Get PJ Media on your Apple

The Rosett Report

Monthly Archives: March 2008

To mark Earth Hour, or Earth Day, or Latest-Trendy-Groupthink-Feelgood-Season, or whatever we’re calling this current variation on medieval indulgences, Google on its web site has just “turned the lights out” — as a symbolic nod to the notion that we can save the planet by doing things like wearing “organic” t-shirts in the dark and investing in projects anointed by Al Gore, the UN, and the Norwegian parliament (which in its own efforts over the years to turn the lights out has conferred the Nobel Peace Prize not only on Gore, but, among others, on Kofi Annan, Jimmy Carter, IAEA chief Mohamed El Baradei, and the late Yasser Arafat).

Get real. Google is a marvelous creation, born of decades — yea centuries — of human ingenuity, which has brought us everything from electricity to computers, to the Internet (which Al Gore did, in fact, not invent). The thrust of all this has been to enlighten, to illuminate — and it is no accident that the metaphors tend not toward darkness, but toward light. How about turning those lights back on, and spending a little time reading some of the dissenting opinions on the entire “global warming” scare campaign. Check out “The Great Global Warming Swindle,” with its accompanying materials. Check out this post on The Anchoress, with its assorted links on the financial conflicts of this cult, and the intimidation of global-warming skeptics, and the smothering of the voices of thousands of dissenting scientists.

Or MIT’s Richard Lindzen, writing here on global warming “junk science.” Or the list of skeptical scientists here (with details) on Inhofe’s EPW Press Blog. For much much more, just play around on Google with keyword variations on “global warming” and “skeptics,” “junk” “fraud” and “scam.”

Consider: If anyone is giving out Earth Hour awards worldwide, the obvious winner would be Kim Jong Il, who has created in North Korea a realm in which every day is Earth Day (see photo above). Whatever the genuine perils, when it comes to saving the planet — or more to the point, the human race — the better bets are the inventors who are not afraid to light the lamps and burn the midnight oil.

Ban Ki-Moon’s New Career as a Video Censor

March 28th, 2008 - 10:25 pm

At least Kofi Annan considered it sufficient to style himself merely as “Chief Diplomat of the World.” Ban Ki-Moon has just taken that a step further, offering his services as World’s Chief Film Critic — or, more precisely, Chief Internet Censor. Following the internet broadcast of Geert Wilders “Fitna,” Ban lost no time in personally denouncing the video as “offensively anti-Islamic” and stating — (whatever this quasi-diplo-speak is really supposed to mean) — “I acknowledge the efforts of the Dutch government to stop the broadcast of this film” and “Freedom must always be accompanied by social responsibility.”

For the Secretary-General of the United Nations to start vetting individual video productions seems ill-advised at best. According to the UN charter, Ban’s job description doesn’t actually extend beyond serving as chief administrative officer of the UN — a role in which he has already failed at matters as basic as protecting whistleblowers or fulfilling his own promises of financial transparency. But if Ban insists on exercising the freedom to pipe up from his stage-center UN podium with his opinions on individual broadcasts, then is it responsible — “socially,” or in any other sense — for Ban to focus his attentions so narrowly on Geert Wilders?

If Ban has now appropriated as part of his UN portfolio the job of vetting broadcasts that he thinks might disturb viewers somewhere around the globe, where are the rest of his critiques? Following his targeting of Wilders, surely we now have every right to expect from broadcast-critic Ban a flow of daily, specific, individually targeted condemnations of the videos, TV shows and films emanating from places such as Egypt, Hamas-controlled Gaza, the Palestinian Authority, Libya, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Hezbollah’s Al-Manar TV. Where, for instance, is Ban’s statement deploring the grotesquely offensive Iranian TV cartoon propaganda series for kids, translated recently by the monitoring service, MEMRI TV: “The Child and the Invader” – ?

Or, where was Broadcast Critic Ban when Saudi/UAE Al Majd TV aired this broadcast on “the twisted nature of women” –?

