What the Captured Documents Show
 

What the captured documents show
By Mona Charen

Mar 24, 2006

President Bush has made errors, as all humans do, but one thing he has not been guilty of is bad faith. The same cannot be said of his critics.

One thinks of those liberals and Democrats who accused President Bush of "lying" about weapons of mass destruction and about ties between al Qaeda and Iraq particularly now, because last week, after an unaccountable delay of three years, the administration declassified and released thousands of documents captured from Saddam's regime. They offer more proof of what we've already learned from other sources: that Hussein was in collusion with al Qaeda; that he did instruct his people on hiding evidence of WMDs; and that he did support worldwide terror.

Before turning to the documents though it is worth pausing for a moment to dwell on the bad faith of Bush's opponents.

The whole world knew that Saddam had used chemical weapons at least twice: once against the Iranians and once against the Kurds within Iraq. (He had also threatened to use them against Israel.)

The whole world further knew that Saddam engaged in a protracted game of cat and mouse with UN weapons inspectors, first throwing roadblocks in their path and finally expelling them from the country (a violation of the cease-fire agreement that followed the 1991 Gulf War, which required Iraq to account for its weapons and prove that they had been dismantled and destroyed).

The entire world also knew that the U.S. and Britain had not rushed to war with Iraq. To the contrary, the build-up to the 2003 invasion was lengthy and deliberate, giving ample time to the Iraqi dictator to hide or destroy his WMDs.

And yet when coalition forces failed to find caches of weapons, the cry on the left was "Bush lied." It doesn't even make logical sense. Why would Bush want to launch a war on false pretenses? Would he purposely create a political problem for himself? Why? To enrich Halliburton? This is fever swamp talk.

Yet it was heard among leading members of the Democratic Party, not just in the MoveOn.org milieu. Nor was it correct to claim, as so many on the left did, that Bush altered the rationale for war after he failed to find WMDs. In a speech to the American Enterprise Institute in February 2003, on the eve of the invasion, the president sketched his vision of a democratic Iraq that he hoped would begin the transformation of the despotic and violent Middle East into something more enlightened and free. He mentioned "disarming" Iraq by force, but it was far from the sole rationale for war.

Three years in, we are hearing from the summer soldiers. The pacification of Iraq is proving more difficult than anticipated. Even some on the right are throwing in the towel. But as The Wall Street Journal wisely editorialized, the consequences of failure -- by which they mean capitulation on our part -- would be utterly catastrophic.

The radical Islamists will claim that they defeated the United States and chased us out of Iraq just as they defeated the Soviets and chased them out of Afghanistan. And every moderate-leaning Arab and Muslim in the world will shrug his shoulders and give up. It will embolden the terrorists tremendously to see the U.S. withdraw from Iraq. The corresponding plunge in morale at home will rival if not exceed post-Vietnam syndrome. Iran will seize the opportunity to impose a Shiite theocracy on Iraq, and Afghanistan will feel the reverberations and tremble on its still shaky foundations.

Oh yes, the documents. One shows that an official from Iraq's government met with Osama bin Laden on Feb. 19, 1995, with the explicit permission of Saddam Hussein. When bin Laden was forced to leave Sudan, the Iraqi documents contain a handwritten note saying, "The relationship with him is still through the Sudanese. We're currently working on activating this relationship through a new channel in light of his current location" (Afghanistan). The notes also reveal that Osama bin Laden suggested "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia.

The documents further disclose that the Iraqi intelligence service issued detailed instructions to directors and managers of weapons sites regarding UN inspections. They were to remove files from computers, "remove correspondence with the atomic energy and military industry departments concerning the prohibited weapons" and "remove prohibited materials and equipment, including documents and catalogs and making sure to clear labs and storages (sic) of any traces of chemical or biological materials that were previously used or stored . . ."

Uh, huh. Don't show much do they as a basis for all the hoopla of an imminent threat to the US and that Iraq had ties to 9-11.

Just as the author stated, "They offer more proof of what we've already learned from other sources: that Hussein was in collusion with al Qaeda; that he did instruct his people on hiding evidence of WMDs; and that he did support worldwide terror."

The left's walls are crumbling, they are being uncovered for the maliciously teasonous malfactors that they have always been. Thankfully the new media is making the once easily duped and manipulated public aware of how dangerously deceptive they are and have been. The left media have long been complicit in shoving their lies down the nation's throat. This leftist culture of divisive politics centered in the reaquisition of power has ripped our country apart and poisoned the political process.

