Pentagon Report Confirms, Not Discredits
-President Bush in an address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People, United States Capitol, Washington D.C., September 20, 2001.
For the past 7 years, the network of mainstream media has brainwashed itself into the delusion that the Administration made the case for war in Iraq by stating that Saddam had a hand in the planning of 9/11. Where did President Bush say that? I missed that speech. And where did President Bush overstate the concerns of Saddam/al Qaeda links?
I've been going through the Dick Cheney Meet the Press transcripts (often cited by those who misheard what the VP actually said), and am still looking for the "gotcha" moneyquote.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon was scheduled to release a new report, last Wednesday, and the MSM, stating that there is no "smoking gun" on "operational" links between Saddam and al Qaeda. Scott Malensek recommended looking at the exclusive summary and key judgment section, and that alone contradicts the MSM, in how they've characterized the study. Scott comments:
This is interesting because in many ways it is CONTRARY to what the McLatchy reporter claims. He claims there was no “operational relationship,” and that’s only partially true because the report does say Iraq was a state sponsor of terror, and did have operational ties to various groups-including Islamic radicals (another thing the reporter got wrong), and if we look closer anyone who knows anything about AQ knows that 2/3 of its leadership stemmed from Egyptian Islamic Jihad of which there’s plenty of evidence (FBI even confirms this) that Iraq supported EIJ . The report also suggests that Iraq sponsored other AQ affiliates, and it sounds like those groups were the forerunners of the AQ in Iraq coalition which was in Iraq before the war (and before they renamed themselves Al Queda in Iraq).
Honestly, just reading the the summary that I linked to makes it sound like
1) Almost all of the repeated claims from the right re regime ties are correct-NOT wrong
2) the McLatchy newspapers report is a COMPLETELY incorrect characterization of this report
Scott has since penned his own blogpost.
The distinctions that differentiates one Islamic terror group from another are not always clear-cut. The boundaries can get easily blurred, with Islamic holy warriors melting in from one terror cell to the next. You have Egyptian Islamic Jihad, which is Zawahiri's previous group, Ansar al-Islam (a group that belongs to Osama bin Laden), Jemaah Islamiyah, and abu Sayyaf, which is essentially al Qaeda in the Philippines, for instance.
Scott writes:
the report itself is packed with evidence of operational ties between Saddam’s regime and various groups that are components/participants/elements/members of the network. For example the report confirms that Egyptian Islamic Jihad was supported by Saddam’s regime at a time when 2/3 of the al-Qaida network’s leadership (2/3 of the leadership prior to 2003 was comprised of members of Egyptian Islamic Jihad. The report is also packed with examples of Saddam’s regime recognizing, supporting, and working with Egyptian Islamic Jihad; i.e. with 2/3 of al-Qaida leadership.The USJFCOM has released more. Volume 1 is the exclusive summary of the Report, and the rest is supporting documentation.
The Iraqi Perspectives Project -- Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents:
• Volume 1
• Volume 2
• Volume 3
• Volume 4
• Volume 5
Also blogging:
Flopping Aces2
Flopping Aces3
Gateway Pundit
HotAir.com
Midnight Blue
Regime of Terror
Weekly Standard:
The New Report on Iraq and Terror
Only Connected
More articles:
Report Details Saddam's Terrorist Ties
Labels: media distortion, Saddam-Al Qaeda Connection, terrorism, War on Terror
posted by The WordSmith from Nantucket at 3/15/2008 10:27:00 PM
18 Comments:
This latest biased reporting demonstrates again how successful the big lie is.
I've embarrased more than one honest liberal by pointing out exactly what the relationship was between Saddam and Al Queda.
The dishonest liberals just spout: "Oh yeah, well Bush is worse."
So far, it's the proportion between honest liberals and dishonest moonbats is running 5-1 in favor of the total loons.
I'm glad to see the Filipinos taking terrorism seriously. They are in close proximity to Indonesia and have to understand how to take on Islamic terrorism. Islamic terrorists have been causing problems to the Filipinos for many years and the video alludes to a situation when tourists and missionaries were murdered and some where taken as hostages particularly a missionary, his wife and another man from California were taken hostage. This was Abu Syyaf.
Abu Syyaf had direct or indirect connections to the Iraqi Intelligence agency before and after 9/11. There are direct links to Saddam Hussein throughout the world particularly through Libya. "Saddam's Philippine connection"
Stephen Hayes' essay on this at Weekly Standard was killer.
I visited some liberal blogs to check the reaction, and it's complete denial and spin. These people are not only in a time warp, but they're truly able to think clearly on any and all things GOP, military...you name it.