For a sample of even the smallest fraction of the shows on which Broadcast-Critic-in-Chief Ban surely now owes us his authoritative opinions, check out more of the clips posted by MEMRI TV – which this week alone is tracking such broadcasts as Al Aqsa-TV’s (Hamas/Gaza) airing of Cleric Wael Al-Zarad calling for the annihilation of Jews, with the suggestion that “If Each Arab Spat on the Jews, They Would Drown in Arab Spit.” Or a broadcast by Hezbollah’s Al-Manar out of Lebanon, accusing Bush and Sharon of carrying out the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S.

And why limit this to the Middle East? Shouldn’t Ban be issuing daily denunciations of the hate-propaganda cranked out by North Korea’s utterly state-monopolized news services and TV?

Broadcast critics of the world, move over. We are going to need room on the shelves, and in our computer files, for the complete, annotated 1,000-volume-or-more set of reviews which Ban Ki-Moon, Censor-in-Chief, working around the clock, is surely going to produce. Or does Ban think Wilders has just produced the only video on the planet worthy of his attentions as the UN’s new Top Video Critic?

In the continuing fallout of the United Nations Oil-for-Food program in Iraq, we’ve just seen another Oil-for-Food-related indictment. This one was unsealed Wednesday in East Michigan federal court — where an Iraq-born naturalized U.S. citizen, Muthanna al-Hanooti, was charged with conspiring to act as an unregistered agent of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, accepting an illicit allocation of 2 million barrels of Oil-for-Food oil from UN-sanctioned Iraq, and denying to the FBI that he had done so. (Al-Hanooti pleaded not guilty).

This follows such Oil-for-Food-related highlights as the guilty plea in 2005 by Iraq-born U.S. citizen Samir Vincent of conspiring to act as an unregistered agent of Iraq; the conviction of South Korean businessman Tongsun Park in 2006 of conspiring to act as an unregistered agent of Iraq; the guilty pleas in 2007 of Texas oilman Oscar Wyatt (conspiracy to defraud the Oil-for-Food program) and David Chalmers (conspiracy to commit wire fraud); and the indictment in 2007 of the former head of the Oil-for-Food Program, Benon Sevan (who has been living since 2005 out of reach of U.S. extradition, on Cyprus, and says he is not guilty).

The Al-Hanooti case comes with the colorful feature that information in the indictment implies that in October, 2002, as debate grew hot over toppling Saddam, Al-Hanooti arranged and paid for a trip to Iraq by three House Democrats — David Bonior, Jim McDermott and Mike Thompson. (A Justice Department spokesman says there is no evidence “that any of them were aware of the involvement of the Iraqi Intelligence Service”). As background– not in the indictment — there is the additional frill, as noted on Little Green Footballs, and by the Investigative Project on Terrorism, that Al-Hanooti is a former head of the Michigan branch of CAIR (CAIR being one of the the unindicted co-conspirators named in court papers of the Holy Land Foundation case, involving a Texas-based charity’s alleged funding of Hamas — which resulted last year in a mistrial last fall, and is expected to go to trial again later this year).

The labyrinth of curious connections here is vast. But the allegations about Al-Hanooti track back to a UN program designed and run in such a way that federal agents have been tied up for years trying to track down even a modest portion of the damage. And lest anyone think the UN’s ties to the maze mentioned above ended in 2003 with the overthrow of Saddam and the shutdown of Oil-for-Food, here’s an item to ponder. It involves a Michigan-based charity, Life for Relief and Development, which according to the Al-Hanooti indictment opened an office in Baghdad in the late 1990s. The indictment states that: “From approximately 1994 through 1999, 2001 through 2002, and 2005 through mid-2006, defendant AL-HANOOTI was employed by Life for Relief and Developmemt (LRD) as its public relations coordinator responsible for, among other things, LRD’s lobbying efforts.”

On the current web site of Life for Relief and Development, with its featured appeal for donations for Gaza, you can read about LRD’s projects in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sierra Leone, the Palestinian Territories, and Iraq. And on that same LRD web site, you can read LRD’s list of “partners.” Among them are three major UN agencies, all of them formerly major players in Oil-for-Food: UNICEF, UN Habitat, and the UN’s flagship agency, the UN Development Program, or UNDP (epicenter of the UN’s North Korea Cash-for-Kim scandal — in which, among other things, the UNDP in contravention of the UN’s own rules not only funneled cash to Kim Jong Il’s regime but also — Oops! — transferred money on behalf of other UN agencies to North Korean front companies in Macau tied to Pyongyang’s traffic in weapons, including ballistic missiles).