We could hope the teasonous left would apologize for this orchestrated undermining of a just and necessary policy, but getting these democrat swine to amend their dangerous ways would be like teaching a pig to sing.

tin foil hat crowd is in full song (early) this morning. :rolleyes:

Typical liberal responses. (You guys are WAY too predictable!) Can't attack the message so you attack the messenger. sheesh... :rolleyes:

C'mon, now. How's about posting something that's actually contradictory to the point posted...you know...DEBATE!!!

Randy

The Lib press and Bush hating zealots can't think deep enough to figure out what a withdrawal before an established Iraq gov't that can stand on its own would mean.

al Queda's biggest supporters in the US are the Dems and the NY Times.

Not a lib, but a consistent moderate that's voted right, left and center over the years. Neo-con view of foreign affairs scares the hell outta me. Less interested in building strong alliances to try to effect strategic goals. Instead, a militant unilateralism that destroys alliances and American credibility throughout the world. You neo-con supporters are scarey, too. I'm just glad most of America thinks you guys are wrong.

I disagree with you. They know EXACTLY what it would mean, and intend to blame that on Bush too.

By LAURIE MYLROIE
March 27, 2006; WSJ, A17

After substantial prodding -- including from this paper -- the U.S. government has finally begun to release its captured Iraqi documents and is posting them at the Web site of the Army's Foreign Military Studies Office. This material will take considerable time to absorb and analyze, but it may yet contribute significantly to our understanding of the nature of the threat Saddam Hussein posed.

Most dramatically, an Iraqi intelligence report, apparently written in early 1997, describes Iraqi efforts to establish ties with various elements in the Saudi opposition, including Osama bin Ladin. Until 1996, the Saudi renegade was based in Sudan, then ruled by Hassan Turabi's National Islamic Front. One of Iraq's few allies, Sudan served as an intermediary between Baghdad and bin Ladin, as well as other Islamic radicals. On Feb. 19, 1995, an Iraqi intelligence agent met with bin Ladin in Khartoum. Bin Ladin asked for two things: to carry out joint operations against foreign forces in Saudi Arabia and to broadcast the speeches of a radical Saudi cleric. Iraq agreed to the latter, but apparently not the former, at least as far as the author of this report knew. Notably, the report also states, "we are working at the present time to activate this relationship through new channels."

This one report hints at the extensive international presence that the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) maintained. Iraq's ambassadors to Sudan and Yemen were intelligence agents, suggesting that those two countries were major centers of IIS activity. The report also mentions IIS stations in Islamabad, New Delhi and New York.

Another newly released document bears the name of Abu Musab al Zarqawi. It is a flyer from the "Committee for Arab Liaison with the Islamic Emirate" (i.e., Afghanistan) for recruiting volunteers in Iraq to fight in Afghanistan. It explains that the "Arab brothers" who wish to go there should send a written proposal "so that we can know him and his needs." Zarqawi is among six people listed as individuals to contact.

How close were relations between Iraq and the Taliban, a regime officially recognized by only three countries? The answer is necessary for understanding the nature of any ties Iraq may have had with al Qaeda or other Afghan-based Islamic groups. Hopefully, other documents will emerge to shed light on this question.

The formal cease-fire to the 1991 Gulf War required Iraq to recognize Kuwait and release the Kuwaiti hostages it had seized. Iraq did neither. On March 4, 2003, with war looming, Saddam's son, Qusay, ordered 448 Kuwaiti prisoners taken to sites the United States would likely attack. Nothing of their fate has been reported, and they may well have died. Iraq formally recognized Kuwait in 1994, but the official stationery of the Fedayeen Saddam in 2001 shows a map of Iraq that includes the state.

Other documents from this database were leaked some time ago. Perhaps because their provenance was not understood, these 30 pages did not receive the attention they merited. Particularly notable is an order issued by Saddam on Jan. 18, 1993: "hunt Americans on Arab territory, particularly in Somalia."

Most of these documents deal with terrorism and date from January to May 1993. They suggest that in early 1993, Saddam began to move actively to revive terrorist programs that had been established three years before, following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Responding to a request from Saddam, Iraqi intelligence produced a six-page report, listing the names and nationalities of 100 Arab "martyrs" whom it had trained in the fall of 1990.

