Newly Declassified Iraqi Testimony Shows Why Saddam Had to Be Removed
September 11, 2001, taught us that it is too costly to allow a leader with a history of aggression and stated intent to harm the U.S. to maintain links to terrorist groups and acquire weapons capabilities to act upon that sentiment. Newly declassified documents about the testimony of Tariq Aziz, Saddam Hussein’s deputy prime minister, reminds us why Saddam had to be removed from power.
Contradicting Saddam Hussein’s testimony where he claimed he actually wanted an alliance with the U.S. against Iran, Tariq Aziz describes Saddam as an “anti-American” who was “delighted” when al-Qaeda bombed the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. The documents do not mention Saddam’s private reaction to 9/11, but we know that his public reaction was to be possibly the only leader to refuse to condemn the attacks, as well as the only leader to openly praise them. His sons and the state-controlled press did the same. This is a critical fact that is often forgotten: Saddam’s regime was the only one to publicly hail the 9/11 hijackers and not hide its desire to see such attacks happen again.
Aziz confirms that Saddam’s regime supported terrorists like Abu Abbas, the notorious mastermind of the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Lauro, providing him with a farm for fundraising for Palestinian terrorists and for use as a training center. They even gave him the AK-47s he needed. We also know that Abu Ibrahim, called “the most dangerous bomb maker in the world bar none during my time as a CIA officer” by former CIA case officer Robert Baer, operated a network from his home in Baghdad. The Duelfer Report confirmed that Iraqi intelligence trained terrorists from around the Arab world, including at the Salman Pak facility known to house a Boeing airliner that defectors said was used to simulate hijackings. We don’t know if these terrorists were al-Qaeda members or not, but that doesn’t change the fact that Saddam not only praised 9/11 but trained jihadists in the tactics necessary to repeat it.
Aziz says that he only heard Saddam speak negatively about Osama Bin Laden as he “did not trust Islamists” and viewed them as “opportunists” and “hypocrites,” and therefore did not want to work with them. At the same time, though, Saddam viewed al-Qaeda as “effective” and respected their capabilities. And for a man as unprincipled as Saddam, that’s all that’s necessary to do business together. He did, after all, support Hamas, an Islamist group close to his Iranian enemies.
The Iraqi Perspectives Project, which reviewed over 600,000 Iraqi documents, did not find any evidence of operational collaboration between Iraq and al-Qaeda, but it did show that Saddam actively helped those seeking to carry out those attacks he was so “delighted” over. The study concluded that “the regime was willing to co-opt or support organization it knew to be a part of al-Qaeda as long as that organization’s near-term goals supported Saddam’s long-term ‘vision.’” The Project found that “Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al-Qaeda … or that generally shared al-Qaeda’s stated goals and objectives.”
What this means is that the debate over whether Iraq supported al-Qaeda or not before the invasion is flawed because of a misunderstanding of what al-Qaeda actually is. A direct link between Saddam and Bin Laden or his inner circle cannot be proven. However, a link to the regional groups that shared Bin Laden’s ideology and operated as affiliates of al-Qaeda can be established. Those that say no link has been proven either are unaware of these findings or define “al-Qaeda” so narrowly that it downplays the breath of the organization’s reach.
Refreshing to finally see some of this coming out.
That, and the fact that the 550 metric tons of enriched uranium that even the AP reported on when it was moved out of Iraq never gets talked about….
The guy was a monster who had to die. The world, and Iraq specifically, is better off with him removed from it.
We slew a monster. I do not apologize for this heroic deed.
I studied Arabic in 1964 at the DLI in Monterey, California. Most of the instructors there were Iraqis, as a matter of fact. In addition to language, we got quite a bit of Arabic culture, Islam and history, which made a 47-week-long course of study marginally bearable. Even then, we were told that it was NOT “sinful” to lie to an infidel–a non-Muslim.
The only difference between Saddam and the others is that he lacked the wits to conceal his emotions as well as other Muslim public figures.
“Tariq Aziz describes Saddam as an “anti-American” who was “delighted” when al-Qaeda bombed the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. The documents do not mention Saddam’s private reaction to 9/11, but we know that his public reaction was to be possibly the only leader to refuse to condemn the attacks, as well as the only leader to openly praise them. His sons and the state-controlled press did the same. This is a critical fact that is often forgotten: Saddam’s regime was the only one to publicly hail the 9/11 hijackers and not hide its desire to see such attacks happen again.”
All of the events since that time have confirmed that Saddam merely expressed what the other Muslim heads of state and other public figures were thinking.
ALL of them are our enemies. Even the ones who pretend to be our “allies.”
And yet you will hear none of this on any of the major network news programs, let alone read it on the front pages of the New York Times or the Washington Post. What is even more disgusting is that Obama and his liberal toadies seem to have all this faith in the United Nations. They have a fetish for this “global governance” BS. Yet when Saddam broke over a dozen UN resolutions and continued on his psychotic way, where were these same liberals demanding that the rest of the world ENFORCE these resolutions? You see, liberals love global governance until somebody actually has to DO something. Then they debate the subject to death, hoping that the crisis will go away before anyone actually has to do anything about it. What a bunch of cowardly dogs liberals and the UN are. Saddam clearly showed how morally bankrupt organizations like the UN are, as if we didn’t already know this.
Mr. Mauro,
Thank you for the uniformed perspective.
Whether or not Sadam should have been removed from power for the “reasons” you stated, was a decision that the American people should have made. They didn’t get the opportunity to make that choice, because Bush and Co. claimed many other reasons (most of which have been proven false) as justification.
You cannot lie to the American people and then say after the fact, that it was still for a good cause.
Bush, the dullard, was the only one in the room who knew what intelligence was correct, and what was false, and was simultaneously cunning enough to fool all the smart guys in Congress. Pardon me, but I find that a bit of a stretch.
Was Bush too ready to believe the worst about Iraq? Perhaps, but Oil for Food was real, and Saddam was in violation of the truce that ended the abortive invasion of Kuwait. The situation was unstable and containment was not an indefinite option. There may have been other, better options, but that’s not synonymous with “Bush lied.”
I have a dear friend whose husband was in the one of the first waves into Iraq during the initial invasion. Her husband and his unit were also one of the first to go into one of Sadam’s “baby food factories”. Funny how every member of that unit was medically discharged not long after that little adventure with radiation poisoning…Bush lied? Whatever…as long as you continue to believe the MSM you will never get it! The WMD’s made it to Syria smarty pants…
Ask some of the soldiers on the initial invasion…the ones who will, for the rest of their lives, suffer with radiation poisoning and other toxic chemical disabilities whether Bush was right to go in…He was right!
But wait! I bet you’re a “truther” too…if you believe all that I’ve a got a great little bridge in Brooklyn to sell ya.
Some of you people piss me off to no end………….. While your sitting there eating your lunch… think of all the families that had their doors busted down by Saddams ‘thugs’… whereas they would tie the parents to chairs, cut off their eyelids so they had no choice but watch… while they took razors and peeled their screaming children’s skin off there bodies and left them into the dirty street to die from infection… or all the people whom were believed to be ‘non sympathetic’ with his agenda.. that had wholes drilled in there heads with electric drills while they were alive.. which a few, paralyzed or turned into ‘droolers’ survived.
Wow your’re delusional and deranged.
No, you are ignorant and uninformed.
Duke-Jinx – Sorry I read the post wrong – my apologies – I thought you were refererring to American Solldiers. Saw doors kicked in and immediatly thougth of Kerry’s remarks. Just to add – how ’bout Saddams sons rounding up brides on their wedding nights and raping them. Or shoving people into Tree shredders feet first and when they got bored of that head first. Evil stuff.
Really ? Just what did you see… while you were over there? I think your just another keyboard warror that is caught up in your own self deniel. Refrain from talking out the side of your neck when you know nothing about which you speak. It makes for a first impression of a fool.
semper fi
Mark… yes, and slowly lowering his people into plastic recycling grinders. Our military has thousands of pictures… with blood and body parts still wet and fresh from the second time we went in. Every advance unit had an asigned photographer for that very reason… even those did not capture what we saw.
semper fi
“A Real American” should familiarize himself/herself with the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, Public Law 105-338, 31 October 1998, signed by one William Jefferson Clinton – who, incidentally never intended to act upon it, choosing instead to kick the can down the road for a future administration – which unequivocally states:
“It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.”
“A Real American” erroneously states that ‘Whether or not Sadam should have been removed from power for the “reasons” you stated, was a decision that the American people should have made.’
That did in fact happen with the passage of Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, Public Law 107-243, dated 16 October 2002. The American people, who live in and are governed by a constitutional republic, made that decision via their elected representatives. Said resolution lays out in great detail the rationale for removing Saddam Hussein.
“A Real American” is simply attempting to engage in revisionist history.
BULL! The Iraq War Resolution lists TEN reasons for giving Bush the authority to go to war against Saddam. WMD was only one of them. Moreover, Saddam retained the services of his WMD and nuclear scientists; and as he told interrogators he had every intention of using them to rebuilt his WMD arsenal. Good thing we got rid of him!