Maybe it’s just a small world. But one might at least ask the question: Can anyone at these UN agencies enlighten us further about the activities of Muthanna Al-Hanouti?

Almost as remarkable as Hillary Clinton’s tale of running from sniper fire during a 1996 trip to Bosnia is the extent to which her tale has been described by most of the media as almost anything other than a plain old lie.

Hillary herself, faced with footage of the sniper-free ceremony on the tarmac, offered an assortment of euphemisms from which to choose: “a minor blip”…”I misspoke”…”just a misstatement.” Apparently taking a hint, the New York Times ran a headline about Hillary’s “Misstatement.” ABC and CBS called it a “Mistake.” Al Jazeera plunked for an “Error.” The Press Association went with a “blip.”

In this climate, how long before we see the legend of George Washington and the Cherry Tree revised for modern politics: “Father, I cannot tell a misstatement.”

Since President Bush — despite Vice President Cheney’s warnings — seems unpersuaded by the clear signs that the endless diplomatic efforts to stop Iran’s nuclear bomb program are not working and something more must be done…Since Washington seems unbothered on this score by the serious concerns of the Israelis, the French, and even to a notable extent the UN’s own ostrich-headed International Atomic Energy Agency … Since nothing in the way of words, deeds and evidence emanating from Iran seems likely to galvanize any effective response before it is far too late…

…Let’s listen for a moment to none other than former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who returned to his old UN haunts in New York this week to accept yet another prize and offer his views on global politics as — what was his phrase again? — oh yes, the former “chief diplomat of the world.”

Whatever his failings, Annan has at least racked up a record as a superb counter-indicator of good sense in defending the interests of the free world. If he feels moved to opine strongly, there is an excellent chance that the very opposite is true. This is the man who as head of UN peacekeeping in 1994 declined to act upon warnings of the imminent genocide in Rwanda. This is the man who as Secretary-General announced in 1998 that he could “do business” with Saddam — just before Saddam then kicked UN weapons inspectors out of Iraq for the next four years (to be fair, the UN under Annan did a lot of business with Saddam, but not exactly as advertised). This is the man who according to the UN’s own Volcker inquiry sat on in-house information about Oil-for-Food corruption while the program was underway — but who praised the program when it ended in 2003, and insisted in 2004, as the scandal began to erupt, that he had seen no evidence of wrong-doing by anyone on his staff.

This is the man who in 2000 posed for photos with Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, while assuring us peace was on the way. This was the man who promised in 2006 that two Israeli soldiers kidnapped by Hezbollah would be extricated with the help of an Annan-picked mystery “facilitator”; the identity of that facilitator remains a mystery to this day, and so does the exact fate and whereabouts of those kidnapped Israeli soldiers. This is the man who in 2006, while Iran was violating UN Security Council demands to stop uranium enrichment, rushed to Tehran to shake hands hands with Mushroom-Cloud-in-Chief Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, telling him (by Ahmadinejad’s own account) not to worry too much about the resolutions of the UN Security Council.

One could go on and on in this vein. But let’s hit the punch line. Now, as Iran scoffs at one UN resolution after another, we have Kofi Annan clambering back onstage in New York to deliver himself of the statement that military action to stop Iran would be “a real disaster.”

Note to President Bush: The World’s Counter-Indicator-in-Chief has spoken (with apologies to Jimmy Carter, who has worked at least as hard for this title). Go for it.

As my fellow Pajamas blogger Ron Rosenbaum notes, China’s murder of Tibetan protesters and persecution of its own human rights activists provide reasons enough to boycott “the billion dollar fascist spectacle” that will be the Beijing Olympics. There are plenty of other reasons as well, and among them is China’s abuse of refugees from North Korea — horrific at the best of times, this has become even worse as China prepares to host the 2008 Summer Olympics. It seems that in the eyes of China’s rulers, desperate North Korean refugees — asking nothing more than to be allowed safe passage to asylum elsewhere — are one more item on the list of inconveniences to be swept out of sight, lest their plight interfere with the Olympic festivities this August.