Nice posting!!
Great comment debate going on over at the McClatchy Report, involving Scott Malensek and Mark Eichenlaub against all-comers.
If the last Pentagon report clearly states that Iraq was a state sponsor of terror and had ties to terrorist groups, it seems to me that there is no way the MSM could possibly spin it any other way. Yeah... I know I'm being naive, and yes, I know that much of the MSM actually lies, but it's just amazing to me what they are able to get away with and how much they disinform the American Public!
I started to read that so called discussion over there Word. It's the same old boring stuff. Someone reads a report or pastes a report and then everyone quibbles over minute details to death and completely misses the whole point of the report. Usually reports such as the one that is posted over at that McClatchy blog are purposefully vague and made for public discussion. The real reports that are used for actual assessments are never seen by the public so the whole discussion of minor details is wasted time and a moot point.
It reminds me of the recent discussion over the National Intelligence Estimate that reported Iran had stopped nuclear weapons development programs back in 2003. No one with any intelligence believed that to be accurate or the truth but people wasted their time arguing over it anyway.
My suggestion is for all of us to support the troops, monitor peaceniks and keep an eye on what they do like damaging US military recruitment offices. Feel sorry for liberals. They can't help that they are so stupid. There's no need to waste time discussing things with them. They won't understand intelligent thinking and common sense anyway.
Word, I do not know where the MSM gets its reporters. Talk about cherry pick...Wow! Al queda is all over the report. and has been quoted many times on the blogs. They might as well work outside of the United States. I certainly believe in Freedom of the Press, bu when does the truth come out.....??? Stay well...
Terrific post, Word. Over at Pajamas Media, I read the post by Michael Weiss about this. Also, I started the day with Bill Kristol's piece at the Weekly Standard. Kristol usually has it right, in my book. He points out to the fact that the Bush administration has virtually thrown its hands in the air and won't even try to set the record straight. They feel once the Blame Bush train started on the war, there was no turning back and smoothing the perception out with facts. This I find the most incompetence with of all the other blunders.
I'm drinking my morning Boca Java and trying not to scream. Kristol's last paragraph is a tidy ending: "It's not too late. Bush can still override his cautious aides and tell the American people the whole truth about the situation we faced in 2003 and would face today if Saddam were still in power. This is more than a matter of political advantage. It is a requirement of war leadership."
Wordsmith, I've written a bit about this excellent article on today's post and left a link.
But what is at the base of the MSM refusing to acknowledge the obvious? I'm not sure I've pinned that one down yet -- particularly in light of the fact that the would suffer along with everyone else involved in a WMD event aimed at America.
BZ
The full 230 page report is here:
http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2006/ipp.pdf
..it is simply a detailed military
post critique of Iraq internal affairs. Although I could find no Al Quaida links (230pdf pages is tough on these old eyes), it is
clear that the UN sanctions crippled Saddam (that, and his idiot sons). His 'state-sponsored terrorism' was mostly internally
directed agains Kurds and religious
groups. But, as an 'honest moonbat
(and ex-Army officer) I would appreciate being directed to that portion of the report linking 9/11
in any way.
bb-idaho,
Can you retype the link? Although it doesn't look to be the same as the current Pentagon release, which is based upon the 15% of the 600,000 captured Iraqi documents, audio, and video that has thus been translated; and the report indicates that the research is by no means "exhaustive", meaning further research is needed to determine the depth of what is so far examined. I've read a portion of it, so far.
His 'state-sponsored terrorism' was mostly internally
directed agains Kurds and religious
groups.
I don't think that's entirely accurate. Just go through the report, let alone some of the intell documents that have previously been available.
The myth that this report should put to rest, is the notion that a secular Saddam would never work with religious nutcases. His ties to Islamic terrorist groups is complex.
I would appreciate being directed to that portion of the report linking 9/11
in any way.
You'd have better luck directing that one to Mark Eichenlaub. I believe he's said Iraq was put on alert status just before 9/11. I don't know anything about this. My outlook is more conventional.
What I would challenge you on, though, is in pointing out the moneyquote from President Bush that said Saddam had a hand in 9/11. Or even from Dick Cheney.
Ecellent Post Word,
Nice to know we are EVERYWHERE!
Like President Bush said "Some operations would be overt and some will be covert" but either way we are going to take down this enemy and destroy them where they fester!
bb-idaho,
Regarding the 9/11-Saddam link (or lack thereof), I just don't think the Administration was pushing that case, even though that's the case the media seems to have pushed forth, making many believe this was the Administration's stance.