The American People, through their elected representatives (we are a Republic, after all) debated this question ad nauseum in the second half of 2002, and passed, with bi-partisn majorities, The Authorization for Use of Military Force Act of 2002, giving the Executive the Country’s permission to use what force was deemed neccessary to effect Regime Change in Iraq – a Regime Change that was first proclaimed as U.S. National Policy by President William Jefferson Clinton.
Yeah Mr. Mauro,
Thank you for the “uniformed” perspective.
(But, really, thanks “Real American,” I like it when the first sentence of a comment is moronic because it tips me off that I’m about to read a comment from a moron.)
Excuse me, but “Whether or not Sadam should have been removed from power….” is not a decision that the American People can or should make directly. The U.S. is not a democracy, it is a representative republic, with governmental actions decided upon by elected representatives. A decision of this kind must be based on classified information that cannot be released except to selected members of the military, the executive branch, and Congress (and very few of those at that) because of the danger involved in making public intelligence sources and methods. There is also the simple axiom that you don’t tell your opponent what you are doing before you do it!
Mr. Mauro,
Please send an email to angryamerican_fromusa@yahoo.com and I will reply back with a chronological time-line of what led up to the Operation Iraqi Freedom. Or anyone else that may be interested in this info as well.
If you’re not interested in the truth – then there is no sense in further debate with your comments.
Sadly you seem to be a member of that group of Americans who need to be told what to do. Some of us were actually aware of what was going on in Iraq without needing the assistance of a President to inform us of the facts. My response to President Bush’s reasoning for entering Iraq was “it’s about damn time!” His father should have done it but didn’t have the cajones.
Paul:
I am a veteran of Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm. Our forces were RESTRICTED by the UNITED NATIONS MANDATES which required us to remove Saddam Hussein’s forces from Kuwait. We were NOT allowed to proceed into Iraq and remove Saddam from power because we would be perceived as power hungry conquerors as we are not, and the member nations of the UN security council such as France, Germany, China, and Russia (unknown to us at that time) had oil deals with Saddam and didn’t want them jeopardized; furthermore this also kills the “blood for oil” rants of the left. General Schwartzkopf wanted to push into Iraq and remove Saddam from power and he was told NO. I don’t know where you were at the time but I was there in an undisclosed location unknown to the rest of the world but certainly known to Saddam and the PLO cause he was using them to spy on us! If you want to claim that President George H. Bush has no balls, submit proof instead of a baseless accusation.
Exactly so…. and after Germany and Russia’s stall tactics ran out, we still found mobile BIO units that Germany had just sold Hussein in violation of the very UN sanctions they had signed onto. Given a little more time and those would have been in Syria as well. The only evidence of President Bush lacking balls… was waiting for the UN’s approval. He should have said F U.. and invaded. Every inch of that ‘war’ was and is documented.
Thank you for your continued service… and semper fi brother
You think military decisions like that are decisions that are up to American citizens to make? Shall we cast our oh-so-informed votes via cellphone, American-Idol style?
To: A Real American
Prove to us that you are not ignorant. Who can declare war, The President or congress. Stop drinking e kool-aid.
What a fun time we would have today if Saddam were still around to cozy up to our bowing, full blown appeaser in the WH.
For all those who wail about the removal of Saddam, I say, just be thankful that we are not enduring what the collusion of evil brings.
It really could be a lot worse.
Gawd, give it a rest — putting aside all the lies that Bush and his people spewed about it, there was never a good reason to remove Hussein, *especially* at that particular time, what with the Afghanistan operation and the search for bin Laden going on. And if you are going to bring up things from the 80′s, don’t forget this little detail.
(yawn) It appears that BC’s mommy let him stay home from kindergarten today.
Give it a rest???
LOLOL. Bush’s biggest mistake was that the did. He let go unchallenged all the lies about him and the reasons for his actions by the small stupid and extraordinarily selfish minds that made up his opposition?
Really? ‘They’ still are not telling all the real reasons we went into Iraq… Iraq counterfeited billions of our American dollars… so perfectly, that our secret service could not distinguish them from our own printings. Look in your wallet… notice the new bills that we had to print to curtail this.. also, remember the multibal ‘stashes’ of millions of dollars (counterfeit) that our military turned up during the invasion? One of our objectives in the invasion. Now if the Bush administration would have come out and said that Hussein had stolen/counterfeited and devalued our money… well Americans would have been so pissed, we’d have invaded with pitchforks. Another tid bit not released were the repetitious attempted attacks on the east coast by means of small aircraft filled with barrels of fuel… flying kamikaze missions, sanctioned and financed by Hussein.
please see my above reply to the not so “real american”…If you know real soldiers who went in on the first wave…ask them what they saw…ask them about the Iraq people’s suffering, the torture chambers, or ask those soldiers who came home sick with chemical poisoning whether they believed Sadam had WMD’s. Bush didn’t lie…the MSM did. Huh, go figure.
…EXACTLY!!
semper fi
There is one thing that the far-left completely ignores. Those of us that had loved ones that have fought in this war thank the Dear Lord that Saddam didn’t use these weapons on our military. The casualties would have been astronomical – both civilian and militarily. Sometimes you really question whether Divine Intervention has taken place here.
What the hell are you guys smoking, or are you confusing the first Gulf war with the second? There is a little bit of a difference: Hussein did use use chemical weapons on the Kurds back in the early 90′s, but the first Gulf war and Clinton’s relentless enforcement of the No-Fly Zones put an end to that. And if you are going to go back to the early 90′s, you might as well as go back to the early 80′s when the US covertly supported Iraq during their war with Iran, including ignoring if not even more covertly supporting Hussein’s use of chemical/biological weapons against the Iranians.
After 9/11 especially, Hussein was just twiddling his thumbs. Get it through your thick skulls: Bush and his people lied about everything involving the key reasons to remove Hussein (“talking points” are not exactly evidence), and then made a complete clusterf*ck of the actual military operation.
It is what it is. Time to move on and not try to rewrite history.
Surely not the mind clouding jism you seem to be. How do you equate ‘cluster f*ck’ .. with the surgical precision of our military? I’ll answer for you… by not being there! Just another keyboard warrior whom garners his talking points from M*VE-ON dot org.
BC:
It is a known tactic of the left to accuse your opponent of doing the very thing you are doing. Clinton didn’t do much to enforce the No-Fly zones so I don’t know where you get that claim.
The man did nothing about terrorists threats and attributed them to criminals doing something bad. As for our support of Saddam during the 80′s Do you even care to know the reasons why? Since you chose to mention that would you like to present the facts behind that or do you just want to use that as an accusatory “Talking Point” as the left always does. And I don’t excuse what Saddam did against the Kurds and we probably would have been accused of interfering in the affairs of the Iraqi Government if we took steps to stop him on humanitarian grounds alone; something the left preaches about but I don’t recall hearing any outrage from them over Kurds killed by Saddam, Atrocities and slavery in the Sudan, human rights violations in the communist countries of the world but endless howling against our own if it is even perceived that something happened without any proof or evidence whatsoever and the “blame America” crowd is in full tilt foaming mouth mode. And since you brought up Saddam’s killing of Kurdish Iraqis during the 90′s that happened during Clinton’s watch so he didn’t do anything about it. All Thrust, No Vector.
We don’t have any problem with the facts; you seem have a problem remembering them and speaking the truth.
What exactly would that lie be?
Strangely Noooooooone of the opposers to Iraki Freediom ever told it was all lies. They told let inspections work but _all_ of them admitted Saddam was up to no good. Kofi didn’t tell WMDs disn’t exist, Putin didn’t say it, Chirac didn’t say it. If they had believed Bush was lying they would have told it. The truth is that Bush acted upon available intelligence and youw are the liar.
Saddam’s regime was just the one that needed to be taken out first. There’s a line of other Islamist led countries that need to be given the same treatment…. starting with Iran. I’d put Saudi Arabia on that list as well. If it were up to me, I’d do it and pay for it with their oil.
Saddam. Islamist. Right.
All well and good. No one is saying Saddam was some great leader who didn’t deserve it, but if 911 is the justification, we had a long, more solid list of countries we should have slammed before we worried about this joker. Pakistan and Iran should have been right up there after Afghanistan, rather than Iraq.
I admire you oh reincarnation of Alexander, Cesar, Napoleon and Patton. Could you tell me where would you have staged the forces for invading Iran? (BTW a far tougher nut to crack than Irak) Could you tell me how you would keep them supplied? On first sight the only route for invading Iran who does’t involve airlifting everything is… Irak. And for Pakistan given that it is unlikely India would have cooperated not to mention that part of its border runs through the Himalaya, that the only alternative is invading from… Iran do I need to remind you that it acquired nukes more or less at the time Clinton was far too busy chasing interns for paying attention?
This article will, of course be ignored by the Democrats and MSM. Their verdict is in. Truth and facts do not apply.
What Lies? Liberals love to throw around the BS that Bush lied. Can someone please tell what was the lie that Bush told?
Actually the big lie is to say Bush lied!
As long as liberals chant Bush lied, they think they have somehow become correct. They are dead wrong, oh by the way..Congress voted to take out this pig.
