media: all bad news, no good news. I'm confining this pretty much to Iraq now and the war. They keep hyping the daily death count and the cumulative deathwatch, and there are some polls that they can cite that are slowly dropping, approval numbers.

There is some erosion there, not nearly as much as there otherwise would be. In fact, I think much of this erosion in these polls is overdone in the first place. I don't think Bush is in nearly as much trouble as the press would like you to believe or as the Democrats would like you to believe. Let them fool themselves, but don't you be fooled by them. At the same time all this is going on, we seem to be granting permission to the anti-war crowd to undercut our effort under the guise of patriotic duty to protest. When Bill Clinton was president we dare not say anything against our country's efforts when it came to war because that "would be unpatriotic."

But all of the sudden now that we have a Republican president, why it is our patriotic duty to criticize the president, why, that's what patriotism's definition is today! Well, that's poppycock; it's absolute BS. But people aren't fooled by this. I don't think that the mass of this country has accepted that redefinition of the term patriotism. And if you look at the people who are out there? Did you see this thing over the weekend, this attempt to recreate the great speech by Martin Luther King? (See wire photos) It was a joke, folks. It was an absolute joke.

There wasn't one happy person there. There wasn't one American flag there. There wasn't one person at that meeting that had anything happy, positive or otherwise to say. It was a national gripe session by the usual suspects in this country who do not do one thing to influence or persuade people to join them. All they do is cause people to scratch their heads or laugh at them, feel sorry for them, or maybe get mad at 'em, but certainly not be persuaded by them. And it's the same group that is out there trying to say that patriotism, their patriotic duty now is to criticize the president.

It's pretty convincing on the ties between Al-Qaeda and Saddam, even prior to now, and it also says the administration knows all this, and one of the points that Mr. Hayes raises: Why is the administration holding this information back? They know it; they can prove it. It's sort of like the weapons of mass destruction news. They've got it. They have some of it. They're holding it for release, sometime, we are told, in mid-December.

It may be a situation like the long, slow buildup to Iraq, where we supposedly took so long because we had to rebuild our bomb arsenal. Information like that you can't release no matter how much it might benefit you politically, because it will also help the enemy.

The information may implicate another country (Syria? Iran?) and telegraph our next move in the War on Terror.

Yes, soldiers are dying, but they are doing a lot better and inflicting a lot more harm on the terrorists than unarmed civilians would if the terrorists were pouring across our borders rather than Iraq's.

UR# 9.........Correct!!

Save the innocent,.....'911'...........NEVER FORGET

I was providing information to a poster, who then asked for details. Is that so wrong?

Rush on the otherhand, has been known to overhype important issues for the past decade, from reading an unsourced report on the air that Vince Foster killed himself in an apartment leased by Hillary, to claiming that Starr ask Clinton about drugs in the taped deposition. In the latter case, he read John Cruedel's unsourced article on the subject from the New York Post. Neither Cruedel or Rush have ever explained who got away with 'using' them to frame the President's defense.

He has been a conduit to disinformation before and thus is generally not a good source for 'intelligence' even if he has an interesting radio program.

Its a curious defense anyway, as Rupert Murdoch has nothing to do with this story but whatever floats your already made up mind. I doubt you even care one way or the other if WMDs are ever found or if they ever existed, fair?

PS: I think Murdoch's NY Post is the best paper in America, and Fox News is the best broadcast. He is great at entertainment and a solid reminder what a phony Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly are.

One would think Rush would be smart enough to not use the Weekly Standard as an arguementative life preserver considering their miscalculations during the pre-war debates.

You're also right about Rush being played like a yokel who just fell off the turnip truck for dis-information/propaganda purposes. The spoon fed post OK city bombing dis-information he shrilly regurgitated comes immediately to my mind.

"Its a curious defense anyway, as Rupert Murdoch has nothing to do with this story but whatever floats your already made up mind. I doubt you even care one way or the other if WMDs are ever found or if they ever existed, fair?"

You're the one that brought Murdoch into it. And WMD's are well known to have been in Iraq's arsenal. But, that was not the only reason for going to war as we all know. For my money, the best reason was that he is no longer able to threaten Isreal and give payouts to suicide bombers' families.

But THOSE didn't run a tab of $1B/week.

I find it amazing those that would put a price on freedom. And how quickly one dismisses the cost of depleting weapons of stockpiles meant to secure unpriceable freedom. Bill Clinton's war on Kosovo, the reasons for (mass graves, ethnic cleansing etc...) are among some of the reasons we are in Iraq now, which Clinton looked away from for eight years. Bill Clinton's 15000 foot air war (supposedly to reduce American casualties) was done at the behest of the UN on a country that had never (read NEVER) jeopardized American sovereignty or caused 3000 American civilian casualties as in 9/11. Was it a cheaply made lead-pipe bomb that destroyed a Chinese embassy? I don't think so... And how much may I ask did the transfers of secret missile technology to China and the ignoring of Koreas nuclear program cost us? Well, ignoring is being kind...lying about it is another issue...

Clinton fought "wars of mass destruction"? As I recall, Clinton declared the "War on Terrorism" on numerous occassions... The fact that he declared it more than once ought to speak volumes to any thinking individual...

It's not Bush's billion dollar a week (source??) war, but moreso the inaction of Bill Clinton on a war he declared many, many times that has put Bush in the unkindly predicament of rebuilding depleted stockpiles and eliminating those that would strive to eliminate a country that enjoys the fruits and benefits of unpriceable....freedom.... Considering all of this would you vote for Hillary?

WMDs or nuclear weapons were known to be in Iraq's arsenal?

Can you please cite your source or if you are privy to information please get it to the President as soon as possible?

"For my money, the best reason was that he is no longer able to threaten Isreal and give payouts to suicide bombers' families."

So you felt comfortable asking America's sons and daughters to fight and die for the benefit of another country? How unpatriotic of you. What kind of man sends women to the frontlines, I'll never know, but to fight for a different country? Wow.

Murdoch was the answer to Huck's question; is his name verboten in your circle?

"Can you please cite your source or if you are privy to information please get it to the President as soon as possible?"

Hahaha. I guess you don't remember the Kurds being gassed do you? Or was that "Vichycon Propaganda"?

"So you felt comfortable asking America's sons and daughters to fight and die for the benefit of another country? How unpatriotic of you. What kind of man sends women to the frontlines, I'll never know, but to fight for a different country? Wow."

Actually, no---I did not "feel comfortable". I said it was one of the best reasons (in my opinion). Are you saying that you would have supported Isreal taking the gloves off finally in the Middle-East? Seems like the US is in a no-win sitaution in regards to that. If we let them, then Washington is "calling the shots" if we do it then it's that we are "controlled by Zionists" or are the "War Party".

And no need to be so dramatic, you felt it necessary to change the tone away from the thrust of the article and direct attention to Murdoch being a pornographer in an attempt to smear the contents of the report. It's not that hard to figure out.

" But THOSE didn't run a tab of $1B/week.

"..........So we're all supposed to take the word of the Master that in spite of the (unadmitted by Bush) cost in blood and dollars, things will be just fine."

And maintaining pressure on Saddam for 12 years costed us HOW MUCH? All those troops in Kuwait, training in the desert for 120 months, all those rotations to the gulf, back from the gulf, back to the gulf, over and over ad nauseum, and a gazillion sorties to man the no-fly zone. WHAT DID THIS COST?

As for blood, these critics always include deaths due to accidents and illness. Do they also mention the deaths incurred over the 12 years of "containment"? Never.

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.