Another report explains that the IIS had reached an agreement with the deputy head of Sudan's ruling National Islamic Front "to use the Islamic Arab elements that had been fighting in Afghanistan and now have no place to go and who are physically present in Sudan, Somalia and Egypt." The IIS also agreed with Khartoum to renew its relationship with Egyptian Islamic Jihad -- headed by Ayman al Zawahiri, familiar as al Qaeda's most prominent contemporary spokesman.

Still another report describes Iraq's earlier agreement with Islamic Jihad, concluded on Dec. 24, 1990, as the start of the Gulf war loomed. Iraq was to provide training, financing and supplies to the organization "to execute martyr operations" against the members of the U.S.-led coalition, of which Egypt was a key Arab member. However, as this document explains, those operations stopped immediately after the cease-fire.

In 1993, Iraq was cautious about backing Egyptian terrorists, more so than the Sudanese. When Khartoum informed Baghdad that it was sending an Islamic Jihad leader, who had been based in Afghanistan and then lived in Sudan, to Iraq on a Sudanese plane carrying meat (this exemption from the general ban on flights to Iraq was granted by the U.N. Security Council), the IIS asked that the visit be postponed. Sudan insisted, and the IIS approved on condition the visit be kept secret. Subsequently, the IIS recommended that assistance to the Egyptian group be limited to financial support.

Two documents relate to Iraq's proscribed WMD programs. One is a table, providing details of a Sept. 6, 2000, contract for the production of "the malignant pustule" -- the Pentagon official who leaked these documents believed it referred to anthrax -- along with earlier contracts for sterilization and decontamination equipment. Another table describes an Aug. 21, 2000, contract for the production of mustard gas and earlier contracts for protective equipment. Small amounts of material are mentioned: three ampules of "the malignant pustule" (an ampule is a small, sealed glass vial) and five kilograms of mustard gas. These contracts could have represented test runs, or, as a former U.N. weapons inspector suggested to me, the material could have been intended for terrorism.

Many more documents are to be released in the coming months. Quite possibly, they will vindicate the decision to undertake the Iraq war; help maintain public support for fighting it; and radically change our understanding of Saddam's role in international terrorism.

Ms. Mylroie is an adjunct fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and author of "Study of Revenge: The First World Trade Center Attack and Saddam Hussein's War Against America" (AEI, 2001).

I don't know how you can continue to argue that Saddam was a threat to the US when every ratonal observer on the planet says otherwise. When even the administration that you support so blindly gave up the ghost.

But you do. And that speaks volumes.

1. Saddam was not a threat, imminent or otherwise.
2. The war planners were criminally negligent.
3. The US is now caught in the middle of a civil war with no positive or honorable way out.
4. Iran and other radical Middle Eastern forces have been the beneficiaries of the admin's gross incompetence
5. We are less safe now, the Middle East is less stable, than it was three years ago.
6. As the president, George Bush is responsible for this sad state of affairs.

Continue to blame the media, the "lefties" and the critics, but rational thinking human beings know who is responsible for this mess.

The guy that started it.

I don't think any of us would ever accuse you of being on that list. Your six assertions appear to have been made without reading any of this newly available material, or the two articles above. Once again, like a good liberal, you refuse to let anything as confusing as facts and data color your opinion.

Right.

Stay the course.

These 'captured documents' are probably from the same typewriter (or version of MS Word) that created the nigerian yellowcake documents.

Since the Bushistas are suddenly feeling so open and giving this week, how about sharing with us Cheney's "Energy Task Force" documents?

LOL! :D

Tell you what; we'll trade those for whatever documents Sandy Burgler stuffed down his pants and in his socks.

Gladly, since Sandy only took copies of existing documents.

You need to get a grip on reality.

Our soldiers are dying every day in an Iraqi civil War, the war cost is now over $1 Trillion, and there is no reasonable exit in sight.

And you are worried about a crime that Sandy Berger committed and was prosecuted for by the Bush Justice Department something like three years ago?

The only Bush supporters left (and there are not many) are uninformed or unintelligent or just plain ignorant.

Your choice.

Jeff, the Bush'ists would be considered wack-jobs but for one thing, they control the White House and that controls all the government guns and weapons, but no thinking man considers the Bush'ists to be rational people, particularly no genuine conservative.

You can view The American Conservative or Chronicles Magazine to see for yourself, both are hard core conservative publications.