Right – and there were 3 bi-partisan commissions (one in UK) that looked into whether or not Bush had any intel that wasn’t shared with Congress and concluded he didn’t. Congress voted to authorize – Pelosi, Reid, Kerry – all those nasty dem’s that are never held accountable for their votes.
Ryan Mauro; Thanks for the reminder as to why the world is better off with Saddam out of the picture. His perfidy, his policy of extending haven to terrorists and his continued support for terrorism were ample cause for US intervention. Benjamin Netanyahu speaks of the scaffolding of sovereign nations that international terrorism needs in order to maintain its strength. Saddam was an major enabler to terrorists whose goals were to undermine US interests. Leon Klinghofer, the wheelchair bound man who was executed when Abu Abbas and his jackals jacked the Achile Lauro, was an American.
It’s understandable why the left and the msm conveniently disremembered the horrors Saddam perpetuated and leveraged lack of evidence of WMD to excoriate Bush: Saddam only used poison gas against his own people and those whom he rewarded terrorists for killing were only israelis Jews. The loss of either would never be sufficient for the msm or the left to justify invasion.
Good article, Mr. Mauro, but I suspect that you are preaching to the choir here.
I suspect, also, that Cindy Sheehan types who might read your article won’t be influenced in any way by what you said. After all, anyone screwy enough to believe that 9/11 was an inside job orchestrated by Dick Cheney won’t be rational enough to even comprehend what you said in your article, and even if they could grasp a tiny fraction of what you said, those loonies would surely rationalize that your op-ed piece doesn’t have any credence, because the thrust of your op-ed piece conflicts with all of their loony preconceived notions, notions which they’re too dense, too irrational, too obstinate and too intransigent to ever reconsider.
I’ll be amused to see the loony reactions of some of the zany liberal trolls to your op-ed piece, though.
An amusing aside about Iraq: Agatha Christie wrote a mystery in 1936 set in Iraq, Murder In Mesopotamia. She knew a good deal about it since she accompanied her husband, Mallowan, an archaeologist, on his many trips there.
Saddam Hussein would not keep to his cease-fire agreements as he stipulated he would do and played games with inspectors all through the late 1990′s. Even his own generals didn’t know what capability the regime had, which is a problem endemic with multiple groups of secret police. He should have been taken out for not acting under the cease-fire agreement which, by international protocol, is a binding treaty. If you want ‘international law’ then support it in all instances: don’t attempt to cherry pick it as that never works out.
HAMAS is an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is funded mostly by the Saudi’s.
Hezbollah is the Iranian affiliated group, which has a number of Revolutionary Guard members in it.
Those affiliations were ones prior to 9/11 and OIF. HAMAS has proven very flexible at laundering money from anyone, including Iran, but they are still the ‘armed wing’ of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Chinese have adopted a strategy of asymmetric warfare that likely incorporates similar support of terrorist infrastructure that could be activated during a time of crisis.
1. Somewhere in the bowels of the DOD, etc, there are encrypted top secret files of what really Saddam had or was working on. They will probably be there till the end of time, and was deemed to horrific or would have endangered security to release to the public, or:
2. Intelligience from the CIA and other governments was so faulty that it lead everyone to cry wolf.
I personally believe it its the former. Bush as I remember has never tried to blame anyone else for his actions. In fact if the current person in the White House would have to put up with just half of the nasty things that where said about Bush he would be blaming everyone and saying it wasn’t his fault.
Huh? Most of this stuff has been released and is publicly available – as evidenced by Mr. Mauro’s article. Little of it has been publicized by the MSM, but it’s out there. Yes, Hussain was working on WMD’s; yes, it got removed before we got there; yes, he used gas against his own people; I remember seeing A PBS (!) documentary around the time of the invasion that detailed the run-around that the UN inspectors were getting and how easy it was for Iraq to fool them; there were connections between Iraq and Al-Quada; there were terrorist training camps in Northern Iraq. Personally, I find it rather interesting that North Korea’s nuclear program picked up just after our invasion of Iraq – gee, I wonder where that Iraqi technology went!
Excellent article, Mr. Mauro. As time passes and Iraq evolves into a peaceful and prosperous country and the economic powerhouse of the Middle East, the wisdom of removing Saddam Hussein and overthrowing his odious regime will become almost universally accepted, much to the consternation of the NY Times, the Washington Post, an other similar head-in-the-sand useless liberal rags.
One of the few people who claimed Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction was Saddam.
Of course he was just trying so save his butt.
Whether Saddam had WMD when the US troops invaded is irrelevant. He had them and he used them, both on the Iranians and on his own population (the Kurds). Let us not forget the infamous bombing of the Iraqi nuclear power plant in the 1980s by Israel.
This tyrant wanted WMDs so that he could use them. The same could be said for Ahmedinejad. The only reason the latter is still in power is because of Stuxnet. The alternative would have been ballistic missiles or bombers.
Stuxnet is a wonderful example of asymmetric warfare. We don’t need to do anything to the Iranian leadership now. They merely look incompetent and powerless. Perception is worth more than bullets or bombs in this case. Ahmedinejad’s days are numbered.
Don’t forget about sadam holding up dead babies on al jazeera every night.
Why did the US remain in Iraq after removing Saddam?
They said that the reason was that if the US left, there would be a bloodbath.
The Sunnis and Shiites going after each other.
I for one, was willing to take that chance.
The reality is that these “people” do not know the meaning of co-existence.
They indocrinate their children in hatred.
There is no chance that the sacrifices of Americans will lead to a modern democraatic country.
Divide it! Kurds, Shiites, Sunnis Let them follow their own fate.
When they get out of line again, use the missiles !!!!
REAL good idea – pee in the punch bowl and leave. U.S. credibility dropped low when the media horn blared “no WMD”, but imagine the media hey day they would’ve had with the sectarian blood bath that would have followed if we just left country. With this kind of mindset, nothing would have been gained. But the way it turned out – as costly as it was, yet another accomplishment can be chalked up on account of the Iraq War – teaching the Iraqi ethnic groups how to get along with each other through democracy. There is only one thing to add to this – a HUGE “THANKS” to the men and women that wear digitals in getting this job done despite all that questioned their abilities.
Saddam didn’t need to be removed at all. He was contained, was going nowhere, and was not a threat to the United States. We were in no danger of being invaded by hordes of Iraqis with high tech superweapons that could defeat our impressive collection of toys. The invasion was an idiotic mistake, and it was poorly thought out. But we invaded and then the US managed to employ the worst possible solution, e.g. Bremer was a complete imbecile for disbanding the Iraqi Army. In Murphy-like fashion everything that the incompetent civilian leadership could botch up was botched up.
Was Saddam a tyrant to his own people? Yes. Was this our problem? No. Was he a threat to the USA? No.
Meanwhile the US is bogged down in Afghanistan, which isn’t a country so much as a group of chiefdoms that nobody in their right mind has much use for (outside of raw materials exploitation.) They don’t have a government to speak of and their leader is more Mayor of Kabul than national leader. Note that said bog-down is the fault of the civilian masters, not the military leadership: there’s no real plan at work here.
Meanwhile we have poured trillions into the sand for no good reason. Had the US built nuclear power stations with that same money, we wouldn’t have much of an energy crisis to worry about.
But yet, despite all the predictions of abject failure, a fledgling democracy exists in Iraq now. And an evil, sadistic, virulently anti-American tyrant is dead. This is an “idiotic mistake?”
Put yourself in Bush’s place, in a post 9-11 mindset. (No offense, but I’m talking about the post 9-11 mindset of normal Americans–not the post 9-11 mindset of the Left. Or maybe that’s too much to ask of you.) Virtually every intelligence service in the world was telling Bush that Saddam had WMD’s. (Name one that didn’t.) We certainly were not in danger of being invaded by the comparatively clownish Iraqi Army, or any other army for that matter, but do you honestly believe that Saddam was no threat to Americans if he did actually possess WMD’s? Do you believe that Saddam would not have worked with Al-Qaeda or any other terrorist organization if he thought the result would be dead Americans? That was Bush’s dilemma. Say what you want about GWB–he was not exactly smooth, he was not exactly articulate–but for the country’s sake, he was not willing to take the chance that Saddam would not find a way to use the WMD’s (that Bush logically believed he had) to kill more Americans.
Obviously we failed to find WMD’s, which we can count on our Left to never let us forget. But it can be argued as easily as “Bush lied” that the run-up to the invasion–as we spent a ridiculous amount of time before the invasion trying to justify the invasion to the French and our Left–gave Saddam ample time to rid Iraq of any WMD’s.
You say Saddam was “contained.” How exactly? I’d say he was about as contained as he was 20 years ago, just prior to sending his army into Kuwait.
Just prior to our invasion, Saddam was harboring and supporting a virtual terrorist all-star team to include: Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal (up until he had him shot in 2002), Abu Musad al-Zarqawi, and many, many others. Were they all “contained” as well? Saddam was openly and proudly providing financial support to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Saddam was providing land, at least, for multiple terrorist training camps within the borders of Iraq. Saddam admitted to sending a (luckliy bumbling) hit squad out to assasinate one or OUR former presidents. Saddam was so “contained,” the U.N. felt compelled to send weapons inspectors (which he promptly led on a wild goose chase) into Iraq to look for WMD’s. Saddam was so “contained,” he felt perfectly free to violate (what was it, 19?) U.N. resolutions.
