Saddam, Al Qaeda & Terrorism WRIT LARGE Enough for the “Blind” Left

Comment at end

29th September, 2008


Apart from the hacks, Do you want to know what hacks me off to the nth degree? No, not Gordon Brown; nor David Cameron; nor Obama nor McCain. Nor even whatsisaname from the Lib Dems.

It’s the mad proclamations, mainly online of the ignorant Left in the west who KNOW everything about WMDs, “lies” and the EVIL leaders of the free west in the Iraq war decision.

It’s the bumptious supercilious non-violent ‘peace-lovers’ who continually hold up George Bush and Tony Blair as emblems of OUR corruption, and wish to string ’em up as examples of our ‘decadence’.

The peace-lovers who online repeatedly and virally call for their trials at The Hague, or worse if only the ‘villains’ were ‘brave’ enough to wander unprotected amongst us. Amongst  “us”WE the Good People!

Wonder if these same people would ever have called for the same for Saddam and his ilk?

Who exactly do they think they are in their omniscience and hoped-for omnipotence?

NOT IN MY NAME do they speak. NEVER!

It really is time we put an end to their rantings over Saddam’s innocence and the guilt of western leaders.

I have this strange feeling that they won’t read much of any of the links or articles here, though. Perhaps the words/paragraphs are too long. Perhaps they’re too complicated; or too simple.

Here follow several articles with reference to Saddam’s knowledge, support and encouragement, even command of Al Qaeda in Iraq.

On Saddam’s Orders

By Mark Eichenlaub, published

The Iraqi tyrant didn’t “just” aid anti-American terrorist groups; he explicitly ordered them to attack.

Links. Ties. Operational links. Sponsorship. These terms have vastly different meanings to different members of the media when they discuss relations between Saddam Hussein’s regime and the al-Qaeda network. This became clear yet again last week when news outlets reported on the Department of Defense-sponsored Iraqi Perspectives Project (all five volumes of which are now available here). The vast majority of news reports focused on a single sentence that was incorrectly taken to mean that no ties, links, relations or connections of any sort existed between Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and the al-Qaeda movement.
What exact word or phrase best describes the relations between Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and al-Qaeda, as well as other Islamic terror groups, is certainly debatable. What is not debatable, based on the Iraqi Perspectives Project, is that Saddam Hussein’s regime funded, trained, and assisted terrorist groups (including al-Qaeda proxies), and sometimes actually ordered them to attack American citizens, American interests, and American allies. To compound the danger, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was simultaneously using its intelligence and security apparatus to plot and conduct terror attacks of its own.

The most contentious issue regarding Saddam Hussein and terrorism may be the extent to which Saddam supported anti-American terrorist groups (as opposed to his more agreed-upon support for anti-Israeli groups), particularly Islamic terrorist groups. On this topic the report says that Saddam’s animosity towards the United States continued after the first Gulf War, so he reached out to and supported Islamic-fundamentalist and related terrorist organizations that also saw the U.S. as an enemy. Internal Iraqi documents reveal that Saddam’s regime knew it had to keep these relations top secret, due to the increased Western scrutiny that Islamic terrorism began receiving during the 1990s because of Iran’s open support for Hezbollah.

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 stated goals and objectives.

Captured documents reveal that the regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al-Qaeda — as long as that organization’s near-term goals supported Saddam’s long-term vision.

From 1991 through 2003 the Hussein regime “regarded inspiring, sponsoring, directing and executing acts of terrorism as an element of state power.” White House National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe commented to me that the report confirms that Saddam “had ties to regional terrorism” and that in a region where there was “no lack of terrorist groups willing to attack the U.S.,” it was not surprising to see who Saddam had been supporting.

The former regime’s stash of documents includes a list of some of the groups that were willing to commit these attacks on behalf of the Iraqi regime. The “Renewal and Jihad Organization” was one group willing to “carry out operations against American interests at any time.” The Egyptian Islamic Jihad (al-Qaeda second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahiri’s group, which merged with Osama bin Laden’s terrorists to form al-Qaeda) is described in the report as having “agreed” on a plan for attacks against the Egyptian government. The Islamic Scholars Group in Pakistan is described by Iraqi officials as willing to “carry out any assignment we task them with.” Another Pakistani organization, which the report refers to as the Pakistan Scholars Group, is listed as not being “tasked with commando operations during the (Gulf) war,” possibly implying that the group was available to commit “operations” at Iraq’s beckoning. (For more on Saddam Hussein’s associations with Islamic groups in Pakistan and Afghanistan, Ray Robison’s “Both in One Trench” is a must read.)

The report also reveals that in the late 1990s Saddam was willing to “support or co-opt” a group named “Army of Muhammad” that it knew to be loyal to Osama bin Laden. Iraq was aware that the group had plans to attack American military bases in Arab countries (a goal that Saddam’s regime shared) and American embassies (another shared goal). Internal Iraqi documents note that the group was seeking Iraqi assistance, though they do not mention what Iraq’s response was. Saddam was impressed with al-Qaeda attacks on American embassies and other targets, and his pattern of support for groups wishing to attack American interests suggests that refusing to grant the desired assistance to the Army of Muhammad would have been a deviation from normal behavior.