Specifically, there are 17 North Korean refugees whom Beijing right now is treating as bargaining chips in a bid to ensure that the hundreds of thousands of others stay out of the way. The 17 refugees in question are lucky enough to be among the few whom the UN refugee agency, or UNHCR, has actually been trying to help. Reportedly, these 17 North Korean refugees are right now under the protection of the UNHCR office in Beijing — all waiting to leave for asylum in a third country. Some have been waiting since late 2006. The problem is not one of finding a place for them to go; if they can get to South Korea, they have automatic citizenship there. No — the problem is that to move on to asylum in a third country, they need exit visas from China. Reportedly, the Chinese government is withholding those exit visas, unless the UNHCR agrees not to help any more North Korean asylum seekers until after Olympics.

According to a letter dated March 18, signed by a bi-partisan group of U.S. legislators and addressed to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, China is haggling with the UNHCR over terms for allowing the 17 refugees under its protection to leave the country. (You can read the full text of the letter here; signed by Senators Tom Coburn and Sam Brownback, and Representatives Ed Royce, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Joseph Pitts, Sander Levin, Diane Watson and Frank Wolf).

Referring to the 17 refugees under UNHCR protection but trapped without exit visas in China, the letter states: “We understand that the PRC [People's Republic of China] is refusing them exit visas unless the UNHCR agrees not to process any more asylum seekers until after the Beijing Olympics. We also understand that UNHCR has been unable to bring refugees into protection since July 2007 because of this policy.”

The letter also quotes a finding from the most recent annual report of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, that: “During the past one to two years, the Chinese government has intensified its efforts to forcibly repatriate North Korea refugees, in part as a security preparation for the 2008 Olympic games.”

In the letter, these members of Congress urge Ban Ki-Moon to call upon China to issue the exit visas. They also remind Ban of China’s longstanding practice when it catches North Korean refugees of shunting them back where they came from. This is a flagrant violation of the UN Convention on refugees, which China has signed. For North Koreans, being sent back from China can mean condemnation to the labor camps of Kim Jong Il, where it is common practice to starve, torture or work the prisoners to death. In some cases, the attempt to escape North Korea can lead directly to a death sentence — for a recent account, see this bulletin released just last week, alleging that North Korea has just executed another 15 citizens for trying to escape into China, or help others escape, in search of food.

In the face of this hideous inhumanity, the UNHCR has for many years pursued a craven policy of “quiet diplomacy” — helping a trickle of North Korean refugees, but largely kow-towing to China’s wishes that the vast majority of asylum-seekers be ignored, lest even more North Koreans decide to risk their lives in order to escape from what is arguably the world’s most cruelly repressive regime. That even this trickle accepted by the UNHCR would now be imperiled in order to clear the roads of China for the Olympic torch is reason enough, all by itself, to steer clear of the Beijing Olympics altogether.

Poor Honest Abe: First Hillary, Now Obama

March 18th, 2008 - 11:04 pm

With his opening echo of Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg address, Barack Obama in his speech on Reverend Wright et al reminded me of another politico who tried to gloss over some distinctly disturbing doings by posing in the glow of Honest Abe. That would be Hillary Clinton.

Remember the Pretty in Pink press conference, back in 1994, when Hillary finally agreed to talk to the press about her 10,000% return on a $1,000 investment in the futures markets? The setting was the White House. To receive reporters, she put on a pink sweater and sat in an armchair under a portrait of Abraham Lincoln. It worked. The real questions never got answered.

Now we have Obama, before that row of flags, riffing on the Gettysburg address — “Two hundred and twenty one years ago” — simultaneously trying to both reject and justify the venom of his spiritual leader, while outlining a vision of America that sounds like the rise of the empire of the clones, victims all, united and perfected in the pursuit of state subsidies.

The issue in both cases, Hillary and Barack, is not gender, or race, or any of those other categories in which we can debate endlessly who is the victim, and who is playing what card, and who is uniting and who is dividing. The issue here is integrity. And on the evidence so far, they really ought to leave Abraham Lincoln out of it.

One further note on Obama and Reverend Wright. We have been hearing a lot of discussion about what Obama might have known about Wright. When do we hear what Rev. Wright knows about Obama?