Saddam used WMD’s on the Kurds. Saddam absolutely brutalized his own people. His victims numbered in the tens of thousands. Remember the mass graves that we uncovered? We have made plenty of mistakes along the way, but the good we have accomplished far surpasses the bad. It was not a “mistake.”
(No offense, but I’m talking about the post 9-11 mindset of normal Americans–not the post 9-11 mindset of the Left. Or maybe that’s too much to ask of you.)
It’s amusing to see that those who profess conservatism and individuality the loudest are also those who seem to also insist lockstep conformance with a particular viewpoint and non-conformance is automatically assumed to be that of the dreaded leftists.
Surely it’s theoretically possible in your world to be a conservative and disagree that Saddam was a threat? Probably not; the only people who can possibly disagree are marxists. Au contraire. The entire wing of what most refer to as paleoconservatives (constitutionalists) holds my position. So much for your silly assumption.
This black and white assumption business is so breathtakingly arrogant and stupid that it’s no wonder the GOP is in disarray and imbeciles like Obama can be elected.
No offense, of course.
Well, G.L., when I said “no offense,” I was just trying to sound civil. If you knew me you’d appreciate the effort. But I guess I was just being silly.
Believe it or not, I did consider the possibility that you might be right-of-center. I noticed that you did not mention GWB, and that you did not insult conservatives in general. Insulting Bush/conservatives is de riguer (as long as we’re using French phrases) for the typical leftist.
I have no idea, of course, what an actual percentage might be, but I’ll venture a guess and say, hmm, 99% of the people in this country that say Saddam was not a threat are left-of-center. For all I knew, I could have been reading straight from a Keith Olbermann transcript. But again, guess I’m just being silly.
My implication (not necessarily “assumption”) that you are leftist, G.L., came from what you wrote, particularly the “idiotic mistake” part. Was your “assumption” that I am conservative “silly?” I do not “insist lockstep conformance” with anything–but, from what you say, apparently you ARE marching lockstep with “the entire wing” of Paleos. (I’m not sure I agree with your assessment of Paleos, but whatever).
I won’t call you “stupid” or “arrogant,” G.L., but I will strongly disagree with you on whether Saddam was actually a threat or not. And I’ll leave it at that.
What exactly is containment when describing a sovereign state leader with hostile intent and military capability to do immense harm to his neighbors?
another missing element,that has been buried by the media,and washington d.c.good ole’boy’s network is; 4 months after we went into iraq;jordan;s military captured,saddam loyalist, from syria,and iraq,in jordan,in possession of 20 ton’s of biological,and chemical weapons,believed to come from iraq,and saddam hussein’s arsenal.i still have pictures of the king of jordan,posing with the open boxes,before the world media; suddenly the story was hushed,and no one seem to remember this fact.except for some like myself,and stephen hayes,who is a regular guest on fox news,as well a well known columnist.i spoke about it,a few years ago,with a liberal guest on c-span,who adamately denied that fact.i told the host they need to go to their archives,because they made a huge deal of it right after it happened,as did every other media in the country.then suddenly,everyone seems to have a sudden case of amnesia.not denying it didn’t happen.just don’t remember.i’m not a conspiracy theorist.but theirs something bizzare about this lapse in memory;would pajama editors,or anyone consider looking into this forgotton story.i can’t get any answers.and both political parties,including george w. bush,and his administration know about it;it has to be very significant,to our national interest,or we are either hiding,or protecting something,or someone,for president bush,to ignor the very proof that would exhonorate the bush administration,and the cia,of the distortions,accusations,and outright lies,perpretated by the democrat party,the media,and benedict arnold’s like colin powell,richard armitage, joe wilson, valerie plame,and richard clark;just to name a few;jimmy joe;”the liarfryer”
The author omits the most important factor that jsutified the removal of Saddam; His role as a Soviet and then Russian tool of formenting the eternal tension in the Middle East in order to keep the prices of oil as high as possible.
The second, even more important was to use by Russkies nuclear armed Iraq to destroy the US influence in that region and if possible to expell America altogether.
It was an element of Russia’s long strategy dating Yurij Andropow to make the Soviet Union a leader and a controler of energy market with the creation of the mega Oil and Gas Cartel, where the US and Western Europe would be its eternal cutomers.
This policy is being continued by the Russian despot – Vladimir Putin with great succes.
Today the US and Western Europe are dependant on the foreign oil and gas as never before.
The second element of that strategy was to prevent the US and Western Europe from developing their own independent energy industry as it would entrench the West even further in its dependancy on Russia and her allies.
That has been achieved by poisoning the minds of hundreds of millions Western “useful idiots” with the “global warming” scam.
In that aspect, the Russian neo-commies scored even bigger victory.
There is NO DOUBT that if Bush refrained from removing Saddam, the works on the Saddam’s nuke would be restarted as soon as the last “ispectors” would have leaved Iraq.
General Jon Micheil Pacepa, the highest ranking defector from the Communist Block pints on the existence of the so called “Sarindarin” plan which in Arabic means “exit” and which has been concocted by the Soviets and Saddam to help Hussain concel is WMD in the event of some “international” action against his regime.
Iraqi Air Force Gen. Georges Sada has also talked many times that the major componets for saddam’s nikes had been smuggled to Syria shortly befor the invasion began.
Today, the role of Iraq is being taken over by Iranian Islamo-Fascist regime, only now Russians are much more blatant and insolent (obviously in the face of Obama’s cowardice and appeasement) about their intentions.
It is worthy to make a comment on the unimaginable hipocrisy, cowardice towards Iran and back-stabbing towards the US by her former allies Germany, Britain, France on one side and Russians on the other.
For some six-seven years, America’s NATO allies have been promissing Bush that if the political manouvering and sanctions against Mullahs failed, the Europs would support a military action agains Iran.
Not only they have betrayed the US and Bush, but they also are the major (and Germany in particular)abusers of the sanctions they all have agreed upon.
In her latest interview for NEWSMAX, Sarah Palin who is constantly growing in her statue as a future US President was pretty blatant about the inevitability of the military action against Iran.
Looks like the next two-three years (or even more) are going to be extremely interesting indeed.
One is sure; Perhaps we will be trying to avoid the war but the war shall, for sure, find us…
Sadaam used to give families of suicide bombers $25,000 after their kin blew up some innocents, as I recall. Does the Iran crackpot realize he is going to be the next Sadaam?
That number just keeps getting bigger
I’m not sure that the information in that AP article supports the conclusions you’re reaching for. As far as I can see, it basically confirms what we already knew, i.e: saddam wasn’t a threat directly to the US, he didn’t like islamists – and UBL in particular – but he was willing to support palestinian terror groups to some extent (i.e letting a few of them hang out in iraq, and giving money to the families of suicide bombers). Yep. We knew that.
Obviously he would have been happy about 9/11 – in case you missed it, his country was under sanctions that were effectively enforced by the US. And the US led the coalition that kicked him out of kuwait and destroyed his army. Not to mention the guy just really hated the US. What did you expect? Hearts and roses?
The congressional resolution to authorize the way was pretty clear about its reasons – that iraq had undisclosed WMD programs and there was a risk that he’d either strike against the US himself, or give WMD to terrorists to use against US interests. None of those claims has been supported by the evidence found since the invasion.
Are you just completely oblivious to everything except your own little dim-witted and regurgitated leftist notions, or what?
It takes a frightening level of idiocy to reach the conclusions that you reach from the reading of this article.
I doubt you’ve even read the actual Congressional Resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. To be sure, WMD’s are mentioned repeatedly. But also mentioned is the brutal oppression of the Iraqi people and the 1998 resolution that made regime change and the establishment of democracy in Iraq official U.S. policy. Also repeatedly mentioned in the Congressional Resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq is Saddam’s support and facilitation of international terrorism. (To include, but not exclusively, Al Qaeda)
Indisputably, Saddam was guilty as charged. The only thing iffy is the presence of WMD’s. There is plenty of evidence that he did possess them. Where’s your evidence that he destroyed them?
In invading Iraq, Bush did nothing but uphold the mandates of his spineless predecessor, the U.S. Congress, and the U.N. And he removed an obvious threat from the world stage.
What part of that do you not understand?
Rich M
“Are you just completely oblivious to everything except your own little dim-witted and regurgitated leftist notions, or what”
Wow. That’s some pretty cutting-edge argument, there.
“It takes a frightening level of idiocy to reach the conclusions that you reach from the reading of this article.”
There’s MORE?
“I doubt you’ve even read the actual Congressional Resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq.”
If I hadn’t read it, I wouldn’t have brought it up. I’ll wager you didn’t even know there was one until I mentioned it
“Indisputably, Saddam was guilty as charged.”
Of being a thug, yes. Of being a brutal dictator, yes. Of “facilitating international terrorism” (with or without AQ), not so much. Unless you take “facilitating” to include, well, pretty much anything you like. He wasn’t a threat to anyone outside his own borders – that was apparent then, and it’s downright obvious now. Huff and puff all you like. Grab onto any little claim you can – yes, there were some rusty old shells buried in the desert. Yes, one guy had a few vials of botox in his fridge. But he was not a threat. So let’s stop pretending about that.