No, I'm not worried about what Burgler stole. Anything contained therein is all water under the bridge and is only really a concern for the finger-pointers out there that would like to assign blame to Bubba for ignoring the terrorist threat. That has already been well established anyway.

What does interest me is the original topic of this thread, so why don't we try to get back on track. I know you have not read these and are incapable of understanding them even if you did but, for those of us that can look at this information objectively, it offers valuable insight into the true state of affairs in Iraq. By what means they were supporting terrorism, official sanction and instructions on how to hide evidence of (non-existing??!!) weapons programs, etc. I realize this flies in the face of your heartfelt beliefs about Bush and our involvement in Iraq. So I also realize, in the end, it will pass by ignored by you and folks like you. It's obviously far too uncomfortable, and confusing, for you to even consider any evidence contrary to your beliefs. It's far easier to sit there and chant "Bush lied..."

Don't confuse him with actual facts. I'm a liberal because I oppose the Iraq war, and am dismayed by the blindingly incompetent manner in which it was planned.

OT "conservative" = embrace incompetence, out of control federal spending, and any bonehead move the president makes next. Bonus points for continuing to believe Saddam was an "imminent threat" to America.

OT "liberal" = everyone else

Oh, I know, Pat. As a conservative it has gotten increasingly difficult to watch Dubya in action. He has betrayed so much of our core platform. Looking at the alternatives offered by our effectively closed two party system is cause for even greater concern, however. I wonder if we will ever again be offered a choice that does not boil down to the lesser of two evils.

I won't be looking to you or fint or Nul for "objective" information anytime soon.

I think Bush is an incompetent buffoon. No, I take that back. I know Bush is an incompetent buffoon.

Does that make me so biased that I am incapable of determining whether Saddam was an imminent threat to America? I don't think so.

George Bush, who I'm sure doesn't share my view of George Bush, no longer claims that Saddam was an imminent threat to America. That I agree with him on this, and disagree with you, is enough for me.

I feel the same way. Our choices have really sucked for quite some time now. Maybe due to the ruthlessness of recent campaigns. B2 and his brain (Rove) have taken this ruthlessness to new levels. I look forward to the day (I hope!) where the quality of leadership is up to the task of making America stronger. And no, I'm not talking stronger militarily, but stronger in all ways.

I think it's dangerous to mix discussion of Iraq and politics. We are either on the right track or wrong track in Iraq. If you think we are right, then fine, stay the course.

If you think we are not, then I believe that it is your duty as an American to say so, no matter what the political implications.

The last holdouts seem to be implying that even if we are making a mess of the Middle East, making ourselves and our children less safe, and spending money like drunken fools, admitting these inconvenient facts might give the dreaded “liberals” a boost.

That one will not criticize a reckless and incompetent administration for political motives seems to me to be more un-American that anything else.

If you love America, stand up for her, even if that means standing down for the likes of George Bush.

In my opinion, he's betrayed it all. Aggressive warfare isn't a conservative value and never was. It runs counter to everything the founders wanted for America, and runs counter to those of the old right who opposed America's worst fascist, Franklin Roosevelt, before he plunged America into World War Two. Roosevelt forced their silence during that time, but we genuine conservatives won't be silent now and never again.

One of my favorite people, James Bovard, an author with one of the finest minds in America, whose prose skewered Clinton and his supporters many times, has now written several books doing the same to the Bush'ists. You might take a look at them.

Quote:

Looking at the alternatives offered by our effectively closed two party system is cause for even greater concern, however. I wonder if we will ever again be offered a choice that does not boil down to the lesser of two evils.

We may not be offered such a choice in our lifetimes, that argues strongly to each of us to be loyal, not to men and a party, but to principles, morals, and ethics; and demanding that politicians do the same.

Right, that is why he entered the National Archives, on multiple occasions, committed the felonies and risked imprisonment and lifelong humiliation.

I suppose you also believe that oral sex isn't sex and Bill got nothing more than a blowjob from Monica?

This goes a long way to me understanding how you could be a liberal.

Contempt prior to investigation will leave a man in everlasting ignorance.

Let me point out again, where do they show Hussein as an imminent threat to use WMD, or imminent threat to US or was connected to 9-11.

We all knew he used gas before, and we all knew he supported Palestinian terrorists.

