Or would that be 'implode'?
New Documents Reveal Saddam Hid WMD, Was Tied to Al Qaida
Recently discovered Iraqi documents now being translated by U.S. intelligence analysts indicate that Saddam Hussein's government made extensive plans to hide Iraq's weapons of mass destruction before the U.S. invasion in March 2003 - and had deep ties to al Qaida before the 9/11 attacks.
The explosive evidence was discovered among "millions of pages of documents" unearthed by the Iraq Survey Group weapons search team, reports the Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes.
In the magazine's Nov. 21 issue, Hayes reveals that the document cache now being examined contains "a thick stew of reports and findings from a variety of [Iraqi] intelligence agencies and military units."
But you know something? I question the timing on this. It's highly suspicious that these are coming out right after the "Bush lied, people died" branch of the Democratic party got their asses handed to them on a platter, using their own words to debunk their current stance and show them as the political opportunists they are.
I think what's happened is that folks in the White House have decided to take the gloves off. They've been patiently getting all their ducks in a row, getting all the info together, waiting for the proper time. And the Democrats have given them SO much to work with. Are you a leading politician, and want to call Bush a liar? Well, that's certainly your right, but it's then fair to have Bush defend his positions, and fair to remind the public of your own opinions at the time. Was he mistaken about WMD? It's possible - but acting on the consensus of numerous intelligence agencies and using that as one factor in the myriad of reasons to take out Saddam doesn't make him a liar - it makes him guilty of acting on mistaken intelligence.
But then again, maybe he WASN'T mistaken. Let's look at the released titles of the papers, shall we?
Though the Pentagon has so far declined to make the bombshell papers public, Hayes managed to obtain a list of titles on the reports.
Topics headlined in the still embargoed Iraqi documents include:
• Chemical Agent Purchase Orders (Dec. 2001)
• Formulas and information about Iraq's Chemical Weapons Agents
• Locations of Weapons/Ammunition Storage (with map)
• Denial and Deception of WMD and Killing of POWs
• Ricin research and improvement
• Chemical Gear for Fedayeen Saddam
• Memo from the [Iraqi Intelligence Service] to Hide Information from a U.N. Inspection team (1997)
• Iraq Ministry of Defense Calls for Investigation into why documents related to WMD were found by UN inspection team
• Correspondence between various Iraq organizations giving instructions to hide chemicals and equipment
• Correspondence from [Iraqi Intelligence Service] to [the Military Industrial Commission] regarding information gathered by foreign intelligence satellites on WMD (Dec. 2002) • Cleaning chemical suits and how to hide chemicals
• [Iraqi Intelligence Service] plan of what to do during UNSCOM inspections (1996)
Still other reports suggest that Iraq's ties to al Qaida were far deeper than previously known, featuring headlines like:
• Secret Meeting with Taliban Group Member and Iraqi Government (Nov. 2000)
• Document from Uday Hussein regarding Taliban activity
• Possible al Qaeda Terror Members in Iraq
• Iraqi Effort to Cooperate with Saudi Opposition Groups and Individuals
• Iraqi Intel report on Kurdish Activities: Mention of Kurdish Report on al Qaeda - reference to al Qaeda presence in Salman Pak
• [Iraqi Intelligence Service] report on Taliban-Iraq Connections Claims
• Money Transfers from Iraq to Afghanistan
While the document titles sound stunning enough to turn the Iraq war debate on its head, Hayes cautions that it's hard to know for certain until the full text is available.
That's true. I mean, "Ricin Research And Improvement" - they could be trying to improve it into a less-lethal form for medical use. From the
Wiki on Ricin...
Ricin may have therapeutic use in the treatment of cancer. Ricin may linked to a monoclonal antibody to target malignant cells recognized by the antibody. Genetic modification of ricin is believed to be possible to lessen its toxicity to humans, but not to the cancer cells.
Damn, here we screwed up, because Saddam was OBVIOUSLY working on a cure for cancer!
/sarcasm, if it wasn't apparent.
Look, I've got no problem with political opportunism - within limits. That limit is when it seriously affects the country, or in time of war when it affects the prosecution of the war. And that limit's been hit pretty hard and fast lately with the foolishness coming from the Democratic side of the House. Admittedly it's a lot easier to think in slogans and sound bites than it is to examine all the issues and come up with substative thoughts and a decision on all this, because it's very complex and convoluted. However, the complexity and confusion MUST be dealt with and the issues that caused the war cannot be ignored or misrepresented as non-threatening. And it's also, to my thinking, a pretty stupid political tactic to come out and say "I was stupid and gullible, and fooled into voted for this war based on the intelligence we had at the time." What does this tell you about how perceptive that politician is, and how opportunistic they are? If they're so easily fooled, would you want them in charge of the country?
As long as I'm on a rant here, it's especially frustrating to me to see the current embracing by the left of the cult of victimhood in international politics when it comes to Fundamentalist Islam, and the subsequent excusal of the most heinous acts of violence. Four years ago, I believed the RoP PC stuff. I still do, to an extent - but the terrorists are CHOOSING to be terrorists, they're not trying to work within the local governments to get what they want, and that they're targeting their own should be enough reason to target their sorry asses and not 'try to understand where they're coming from'. Make them dead, and we won't have to worry about them bombing other Muslims, burning down churches and mosques and indulging in kidnapping and beheadings.
Back on topic, more or less ...
There's certain rules to our political system, perhaps mostly apparent when they're broken for a perceived advantage, but they're there for a reason. There's no good precedent served by Clinton and Carter criticising Bush - except to please the hardcore DNC supporters - and it seriously gives aid and comfort to our enemies. THEY remember Viet Nam, and THEY know the only chance they have of 'winning' is to get the US to pull out BEFORE Iraq can stand on it's own. And the only way to do that is by slow attrition of our forces. One here, five there, they're hoping to get the US discouraged, out and then try to take over Iraq. They're not concerned about the PEOPLE of Iraq, as their targeting markets, mosques and weddings show - they just want the bloodshed.
Now Clinton's saying that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake - yet he called for Saddam's removal by force as early as 1998. Carter... well, he means well, but his presidency wasn't exactly an inspired sucess either domestically or internationally. There's perhaps a reason why past presidents should stay silent on what their sucessors do. Do they consider that the folks trying to take over Iraq might be the least bit encouraged by their statements? Or do they even care? Iraq is, you know, on the other side of the world. Can't it be safely ignored?
Afghanistan was even further East. We ignored it. Look what happened.
J.