And you’ve ignored what I wrote. My point is that there’s nothing in that “Newly Declassified Iraqi Testimony” that we didn’t already know. At least not according to the link. It’s not the smoking gun that changes the debate. That’s my point. Try reading the AP article.
“The only thing iffy is the presence of WMD’s.”
Not even close.
“There is plenty of evidence that he did possess them. Where’s your evidence that he destroyed them?”
Um. They’re not there?
“In invading Iraq, Bush did nothing but uphold the mandates of his spineless predecessor, the U.S. Congress, and the U.N. And he removed an obvious threat from the world stage”
He did a bit more than that. He destroyed the credibility the US intelligence infrastructure. That’s significant now that the same people want to convince the world that iran wants a bomb. See the problem?
“What part of that do you not understand?”
I think I’ll stick with reality. How you see it is up to you.
OK, so the answer to my first question would be a “yes.”
As far as your “point,” maybe I did ignore it. Seems only fair because you’re completely missing mine. And I’ve read some of your other comments. You have a real talent for missing points, Matthew. You even miss the point in some of the links that you post–which is pretty damn funny actually. But that’s OK. Keep it up.
This will be a complete waste of my time, but here goes: It does not matter, in this particular context, whether or not the newly declassified report adds anything to the debate. (Although, seeing as it was just declassified, seems kind of hard to believe that it wouldn’t, right?) You make assertions as if they are foregone conclusions. The report did not confirm “what we already knew.” We didn’t already know that Saddam wasn’t “directly a threat to the US.” (Because, you see, he WAS a threat) Your opinions are not facts. Your regurgitations of the crap you read at MoveOn are not facts.
You say that Saddam “let a few” terrorists “hang out” in Iraq. In reality, he let several key terrorists “hang out.” (Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal, Abu Musad al-Zarqawi, etc) In addition, Saddam’s military ran camps (the three main camps were at Samarra, Ramadi, and Salman Pak) that trained literally thousands of terrorists from all over the Islamic world per year. He may not have liked “Islamists” but apparently not enough to not train them to be terrorists. See the problem?
One of the U.N. resolutions that Saddam violated required that he provide evidence that he destroyed his WMD’s. He did not provide this evidence, and we did not find any evidence. We do know that he had WMD’s at one time. We have no evidence that he destroyed them. See the problem? Couple that with the fact that 2 or 3 of his high-ranking defectors have come forward to say that Saddam moved his WMD’s to Syria, and the Israelis, with the best intelligence in that region by far, say that he moved them to Syria–see the problem? (No, probably not). The fact that we have not been able to confirm that he moved his WMD’s to Syria means, well, just that. No confirmation. But it is a theory that is more logical than the theory that he didn’t have them at all. And your evidence for that theory is: “Um. They’re not there.” Nice. With the exception being an extremely talented and well-connected spy, the only way we could possibly confirm the presence of Saddam’s WMD’s in Syria is to invade them too. Don’t see that happening anytime soon.
I’ll tell you what Matthew–you stick with your “reality,” and I’ll stick with mine.
“OK, so the answer to my first question would be a “yes.””
See, here’s the thing. Online, bluster doesn’t work. You probably think you’re being quite impressive. Maybe you’ve got an image in mind – shoving your finger in my face and shouting and all. But I’m just rolling my eyes and thinking you’d be better off backing up your claims with some proper argument.
“As far as your “point,” maybe I did ignore it. Seems only fair because you’re completely missing mine. And I’ve read some of your other comments. You have a real talent for missing points, Matthew. You even miss the point in some of the links that you post”
The links I’ve posted have been directly relevant to the points that people have made. My point is directly relevant to the point of this thread. I’m not exactly sure what you’re doing.
“This will be a complete waste of my time …”
No, it’s not – it’s keeping me entertained.
“but here goes: It does not matter, in this particular context, whether or not the newly declassified report adds anything to the debate.”
It does, because that’s what this thread is about. It’s even in the title.
“We didn’t already know that Saddam wasn’t “directly a threat to the US.” (Because, you see, he WAS a threat)”
How? Seriously. Tell me how you think a disarmed saddam was going to pose an actual threat to the US. Spell it out. Think about what “threat” really means.
“You say that Saddam “let a few” terrorists “hang out” in Iraq. In reality, he let several key terrorists “hang out.” (Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal, Abu Musad al-Zarqawi, etc)”
Saddam backed Nidal in PLO’s internal political fights. He gave him PLO’s assets in iraq after he was expelled. Last I checked, Abu Nidal hasn’t been much of a player in international terrorism for quite a while (and he never will be again – because saddam probably had him killed). He hadn’t even been relevant to the israeli/palestinian fight for most of a decade before 2003. If he’s an example of “facilitating international terrorism”, you’ve got a problem. As for zarqawi, it’s taken most of the last decade for the intelligence community to even work out if he’d ever BEEN to iraq. The consensus is that he probably was there, but saddam probably didn’t know it. And you’re accusing me of treating “assertions as foregone conclusions”?
“One of the U.N. resolutions that Saddam violated required that he provide evidence that he destroyed his WMD’s. He did not provide this evidence, and we did not find any evidence.”
Well, that’s a whole argument in itself. Saddam was very unwise, that’s for sure. But we DID know he had no nuclear program (that’s why “WMD” needed to be hyped instead – the whitehouse would have dearly loved to be able to claim “nuclear” and couldn’t, but “WMD” still implied it). Talk to the people who were running the inspections and you’ll find that they were pretty irked with saddam, but they were almost as irked with the presidents they worked for, who also seemed less concerned with proving anything one way or another and more concerned with using the inspections as a political football. If the political will had existed, the case would have probably been closed.
One thing the inspections WERE doing was to prevent saddam from being able to actually use any program he might or might not have had (which he didn’t, we now know). As long as those inspections were operating, saddam effectively had no useful WMDs. Add to that the fact that he didn’t use those WMDs against the coalition in 1991. He never used them against israel. Why on earth would he suddenly start chucking them around in 2003?
“I’ll tell you what Matthew–you stick with your “reality,” and I’ll stick with mine.”
Your reality seems to consist of finding that tiny little scrap of remaining justification and trying to make out it was the whole slam-dunk. Nobody with a clue thought iraq was a proper external threat in 2003. You can claim “well, nobody could prove he wasn’t”, but that was because nobody was TRYING to. Bush wanted a war with iraq – that was apparent then, and we know it now. All the ducks were being lined up to sell that prospect. Anyone who tried to undermine any aspect of the case was attacked. At some point, surely, you have to acknowledge that.
But like I say – it’s come back to bite the CIA. Because right now they want to convince the world that Iran is a threat, and nobody is buying it.
Date: December 23, 2002
http://www.meforum.org/755/syria-after-lebanon-the-growing-syrian-missile
Ariel Sharon stated on Israeli television, “Chemical and biological weapons which Saddam is endeavoring to conceal have been moved from Iraq to Syria.”[24] About three weeks later, Israel’s foreign minister repeated the accusation.[25] The U.S., British, and Australian governments issued similar statements. [26]
I reckon folks should learn to check references for themselves. Then this sort of thing would be less common.
Here’s what bolton said:
http://web.archive.org/web/20030924204415/http://www.state.gov/t/us/rm/24135.htm
And here’s what downer said:
http://web.archive.org/web/20030707201727/http://www.dfat.gov.au/media/transcripts/2003/030605_doorstop.html
So basically you’ve got Ariel Sharon making a wild allegation about syria without any proof. The article takes that, along with some comments from other governments saying that there’s no evidence, as a slam-dunk.
No, it wasn’t just a wild statement by Sharon. Iraqi Air Force General Georges Sada went public saying that Iraq’s WMDs went to Syria. The problem with the “investigation” that is cited is that the investigation was handled so as not to be able to confirm.
“No, it wasn’t just a wild statement by Sharon”
If said without evidence, it’s a wild statement.
“Iraqi Air Force General Georges Sada went public saying that Iraq’s WMDs went to Syria.”
It’s hardly “going public” for an out-of-favor FORMER general to report a rumor. Heck, I could have claimed that with just as much legitimacy. Did he have evidence? Was he involved? Nope. He just claimed that some unnamed pilots had told him they’d flown bits of WMD to syria. What if he said the same pilots told him they’d seen UFOs?
“The problem with the “investigation” that is cited is that the investigation was handled so as not to be able to confirm.”
It’s a vast conspiracy to protect that great friend of the US … syria.
“So basically you’ve got Ariel Sharon making a wild allegation about syria without any proof. The article takes that, along with some comments from other governments saying that there’s no evidence, as a slam-dunk.”
Problem is with your analogy here, is that there were several other items that back up this probability:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/cw.htm
“In a briefing for journalists reported on October 29, 2003, the director of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency said satellite images showed a heavy flow of traffic from Iraq into Syria just before the American invasion in March 2003.” – Retired Air Force Lieutenant General James Clapper Jr. said he believed “unquestionably” that illicit weapons material was transported into Syria and perhaps other countries. He said “I think people below the Saddam- Hussein-and-his-sons level saw what was coming and decided the best thing to do was to destroy and disperse. … I think probably in the few months running up to the onset of the conflict, I think there was probably an intensive effort to disperse into private hands, to bury it, and to move it outside the country’s borders.”