Show me some DOD documents substantiating the clear reasons for war: Iraq was imminent threat to US and was connected to 9-11.

As a matter of fact that is true. Pants on fire again, huh NUl.

Sex is coitus, the other stuff so commonly now refrerred to as oral sex is merely a form of masturbation. It was never even considered "sex" by us old farts. Sex is coitus and always will be.

But back to this thread. Show me the imminent WMD threat to US?

This thread proves conclusively that unless Democrats and the leftist media all apologize for bathing the Nation in lies and propaganda, the Democrat hardcore will continue to regurgitate and circulate any divisive hate speech they spew.

Why do I feel that if we found the "stockpile" of WMD, the Democrat thumb-suckers would still not admit what scumbags they are?

Because you are up to your eyeballs in hate. You need enemies, or you would have nothing to say. If you had no one to hate, I doubt you would bother to get up in the morning.

So you admit Saddam was connected to Bin Laden's al qaeda and that they had mutual interests in WMD and harming America?

I'm with the administration on this one, Nul.

If and when there is proof that Saddam was an imminent threat to America, the White House will be sure to let us know.

Thanks Pat, I'll take a look. The concept of remaining loyal to principals, morals, and ethics may be the only thing that pulls us through in the end. Blind loyalty, or blind hatred towards men and a party are equally destructive. It helps to be able to take an objective look at both.

It is apparent that some of our more intellectually challenged OT contributors believe I am some kind of Bush'ist, blindly following him wherever he leads. Nothing could be further from the truth. These same simpletons clearly believe that whatever wrong Bush has done is because he is a Republican and a conservative. Again, nothing could be further from the truth. There goes that blind hatred approach again. If only we had a liberal Democrat in the White House, everything would be better, right? Right...

The fact remains that either major party, and any man that lands in the White House today, is likely to commit the same transgressions against the American people and our Constitution as has Dubya, Bubba, and a long list of their predecessors.

Bush's opposition, particularly here on OT, tends to focus on the war. They think it is simple enough for them to understand (they are wrong about that too, by the way) so they focus on it to the exclusion of much farther reaching abuses of power. Our political leaders count on this. They play these people like a fiddle. And, unlike tabs pushing his retards down the stairs, they will never even feel any guilty pangs...

Refusing to admit that Saddam's Iraq was not an "imminent threat" to America makes you precisely that -- a blind follower and Bush apologist.

I note that you persist in calling Bush a "conservative" when it is clear that he is not. More evidence of blind, unthinking loyalty to a man.

I respect those that are loyal to their principles, even if I disagree, and to our country. So far, you have demonstrated loyalty only to George Bush.

Jay Rockefeller (Democrat of the robberbaron fortune) from the Senate Intelligence Commitee (2002):

"As the attacks of September 11 demonstrated, the immense destructiveness of modern technology means we can no longer afford to wait around for a smoking gun. September 11 demonstrated that the fact that an attack on our homeland has not yet occurred cannot give us any false sense of security that one will not occur in the future. We no longer have that luxury.

September 11 changed America. It made us realize we must deal differently with the very real threat of terrorism, whether it comes from shadowy groups operating in the mountains of Afghanistan or in 70 other countries around the world, including our own.

There has been some debate over how "imminent" a threat Iraq poses. I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated."

The left's walls are crumbling, they are being uncovered for the maliciously teasonous malfactors that they have always been. Thankfully the new media is making the once easily duped and manipulated public aware of how dangerously deceptive they are and have been. The left media have long been complicit in shoving their lies down the nation's throat. This leftist culture of divisive politics centered in the reaquisition of power has ripped our country apart and poisoned the political process.

We could hope the teasonous left would apologize for this orchestrated undermining of a just and necessary policy, but getting these democrat swine to amend their dangerous ways would be like teaching a pig to sing.

"Saddam's government has contact with many international terrorist organizations that likely have cells here in the United States."

"He could make those weapons [WMD] available to many terrorist groups which have contact with his government, and those groups could bring those weapons into the U.S. and unleash a devastating attack against our citizens. I fear that greatly."

He added:

"Some argue it would be totally irrational for Saddam Hussein to initiate an attack against the mainland United States, and they believe he would not do it. But if Saddam thought he could attack America through terrorist proxies and cover the trail back to Baghdad, he might not think it so irrational."

afaik it's technically possible for 3 illegals to bring in a small atomic bomb through our southern border.