More than a year after State Department special envoy Chris Hill triumphantly announced he had struck a denuclearization deal with North Korea, there’s still no denuclearization, and the only real deal has been the bonanza of cash, cosseting and orchestral entertainment provided courtesy of the U.S. to the regime of Kim Jong Il. North Korea has slowed even its disabling of the Yongbyon reactor complex, and completely missed the Dec. 31 deadline to come clean about its entire nuclear program, including such awkward matters as clandestine uranium enrichment.

But fear not! Having stifled the dissenting voice of its own human rights envoy, Jay Lefkowitz, the Condi Rice State Department grinds on. Special envoy Chris Hill, like the host of some interminable daytime TV game show, seems determined to come up with a deal, some deal, any deal — reality no object. Hints are now wafting through the press that a deal might yet be reached if only North Korea might be allowed to make only a partial declaration of its nuclear program. Or perhaps a secret declaration. Or perhaps a partial, secret declaration — which is fascinating, because one of the main points of the original deal was full and complete nuclear disclosure by North Korea. For details, such as they are, here’s a dispatch from The Christian Science Monitor, on “High-level talks keep North Korea nuclear deal alive.”

Note: Among the many intriguing items in this story is the following explanation of how — amid all this powerhouse U.S. diplomacy — one is supposed to infer that North Korean nuclear negotiator Kim Kye Gwan just couldn’t wait to talk with U.S. envoy Chris Hill (emphasis mine): “In a sign of the North’s eagerness to talk, Kim asked to see Mr. Hill in Geneva after failing to meet him as expected in Beijing the weekend after the New York Philharmonic’s performance in Pyongyang on Feb. 25.”

How outrageous does it have to get? A report based on documentation in Saddam Hussein’s own captured archives outlines Saddam’s global web of terror – including ties to al Qaeda’s network and Osama bin Laden’s number two man, Ayman al-Zawahiri — important information, which, as Stephen Hayes notes in the Weekly Standard “ought to be big news.” But following the 2003 overthrow of Saddam, it takes a full and leisurely five years for this report to be produced and released at all; it is then half-buried by the Pentagon, but leaked to select members of the press who do their part to bury it further — as the media’s mob unwisdom instantly crystallizes into headlines such as those collected below (hat tip to Steve Schippert writing on NRO’s The Tank):

ABC: Report Shows No Link Between Saddam and al Qaeda
CNN: Hussein’s Iraq and al Qaeda not linked, Pentagon says
New York Times: Study Finds No Qaeda-Hussein Tie
Washington Post: Study Discounts Hussein, Al-Qaeda Link
AFP: No link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda: Pentagon study
McClatchy: Exhaustive review finds no link between Saddam and al Qaida

All of which certainly ought to inspire complaints about the media. But these are private news outfits, and if they want to sell this dangerously misleading slant as news, we’re all used to it — we can flip the channel or head for the blogs. My question is: Where’s the President on this? For better or worse — and I think it was very much for the better — the eviction of Saddam and his poisonous regime, from Iraq, from the Middle East, from world politics, is the hallmark of the Bush presidency. And the war in Iraq is far better explained as something that had to be done, than as a sort of elective activity which we really ought to stick with because we somehow stumbled into it. This report provides major insight into why it was a correct call from the start — Saddam had to go.

At the very least, this should have been the subject of Bush’s national radio address this week — which was instead devoted to such matters as the housing market and economy (important, yes, but he’s had plenty to say about these matters). However Bush might choose to do it, he ought to be telling the country about this report, and summarizing the findings for all to hear.

Instead, we get speculation that the Bush administration doesn’t want to get back into the debate over Saddam’s terror ties; that the Pentagon prefers to gloss over the findings; that there is no sense in going up against the congealed untruths of conventional wisdom. Somewhere in there is the supposition that Bush doesn’t have time to read the kind of detail in this 94-page document, that the nitty-gritty is too complex to interest the public; that it would only enrage the administration’s opponents and maybe open the way for the likes of another Joe Wilson to challenge a phrase and land another anti-Bush tour of the TV talk shows.