ISG Report – http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/dkay100203.html
- From birth all of Iraq’s WMD activities were highly compartmentalized within a regime that ruled and kept its secrets through fear and terror and with deception and denial built into each program;
- Deliberate dispersal and destruction of material and documentation related to weapons programs began pre-conflict and ran trans-to-post conflict;
- Post-OIF looting destroyed or dispersed important and easily collectable material and forensic evidence concerning Iraq’s WMD program. As the report covers in detail, significant elements of this looting were carried out in a systematic and deliberate manner, with the clear aim of concealing pre-OIF activities of Saddam’s regime;
- Some WMD personnel crossed borders in the pre/trans conflict period and may have taken evidence and even weapons-related materials with them;
06 January, 2004 – Nizar Nayuf (Nayyouf-Nayyuf), a Syrian journalist who recently defected from Syria to Western Europe and is known for bravely challenging the Syrian regime, said in a letter Monday, January 5, to Dutch newspaper “De Telegraaf,” that he knows the three sites where Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) are kept.
Nayouf writes that the transfer of Iraqi WMD to Syria was organized by the commanders of Saddam Hussein’s Special Republican Guard, including General Shalish, with the help of Assif Shoakat , Bashar Assad’s cousin. Shoakat is the CEO of Bhaha, an import/export company owned by the Assad family.
In February 2003, a month before America’s invasion in Iraq, very few are aware about the efforts to bring the Weapons of Mass Destruction from Iraq to Syria, and the personal involvement of Bashar Assad and his family in the operation.
01/24/2004 – David Kayehttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/25/wirq25.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/01/25/ixnewstop.html
“We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons,” he said. “But we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam’s WMD programme. Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved.”
Sept. 2004 – Marine LtGen. Michael DeLong – http://www.strategypage.com/bookreviews/247.asp
“flat-out states that Syria was a hiding place for Iraq’s WMD.”
March 3, 2005 – John Shaw – “I am absolutely sure that Russian Spetsnatz units moved WMD out of Iraq before the war,” stated John Shaw, the former deputy undersecretary for international technology security.
According to Shaw, Russian units hid Saddam’s arsenal inside Syria and in Lebanon’s Bekka valley.
“While in Iraq I uncovered detailed information that Spetsnatz units shredded records and moved all WMD and specified advanced munitions out of Iraq to Syria and Lebanon,” stated Shaw during an exclusive interview.
“I received information from several sources naming the exact Russian units, what they took and where they took both WMD materials and conventional explosives. Moscow made a 2001 agreement with Saddam Hussein to clear up all Russian involvement in WMD systems in Iraq,” stated Shaw.
Ali Ibrahim Al-Tikriti – http://www.worldthreats.com/?p=24
“I know Saddam’s weapons are in Syria due to certain military deals that were made going as far back as the late 1980′s that dealt with the event that either capitols were threatened with being overrun by an enemy nation. Not to mention I have discussed this in-depth with various contacts of mine who have confirmed what I already knew. At this point Saddam knew that the United States were eventually going to come for his weapons and the United States wasn’t going to just let this go like they did in the original Gulf War. He knew that he had lied for this many years and wanted to maintain legitimacy with the pan Arab nationalists. He also has wanted since he took power to embarrass the West and this was the perfect opportunity to do so. After Saddam denied he had such weapons why would he use them or leave them readily available to be found? That would only legitimize President Bush, who he has a personal grudge against. What we are witnessing now is many who opposed the war to begin with are rallying around Saddam saying we overthrew a sovereign leader based on a lie about WMD. This is exactly what Saddam wanted and predicted.”
January 26, 2006 – Georges Sada – http://www.nysun.com/foreign/iraqs-wmd-secreted-in-syria-sada-says/26514/
“”There are weapons of mass destruction gone out from Iraq to Syria, and they must be found and returned to safe hands,” Mr. Sada said. “I am confident they were taken over.”
Mr. Sada’s comments come just more than a month after Israel’s top general during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Moshe Yaalon, told the Sun that Saddam “transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria.”
Mr. Sada, 65, told the Sun that the pilots of the two airliners that transported the weapons of mass destruction to Syria from Iraq approached him in the middle of 2004, after Saddam was captured by American troops.
“I know them very well. They are very good friends of mine. We trust each other. We are friends as pilots,” Mr. Sada said of the two pilots. He declined to disclose their names, saying they are concerned for their safety. But he said they are now employed by other airlines outside Iraq.
The pilots told Mr. Sada that two Iraqi Airways Boeings were converted to cargo planes by removing the seats, Mr. Sada said. Then Special Republican Guard brigades loaded materials onto the planes, he said, including “yellow barrels with skull and crossbones on each barrel.” The pilots said there was also a ground convoy of trucks.
The flights – 56 in total, Mr. Sada said – attracted little notice because they were thought to be civilian flights providing relief from Iraq to Syria, which had suffered a flood after a dam collapse in June of 2002.
“Saddam realized, this time, the Americans are coming,” Mr. Sada said. “They handed over the weapons of mass destruction to the Syrians.”
If you are searching for your “smoking gun”, I’m afraid they moved it to Syria. I’ve searched through documents, and reports, and it all comes up the same – he had these weapons up until months, weeks, or even days before the coalition invasion began.
So now that we have provided several people with the same “wild allegation”, we can continue to believe that at least one of these people is saying the truth and you can continue to believe that they are all liars.
I’m sure Assad would just surrender them with the asking, or maybe we can just go ahead and invade Syria to search for these weapons to satisfy your doubts.
JUST in case we can still make a believer out of you, let’s give you some of those “old” documents you believe have no relevance:
3/25/2003 dated captured Iraqi document requests Palestinian terrorists to come to Iraq thru Syria:
This mornining of 25/3/2003, Mr. Khlaed Ahmad Gibril and Dr. Talal Naji the Deputy of the General Secretary of the Popular Front For the Liberation of Palestine (General Headquarters) visited our mission and met our Ambassador the chairman of the mission and the delegation indicated it solidarity and support to Iraq.
Mr. Khaled Ahmad Gibril and Dr. Talal Naji said that there is coordination going on with the organizations of Hamas and Islamic Jihad and other Palestinian organizations to escalate the suicide operations in the inside and that is timed with the resistance of the Iraqi people.
Mr. Khaled Ahmad Gibril and Dr. Talal Naji informed us that the Front decided to send forces to Iraq to fight to the side of the Iraqi people and in the locations chosen by the Iraqi leadership, and preferably to be in cities. And the groups that will be sent are elite units and have experience in cities warfare and that thess forces will be made of 500 fighters and it will arrive Iraq in groups and as follow:
1. The first unit: It will be composed of 100 fighters and will arrive in three days with its complete machines and equipments, and each platoon from these platoons is made of an air defense anti-aircraft group and equipped with 23 mm Strella machine guns.
2. The second unit: it will be made of anti-tank with SPG-9 launchers and a military engineering group to plant improvised bombs that are remotely guided and car bombs and it include Suicide Martyrs groups and each platoon of these platoons has these weapons.
3. The third Unit: The fire support unit and made of multi rocket launchers 107 and include Suicide Martyrdom elements and fighting elements and also has a guiding unit.
The Front ask that these forces enter from the North of Abou Kamal area, and these forces do not need anything since it has enough weapons and ammunitions and it only need fuel.
The delegation said that they go the initial approval by the Syrian side to send these forces to Iraq. It is noteworthy that the delegation expressed its amazement of the administration of the battle from all its political, media, military, and economic sides, and they are optimistic of the certainty of victory God willing.
Please let us know quickly and give us directions, with regards
Signature
Mohamad Rifaa’t Ali Al AA’NI
The Chairman of the Mission
How about this one dated just days before the coalition invasion: March 11, 2003 – http://rayrobison.typepad.com/ray_robison/2006/03/hi_uk_guardian_.html
The al-Quds liberation army division supplied us with information (open source) (impaired broadcast) as follows:
1. The Iraqi government will distribute the same leaflets that the American forces are distributing but it will contain anthrax.
2. Iraq imports uniforms resembling American forces uniforms for the purpose of killing Iraqi citizens because the American forces had killed the innocent sons of the Iraqi people.
3. Dig trenches around the city of Baghdad and set up oil barrels and derivatives for the purpose of burning and causing mayhem the city of Baghdad as Iraq did in Kuwait.