Another document lists an Islamic militant group in Afghanistan as dependent on Iraq for financing, and an Islamic group in Egypt as agreeing to make attacks in exchange for financing and training from Iraq. Saddam’s regime also provided supervision and oversight, as well as 30,000 rifles and 10,000 pistols, to help get a Sudanese terrorist training camp off the ground at a time when anti-American Islamic terror groups were prevalent in the country. According to the report, Saddam’s regime also maintained in-country training camps for all kinds of non-Iraqi groups, many of which were looking to destabilize America’s allies in the Middle East.

Other documents show that a Kurdish Islamic group received “financial and moral support” from Saddam’s regime and that the regime wanted to establish an organizational relationship with the group. This is probably the group referred to later in the report as conducting attacks against American and other U.N. humanitarian workers, as well as Kurdish officials and civilians, on behalf of the Iraqi regime.

A September 2001 document mentions Saddam’s efforts “make common cause” with a number of Islamic radical groups in Kuwait, including a Shiite group. Another document mentions a Sri Lankan group that volunteered to carry out suicide bombings on Saddam’s orders during the first Gulf war. Additional internal memos show Iraqi officials reporting to one another that Hamas was willing through the 1990s to conduct suicide attacks against Americans on behalf of Saddam’s Iraq. These memos also listed Abu Abbas, the notorious Palestinian terrorist, as another man willing to lead his forces for Saddam in attacks against Americans.

The sheer number and consistency of Saddam Hussein’s contacts and agreements with, and assistance for, terrorist groups show that these relationships were part of a larger pattern, as Saddam looked to expand his relations with anti-American Islamic militant and terror groups. The authors note that some of these groups took orders from Saddam’s regime to carry out attacks on American interests and allies.

A less contentious issue is the use of terrorism by arms of Saddam Hussein’s intelligence and security branches. In 1993 Saddam ordered his men to “form a group to start hunting Americans present on Arab soil, especially Somalia.” This occurred within days of al-Qaeda’s decision to do the same thing. In 1990 terrorists acting on behalf of the Iraqi regime attempted to bomb an American ambassador’s home in Jakarta and an American Airlines office and the Japanese embassy in the Philippines.

The regime later showed a willingness to use suicide terrorism, possibly due to the limited effectiveness of previous anti-U.S. attacks. A late September 2001 document reveals that the Iraqi regime had been recruiting volunteers for suicide attacks. The authors state that training for suicide bombings became so routine that eventually a formal national policy and training schedule were adopted. Some of the regime’s willing “martyrs” were likely the topic of a document pertaining to plots in Saudi Arabia, for which these suicide bombers signed secret agreement forms affirming their commitment to Saddam. Plots described in additional documents (and possibly referring to the same plots) discussed blowing up buildings in Saudi Arabia (a country that did see terror attacks of this nature during the 1990s) and killing members of Kuwait’s royal family. Again, it should be noted that these terrorist attacks were to be committed at Saddam’s behest and to be done secretly.

The files continued to detail orders for “operatives (being) sent into countries around Iraq to attack American installations.” In these examples we have direct orders from Saddam to Iraqis and non-Iraqis to target and kill Americans.

The former regime’s documents also discuss a 1999/2001 plan called “Operation Basra Revenge” that would have used missiles, rockets, and later suicide attacks with speedboats to “destroy American and British naval vessels.” (This document was pointed out by the writer Scott Malensek.)

The report details the regime’s production of suicide vests, IEDs, and car bombs for plots that included targets in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. Saddam’s embassies in these countries were warehouses for missile launchers, plastic explosives, TNT, Kalashnikovs, booby-trapped suitcases, and grenades. These tools were all available to a regime that had internal orders to attack American civilians, military members, bases, embassies, and ships.

All this capability would be meaningless, of course, if there were no intention of using it. The authors make clear that Saddam was willing to conduct anti-American terrorism, saying: “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.”

Instead of squabbling over who is and isn’t a member of al-Qaeda and what the requirements of a “link” or “connection” are, this report details Saddam’s broad support for (and sometimes direction of) a multitude of terrorist groups targeting Americans and American allies. Based on the Iraqi Perspectives Project, Saddam’s Iraq did not just use terrorism against America and her allies but took advantage of “the rising fundamentalism in the region” as an “opportunity to make terrorism . . .  a formal instrument of state power.” Because of Saddam’s removal, which came at considerable cost in American blood and gold, a “formal instrument” of state terrorism is no longer secretly plotting to kill Americans. The American public deserves to know what a threat was removed for that price.

— Mark Eichenlaub is the manager and editor of, a site dedicated to detailing Saddam Hussein’s support for terrorism.

And then there’s this  – documenting Saddam’s Support of terrorism.

Might it explain something about another issue that the little moaners try to pin on Bush & Blair, citing “Human Rights” – for instance, the SFO’s stopping of the investigation into the Saudi arms deal?

It might and the again it might not. Who am I to know?

What I DO know is that there are more inter-connnections in this world with varying intensities at various times than the simple minded one-cause lefties will EVER understand. It is, as my church minister used to say about God, “beyond our comprehension.”