But where in this calculus is Bush himself? I am tired of the excuse that he is removed from the scene, that his administration is out of control, that he hasn’t managed to figure out he has an incompetent Secretary of State and a spineless set of national security advisers. However cloistered the White House, it doesn’t take that much to be in touch these days. Does Bush ever surf the internet? Read the blogs? Is there anyone close to him who still has the principle and backbone to print out this report, hand it to him, and tell him to please turn to page 42, on “The Terror ‘Business’ Model of Saddam Hussein” — or at least flip to the conclusion on page 45:

“One question remains regarding Iraq’s terrorim capability: Is there anything in the captured archives to indicate that Saddam had the will to use his terrorist capabilities directly against the United States? Judging from examples of Saddam’s statements (Extract 34) before the 1991 Gulf War with the United States, the answer is yes.

…or at the bottom of that same page, which notes Saddam’s state sponsorship of terrorism, including suicide operations, as well as his “organizational relationships and ‘outreach’ programs for terrorist groups”:

“Evidence that was uncovered and analyzed attests to the existence of a terrorist capability and a willingness to use it until the day Saddam was forced to flee Baghdad by Coalition Forces.”

Sure, there is plenty we still don’t know, some things we may never know, and in the massive archives captured from Saddam there may be important items we have yet to discover — this report itself concludes with a mention that “Potentially, more significant documents and media files are awaiting analysis or are even yet to be discovered.” But there’s plenty here already that needs telling. How about it, Mr. President? How about stepping up to the podium with this report, and — never mind the mainstream media and the Pentagon public relations bureaucrats — telling the American people what’s really in it?

Saddam Hussein’s Coalition of Terrorists

March 14th, 2008 - 1:54 am

Was Saddam connected to terrorism? His regime was rolling in it — according to a newly released, Pentagon-sponsored study based on documentation in the Harmony database of captured records of Saddam’s own government.

Is that what we’re reading in the headlines? Of course not, as Stephen Hayes points out in a Weekly Standard blog post that highlights the real news in this report – which ABC News has posted, even if no one there appears to have read it. Over at the NY Times, or ABC, as Hayes notes, the main point, the big “gotcha” for anyone who thinks Saddam needed overthrowing, is that this study did not find a “direct connection” between Saddam’s regime and al Qaeda. (though the study — as its authors state — was based on only a fraction of the massive and only partially translated Harmony database, and some records of the Iraqi regime were never captured).

But just because no one’s produced a candid photo of Saddam and Osama with arms entwined across a bag of bombs and cash, don’t rule out Al Qaeda, or Saddam’s cultivation of a sprawling network of terrorists. Here’s just a sample of what the report goes on to say:

“Saddam’s interest in, and support for, non-Iraqi non-state actors was spread across a wide variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist, and Islamic terrorist organizations. For years, Saddam maintained training camps for “fighters” drawn from these diverse groups. In some cases, particularly for Palestinians, Saddam was also a strong financial supporter. Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda’s goals and stated objectives.”

Or here’s a pithy phrase — based on Saddam’s own archives: “Iraq was a long-standing supporter of international terrorism.”

Here’s another: “From 1991 through 2003, the Saddam regime regarded inspiring, sponsoring, directing, and executing acts of terrorism as an element of state power.”

Here’s another: “State sponsorship of terrorism became such a routine tool of state power that Iraq developed elaborate bureaucratic processes to monitor progress and accountability in the recruiting, training and resourcing of terrorists.”

Or check out the information on Saddam’s regime providing a haven to terrorist Abu Abbas and his wife, with documents detailing “procedures for accepting Abu al-Abbas and his wife as residents and providing them with Iraqi diplomatic passports so the couple could move freely within the Middle East.”

Or the shopping list for equipment to be sent to train “Sudanese fighters” — including 15,000 Kalashnikov 7.62-mm rifles, 15,000 [SKS] rifes; 5,000 Markarov [sic] pistols and 1 high quality photocopier” (note, this was while Iraq was under UN sanctions).

Likewise intriguing is a list of weapons inventoried by Saddam’s regime as stocked at some of Iraq’s embassies abroad as of July, 2002. These included plastic explosives and booby-trapped suitcases at Iraqi embassies in India, Thailand, Azerbaijan and Lebanon; TNT in Pakistan; explosive charges in Athens; missile launchers and missiles in the Czech Republic, Turkey, Yemen and Romania…. and the list goes on, and the report goes on, and on, and here, once again, for convenience, is a link to the report, which really is worth reading: “Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents, Volume I (Redacted).”