4. Diplomats are leaving Iraq and Russia says that it has already taken out its representatives from inside Iraq.
5. There is a rumor that some of the children of ministers and high ranking commerce people left Iraq for Russia.
Request review…with regards
Director of the al-Quds Army Intelligence Organization.
and this one:
In the Name of God, most Merciful, most Compassionate
Republic of Iraq
Presidential Office
Iraqi Intelligence Service
Top Secret
Number: 549
Date: 23 January 2003
To / All National Offices [directorates] listed below
Reference / Emergency Plan
- Security [Service]
- [Military] Intelligence
- Intelligence [Service]
In reference to our secret letter, numbered 3870, dated 19 January 2003, please do what is necessary if, God forbid, the Iraqi Command falls to the Coalition Forces—the Americans, British and Zionists. To all the associates in your offices, and specifically the departments mentioned above, proceed in accordance with the following instructions:
1. Demolish and burn all offices in the country, especially [those] associated with ours and other departments.
2. Change your residence from time to time.
3. Sabotage electrical power stations.
4. Sabotage water stations.
5. Recruit reliable sources and direct them to the mosques.
6. Join with the Islamic Hawza `Alemiya in Najaf. [Translator’s comment: The Hawza is an Islamic religious teaching institution.]
7. Associate with the national and Islamic groups and parties.
8. Cease all internal and external communications.
9. Purchase stolen weapons from the public.
10. Develop relationships with those returning from abroad.
11. Assassinate the clergy in the mosques. [Translator’s comment: Clergy here includes both Imams and orators (guest speakers).]
A copy to the [Illegible signature]
Baghdad Intelligence Directorate Comrade
Ninawa Intelligence Directorate General Intelligence Director
Al Basra Intelligence Directorate 23 January 2003
and maybe this one:
The Republic of Iraq
The Presidency of the Republic
The Intelligence Service
Number: SH S/5083
Date: 1423 (Hijra), 12/12/2002
Secret
Mr. the respected M. M. SH. KH
To: Fifth, Sixth, Seventh Directorate
We would like to inform your Excellency that the date of 14/12/2002 was determined by the respected Secretary for the goal of the important and top secret meeting with our source number (1000) Aymen Al Zawahiri to agree on studying the prepared plan by the Respected Presidential Committee regarding the operation (Revenge) inside the territories of the “two holy shrines” with our source “Izahar Al Sheikli” and for the purpose of informing them about all the details of the plan put forth by the Secretariat of National Security council.
With regards
Hassan Abed AL Wahed Salem
R. AA’. Fifth Directorate
12/12/2002
or this one:
The Republic Of Iraq
The Presidency of The Republic
Press Secretary
No 4/28
Date: 4/March/2002
To the Respectful Chairman of the Presidential Archives
Respectful Order
In the meeting on Monday 4/3/2002 with Mr. Farook Al Kaddomi, the foreign minister of the state of Palestine, Mr. President the Leader ordered, God protect him, to dedicate (25,000), twenty five thousand dollars for the family of each one who conducts Martydom operation in Palestine.
His Excellency also ordered, God shepherd him, to include the martyrs of the Intifada with what the martyrs of the mother of all battles deserve from a salary and provisions since we have considered them the same.
Pleading please review your Excellency.
With regards
Signature
Ali Abdllah Salman
The Press Secretary.
End of Translation
“Poses no threat outside his borders” eh? – yeh, riiightt – believe that and we’ll have another 9-11 on our hands.
Erm … isn’t all of that indicating that iraq wanted insurgents to ENTER iraq? How’s that posing an external threat?
Oh, I forgot one more “wild allegation”. Just providing the link to it, because you and everyone else should read the whole thing:
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=4942
It’s a shame that none of the talking heads on MSM cared to interview this guy. Probably because he would make LIARS out of all of them…..
Wow. Posting the whole internet. Why didn’t I think of that?
I’ll just go with langley:
https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html
See the addenda. Page one:
Of COURSE there was traffic out of iraq in the days leading up to the war. Just like there was traffic out of berlin as the russians advanced and, years before that, there was some pretty impressive traffic out of moscow as napoleon advanced. That’s what happens before invasions.
Now – just tell me that you REALLY believe the CIA is part of this vast conspiracy designed to prevent the US from finding the WMD that were used to justify the whole operation and … well, you win. In a sense.
Matthew,
Does our lack of proof demand that Sharon also lacks proof?
That’s the point. Mathew can only find sources that cannot rule out that there is a possibility that WMD “may have been moved out of Iraq”. They can beat around all they want that none were found, and they don’t have evidence there they were moved out of Iraq. But the fact remains, that there are more than one source that makes this claim. For what benefit would they be making this claim? What does it benefit them? Purely not for attention, because the MSM just ignores them all together anyhow. I highly doubt he read the interview with former U.S. Federal Agent Paul (Dave) Gaubatz. It tells a grave story of how inept and poorly managed the ISG was. He can go with his one or two sources that cannot confirm that WMD was not moved out of Iraq. I’ll put my $ with several that will swear it was and with the captured Iraqi documents that illustrate Saddam truly was a threat to this world – all the way to point he was hanging on the end of a rope.
Perhaps sharon might have thought to give his proof to the CIA?
AngryAmerican
“That’s the point. Mathew can only find sources that cannot rule out that there is a possibility that WMD “may have been moved out of Iraq”.”
You also can’t rule out the possibility of UFO’s, or a teapot orbiting the earth. What the CIA (and others) have stated quite clearly is that there is no credible evidence that they WERE moved to syria.
“For what benefit would they be making this claim? What does it benefit them? Purely not for attention”
Actually, yes. That was my first thought for at least two of your sources. People selling books with ‘previously unrevealed intelligence’ are always dubious. People trying to suck up to the new boss, doubly so. I can provide air force pilots, even astronauts, who claim to have seen UFOs. Yet nobody can prove the existence of UFO’s. Are you starting to get the analogy?
“because the MSM just ignores them all together anyhow”
No, really, it doesn’t. The reason the stories don’t get a lot of coverage is because … well, what would they SAY? “Yet another ex-retired-defected-iraqi-general reckons he heard somebody say some trucks drove to syria”? You can only print that so many times.
“It tells a grave story of how inept and poorly managed the ISG was.”
The US military has now been in iraq for 7 years. The country has a non-baathist government. Show me the evidence. Graffiti on a toilet door is not evidence.
“He can go with his one or two sources that cannot confirm that WMD was not moved out of Iraq”
Yeah, the foreign ministers of a couple of coalition countries and the CIA. I guess you’re right – what would they know? And they’re notoriously anti-bush, right?
“I’ll put my $ with several that will swear it was”
Clearly you will. Go right ahead. But there were still no WMD found in iraq. And there are still no UFO’s.
“and with the captured Iraqi documents that illustrate Saddam truly was a threat to this world”
Yeah. Right.
from wiki:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution
* Iraq’s noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.
* Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a “threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region.”
* Iraq’s “brutal repression of its civilian population.”
* Iraq’s “capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people”.
* Iraq’s hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
* Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, ARE (present tense) known to be in Iraq.
* Iraq’s “continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations,” including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
* The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them.
* The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
* Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.
Thanks, but I think people should just read the original for themselves. It’s not very long:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm
Great job by Bush & co. in crushing the Baathists and their terrorist proxies in Iraq.
Too bad they couldn’t take out the ever-treasonous Left here me, while they were at it.
I do not agree with the author, but I would like to make it clear that I am happy that Saddam is gone. He after all started a war in the 1980s that killed close to a million people.
However, I believe that the invasion of Iraq was wrong. It has had a lot of negative consequences:
1) It was started by Bush who basically gave reasons for it that later proved to be false.
2) During the war, the size of the US government kept growing. The economy is being ruined by Obama, but the rot started with Bush.
3) The US is much less able to enforce its desires now. Whereas before the war the Iranians were genuinely afraid of the US and ready to get rid of their nuclear program, now they have strong reasons to believe that the US won’t attack. After all if there was so much trouble fighting 5 million Sunnis in Iraq, would the US really attack a largely unified country of 70 million?
4) Bush’s extremism made it possible for another extremist in the form of Obama to get elected. We need rational leaders, not extremists.
5) The real centers of terrorism, that is Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan were not dealt with, and continue to provide sustenance to terrorism.
The Iraqi war did not begin but cast into stone some judgments held today by a majority of Americans. It is reinforced by scholarship such as performed by the author. The most important judgment is the bankruptcy of the integrity within our major media. No American could believe that this article would be published in the New York Times, or receive in depth reporting by the three major networks. From global warming to energy policy, to waste and corruption charges in Washington D.C., we have two sets of truth, which by definition is impossible.
But it explains the phenomena of pajamasmedia, Fox News, and Drudge Report. People seek real news. The “Bush lied, and led us into an illegal war”, which ignores standing Congressional authorization, simply is a falsehood, although the clarity of this, and most Congressional authorizations, points to a most incompetent group.
The true accusation against the Bush administration is a total strategic ignorance of our real enemies. History has proven that our intelligence powers were nonexistent in our enemy’s high command. Even our language skill set was puerile.
And finally, after Gen. T. Franks’ brilliant, historic capture of Baghdad, the US performed stupidly. We had no clear strategy, or means to accomplish it. This war, like many, was won by Corporals, and Sergeants, with little support from our leaders. Congress’ performance borders between treason and idiocy. The entirety of Capital Hill has not contributed as much as one grave in Arlington cemetery.
History is unkind to nations led by delusional, or stupid leaders.
Agreed that the invasion itself was performed magnificently, and that having succesfully ousted Saddam, the U.S. government had no clear strategy for the occupation, and completely underestimated resistance to its troops by a people freed from bondage by those very troops, whose performance in the face of such willful incompetence was, for the most part, exemplary.