A response to moonbat Philly Steve, citing his own link against him:Discussing the secretary’s comments on MSNBC on Friday, Tanenhaus said that the reason Saddam’s role in 9/11 never became the centerpiece of the Bush administration’s rationale for war was because there was no consensus on the issue.
The connection is there, insofar as Iraq, as a state sponsor of terrorism, providing safe-haven and training, is part of the greater, overall war against Islamic terror.
WordSmith,
Yes, that link doesn't seem to work. I went originally to
http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2006/pa032406.htm
..and clicked 'read the whole report' Dunno if it's because it
is in pdf or what. Quite a long read, but political views aside, some interesting stuff. The source, if at all available, is
preferable to the various spin.
IMO, the administration's response to 9-11 was direct in Afghanistan.
The Iraq invasion was more oblique in reasoning, based partly on a long standing desire for direct action by some members of the administration, partly on wishful thinking & poor intel, partly on altruistic views of Saddam as a tyrant and partly on the so-called
neocon policy of spreading democracy in the mideast. Few of these were developed in the build up of public opinion prior to the invasion, nor was a direct 9-11 link overtly stated. I would not qualify as an expert, but my miltary service was in the WMD area and the evidence for WMD presented at that time was IMHO pretty scant and shaky..the stuff requires specific infrastructure and supra-normal transport. So, I did not buy it and informed my congressman. His typical reply was that Iraq was an emminent danger to the US and he would vote for invasion. There is no question that Saddam was a tyrant to his people, and the report details that in ugly detail. So from at least part of the neocon perspective, there was justification. Much of the rest I find less than compelling. I hope
this other link works for you because as mentioned above, it is
an informative read.
Word:
I don't have the time to look for a "moneyquote". However, practically every speech that Bush gave after 9/11 until the invasion of the Iraqi oil fields was crafted to conflate Al Qai'da and Saddam in the minds of the frightened, angry Americans seeking vengeance and protection. He manipulated his "children" who were looking for a strong "daddy" to get those Arabs or Muslims or whatever they were.
I've read your references in the past to the "Looming Towers". The LT states conclusively that there was no connection between Saddam and Al Qai'da.
bb-idaho,
Sorry for the tardy reply. I got sidetracked and forgot about your comment here (part of the reason why I don't respond to most comments these days is lack of time and laziness on my part, by reading the email notices, rather than coming to the blogsite, directly).
I'll try to take a look at your link. Thanks for providing it, and thanks for such a well-put comment.
So, I did not buy it and informed my congressman. His typical reply was that Iraq was an emminent danger to the US and he would vote for invasion.
The funny thing is President Bush's accurate statement is that we had to act before the threat becomes imminent. I never really did feel the need for "urgency", and could have shrugged my shoulders on it, if we had waited longer or not.
rockbutte
I urge you to go through the Pentagon Report. The links are there. And they've been there, even minus this report. Only about 15% of captured Iraqi documents has so far been translated.
As for conflation and innuendo, I suppose people can be lead to draw conclusions, even when what's actually been stated says otherwise. It's just so strange, because I supported the war, but never really thought hard about whether al Qaeda was linked to Iraq or whether Saddam had a part in 9/11. I just understood that Saddam had a part to play in the overall long war against Islamic terror.
He manipulated his "children" who were looking for a strong "daddy" to get those Arabs or Muslims or whatever they were.
See? This is an example of misperception. If you look at every single speech and statement by the president, Bush has gone out of his way since the very beginning, after 9/11, to insure that Americans understood that "Islam is a peaceful religion" and that we weren't engaged in a war against Muslims, but against those who identify with a perversion of the religion.
Presidential address to a joint session of Congress and the American people at the U.S. Capitol, Sept 20, 2001:
"We will not forget South Korean children gathering to pray outside our embassy in Seoul, or the prayers of sympathy offered at a mosque in Cairo."
"Al Qaeda is to terror what the mafia is to crime. But its goal is not making money; its goal is remaking the world- and imposing its radical beliefs on people everywhere.
The terrorists practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism that has been rejected by Muslim scholars and the vast majority of Muslim clerics- a fringe movement that perverts the peaceful teachings of Islam."
"I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world. We respect your faith. It's practiced freely by many millions of Americans, and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah. The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself. The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them.
Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated."
Could the President speak any more PC than he did, and anymore than he continues to do?
I believe his beliefs regarding Islam, are genuine, too, much to the consternation of many of my fellow conservatives in the blogosphere who have extended the hostile rhetoric beyond Islamists, to attack Islam itself.
More has been released.
And I registered an account at Military.com to debate here.
Post a Comment
<< Home