Although the movie “Green Zone” is not entirely factual, it did remind one of a major mistake was the void in security immediately following the downfall of Hussein’s regime. A void that left looting rampant – looting that may have had the answers to many of our questions.
Many mistakes were made in this war. But if you find a war without mistakes, then you have found a war that was never fought. The end result is what America should be proud of, but thanks to MSM it leaves us with mixed emotions. We should be proud we removed evil from the face of this earth and that a free and prosperous nation now exists because of us. We should be proud of the men and women that fought to get it to this point.
MoveOn.org hijacked – pardon the pun – the narrative on this, dragged the media along, and no one now accurately remembers the actual debnate on the Iraq invasion. The principal reason given for attacking Iraq was that it had utterly failed to comply with the numerous U.N. Security Council resolutions imposed on it after the Gulf War, and that it failed to abide by the cease-fire terms to which Hussein agreed with the U.S. itself in 1991. Thus, the United States was still at war with Saddam (tying up a large number of troops stationed to enforce the no-fly zone and protect Kuwait and Saudi Arabia from invasion), and after the horrific attack of 9/11, decided no longer to give the benefit of the doubt to a brutal dictator with a past history of possession of weapons of mass destruction, attacking other countries, and supporting terrorism, and to treat him as the threat he was. Whether he still possessed the weapons – which evidence suggests he did until he used the long run-up to the war to dispose of the last of them – is immaterial. It was proof of their destruction he was obligated to provide, and did not.
As I said at the time, even if none of this turned out to be true, we still rid the world of a brutal dictator with the blood of millions on his hands, who had invaded multiple neighbors, tortured countless political dissidents, oppressed an entire Shi’ite population, used chemical weapons on his own citizens, supported terrorism, and stole the wealth of his people for himself. Had Saddam been in Bosnia or Rwanda, and had no oil, the Bush critics would be the first ones demanding the U.S. get involved. Their hypocrisy is stark and telling.
Tell that to this guy:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/mar/18/usa.iraq
That’s the text of bush’s “ultimatum” speech. I don’t think he got your memo.
It would have been better if the UN had removed him
That is the biggest joke of all, the UN?? Really?? You think the UN capable of anything??? That pretty much sums up what is wrong with the left, they actually think the UN serves a function. Amazing.
The UN isn’t an independent military. It was never supposed to be (or would you LIKE it to be?
)
“No WMD found” eh???
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918
WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 – The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center’s commander said here today.
“These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes … they do constitute weapons of mass destruction,” Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.
http://www.bizzyblog.com/ChemicalStash_WaPo081405.html
By Ellen Knickmeyer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, August 14, 2005; A18
BAGHDAD, Aug. 13 — U.S. troops raiding a warehouse in the northern city of Mosul uncovered a suspected chemical weapons factory containing 1,500 gallons of chemicals believed destined for attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces and civilians, military officials said Saturday.
Monday’s early morning raid found 11 precursor agents, “some of them quite dangerous by themselves,” a military spokesman, Lt. Col. Steven A. Boylan, said in Baghdad.
Combined, the chemicals would yield an agent capable of “lingering hazards” for those exposed to it, Boylan said. The likely targets would have been “coalition and Iraqi security forces, and Iraqi civilians,” partly because the chemicals would be difficult to keep from spreading over a wide area, he said.
http://www.bizzyblog.com/PolishChemMunitions070204.html
- MONIKA SCISLOWSKA, Associated Press Writer
Friday, July 2, 2004
(07-02) 07:18 PDT WARSAW, Poland (AP) –
Terrorists may have been close to obtaining munitions containing the deadly nerve agent cyclosarin that Polish soldiers recovered last month in Iraq, the head of Poland’s military intelligence said Friday.
Polish troops had been searching for munitions as part of their regular mission in south-central Iraq when they were told by an informant in May that terrorists had made a bid to buy the chemical weapons, which date back to Saddam Hussein’s war with Iran in the 1980s, Gen. Marek Dukaczewski told reporters in Warsaw.
“We were mortified by the information that terrorists were looking for these warheads and offered $5,000 apiece,” Dukaczewski said. “An attack with such weapons would be hard to imagine. All of our activity was accelerated at appropriating these warheads.”
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0405/17/acd.00.html
COOPER: Ben Wedeman, thanks very much, live from Baghdad. At this hour U.S. troops are conducting tests on another device that exploded over the weekend. Preliminary tests show it was loaded with sarin, making it perhaps the first evidence of nerve gas existing in Iraq since the start of the war last year. CNN national security correspondent David Ensor reports.
(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)
DAVID ENSOR, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The suspect artillery shell was discovered Saturday near Baghdad Airport.
BG MARK KIMMITT, U.S. ARMY: It was a weapon that we believe was stocked from the ex-regime time, and it had been thought to be an ordinary artillery shell set up to explode like an ordinary IED.
ENSOR: An IED, an improvised explosive device, made from what insurgents may have thought was a conventional, 155 millimeter artillery shell, like the many that are all over Iraq. A few soldiers who helped transport the exploded shell got mild symptoms consistent with exposure to sarin gas. They got quick treatment. They were lucky.
JONATHAN TUCKER, CHEM-BIO WEAPONS EXPERT: At higher doses, there would be muscle spasms, followed by convulsions, and finally death by respiratory paralysis.
ENSOR: The exploded shell is in the hands of the Iraq Survey Group. The team led by the CIA’s Charles Duelfer, searching for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Officials say additional tests must be done to make sure it really is sarin gas.
DONALD RUMSFELD, U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: We have to be careful.
ENSOR: If it is sarin gas, it would follow the discovery of a mustard gas shell about ten days ago. If there are many more of them out there, that could help the president deflect criticism over his argument that weapons of mass destruction in Iraq were reason enough to go to war.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It would be the first evidence in this conflict that the chemical weapons that Saddam Hussein once had, and we had no evidence of destruction, might now be surfacing, and might be used against our troops.
(END VIDEOTAPE) ENSOR: In 1990, Iraq admitted to the U.N. that it had built some sarin gas artillery shells, prototypes that it insisted had all been destroyed during testing. It now appears, Anderson, that may not have been true.
You’re not getting a lot of sleep, are you angry?
Let’s take that from the top
(1) The artillery shells. Read your own link. Those things date from the late 80′s, and were too degraded to work properly. Were they toxic? Sure. But lots of chemicals are toxic. Just releasing a bunch of chlorine gas will make people sick. Almost nobody in the pentagon has claimed that as vindication. And no, they’re not a secret.
(2) The chemicals. That was a POST-INVASION activity. The site was set up to support activities AFTER baghdad fell. It had nothing to do with saddam’s pre-war activities. That, again is stated clearly in your own link.
(3) and (4) yes, it does seem that there are some remaining shells floating around amongst the population. Probably some grenades, conventional explosives and AK-47′s, too. That’s a pity, but it’s not too surprising given they were used in large numbers in the iran/iraq war. But a few isolated cases is a bit odd, if it’s part of some left-over, organized weapons program. In all cases, the shells have been identified as old and degraded. In the case of one IED, it appears that the people who wired up the device didn’t even know what it was – they seem to have thought it was just an explosive device.
Bush had years to bring this stuff up. It didn’t require the “main-stream-media”‘s cooperation – he had the bully pulpit. At any time, he could have stood up at the general assembly, or gone on prime-time TV and told the world about all of this. But he didn’t. Perhaps you’re being a bit too desperate?
But we were told time and again, that “no WMD’s found”….sorry but finding some kind of negates “NONE”. The fact that they were old, does not rule out the fact that they were “not there”. They were still there, and they were still capable of killing people. In the case of the 1500 gallons of chemicals – exactly WHERE does it say these chemicals were made AFTER the coalition invasion? It states “the suspected lab was new”. It does not state where the chemicals came from or when they were created. Again, another unknown that neither of us can prove. BTW – I do sleep good at night, from time to time – I remember the good men and women we have protecting this country. But there are also those nights that a person looses sleep worrying about the loved ones you have there. How do you sleep believing the lies the MSM feeds you?
And that just demonstrates the desperation of your position. Iraq had bullets too, and they can kill people. So … when are we invading switzerland? They’ve got bullets.
Remember – those WMDs were the main public justification for an invasion that killed (at least) tens of thousands of people and displaced a couple of million. If saddam didn’t have WMD, nobody would have bought the case for war. Meanwhile, you’re parsing articles to try to find any gap you can find to justify an increasingly dubious argument.
But you have hit upon a problem with most of these news reports – at no point do we ever find out what these “precursor” chemicals are. We’ve only got the sketchiest information. Where they making chemical weapons, or just explosives? I reckon that they were making anthrax or nerve gas, you can be pretty sure we’d have heard about it.
Like I said, bush had the bully pulpit for for 5 years after the invasion. He could have taken ANY supporting evidence to the public, whether the “mainstream media” liked it or not. But … silence. When even rumsfeld is suggesting that people don’t jump to conclusions, the case doesn’t look airtight. I’d say the evidence isn’t as compelling as you want it to be.