This is not to make excuses or fashion an opt-out in order that democratically elected leaders can get away with murder while they pursue suspected dictators; of course not. But it IS to say that we need to understand that there is more going on, and over a longer time frame than today’s critics choose to consider.

They are fond of harking back to OUR hand in Middle East conflicts, by criticising earlier decisions made such as the birth of Israel and pointing to the defeat of Russia in Afghanistan.

They suggest little than a doctrine of despair.

And none of them were elected politicians – chosen ‘by the people for the people’. The mouthy intelligentsia and the wordy liberal left really need to remember that they have one mouth, two eyes and two ears. They need to listen, read and talk in that ratio.

There is more history than just their versions.

Documenting Saddam Hussein’s Support of Terrorism

Despite the most recent attempt by the Democrat-led Senate Intelligence Committee to “report away” Saddam Hussein’s links to terrorism, evidence reportedly from inside the former regime continues to reveal efforts by the former regime to cultivate ties with active terrorist groups. The most recent piece of evidence is provided by a Kurdish newspaper translated by MEMRI (story below, picture of document to left) and cited by AJ Strata and Gateway Pundit.

Kurdish Paper: Cooperation Between Saddam Regime, Al-QaedaThe Kurdish daily Kurdistani Nwe has published a 2002 letter from the Iraqi presidency that it says proves that there was cooperation between the regime of Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda.

The letter, which appeared on the paper’s front page, was published by the intelligence apparatus of the Iraqi presidency and discussed an intention to meet with Ayman Al-Zawahiri in order to examine a plan drawn up by the Iraqi presidency to carry out a “revenge operation” in Saudi Arabia.

2002 letter from the Iraqi presidency

Source: (, June 20, 2008

It is worth noting that terror attacks in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia were conducted in May 2003 and were largely blamed on al Qaeda. It is also worth noting that Saddam Hussein’s connections to Ayman al Zawahiri (though there is much more on this topic yet to be written) have been documented in numerous reports including the 9-11 Commission’s report and the recent IDA report. The recent IDA report also exposed Hussein’s terrorists capabilities and motives towards Saudi Arabia (internal documents discussed secret attacks on the Saudi Royal family, attacks on buildings in the country and terror plots coordinated by “Unit 999”). The extent of Hussein’s terror aspirations vs. Saudi Arabia, coupled with his previous financial links to al Qaeda #2’s Ayman al Zawahiri would indicate that this documents authenticity is at least plausible in terms of what else is known about the 2002 situations surrounding both al Qaeda (fury with the Saudis over their cooperation with the U.S.) and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq (being threatened with a U.S. led war).

That Saddam Hussein’s regime had secret plans for terror attacks on buildings inside Saudi Arabia, had a special intelligence unit for conducting attacks inside Saudi Arabia, was meeting with the groups who shared the desire and capability to launch attacks against Saudi Arabia and eventually conducted such attacks may be merely coincidental to those who apply the standards of the U.S. legal system towards state sponsors of terrorism but the evidence, coupled with Hussein’s treacherous past, should have long removed this presumption of innocence and burden of proof.

Saddam Knew Al-Qaeda, And Had WMDs

I’m tired of arguing these points every time Iraq comes up, so this information, with links, is centralised here.

1. Saddam had connections with Al-Qaeda. Here are some of the captured documents that prove it, as well as links to plenty of other translated Baathist documents providing a wealth of other information people widely consider to be untrue. So Saddam was indeed working with Al-Qaeda. Considering his hatred of the U.S., and his monetary support for terrorism, how long do you think it would have been before he began giving them weapons? No, this does not mean that Saddam had anything to do with Al-Qaeda. I have never seen a Republican claim that that was the case, although the left constantly claims that any mention of the above evidence is trying to claim Saddam was behind 9/11.

2. Saddam had existing WMDs. Hundreds of them. It is also extremely likely that the majority of his existing programs went to Syria, and that much of that nuclear material was destroyed when Israel decided they didn’t want a nuclear Syria on their doorstep.

3. Saddam had programs to develop more WMDs. In addition to that link, the amount of material and his programs that went to Syria or were buried elsewhere in the desert remains unknown.

All of these subjects are not even open to debate any more. The people who argue against these are trying to claim that something doesn’t exist: as soon as I’ve shown the proof that it does exist, how can you argue against it? You can try and argue that none of the above evidence is as substantial as was argued before the war, and that’s fine.

A few other points that I constantly have to argue:

1. Freedom for the Iraqis was always listed as one of the prime reasons for going into the war. WMDs were never the only reason.

2. We had the legal right, even the obligation, to go into Iraq. When Iraq surrendered during the first Gulf War, a whole variety of resolutions were passed in the U.N. that were the terms of the cease fire (about a quarter of the way down through the article). Saddam violated nearly all of them. The fact that Russia, Germany, and France were being bribed in the largest corruption in the history of the world to try and stonewall the U.N.’s own obligations does not change any of this.

Picture Proof: The Saddam-Al Qaeda Connections

Tuesday, September 12, 2006

The following information did not make it into the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report released last Friday, that claimed Saddam’s government “did not have a relationship, harbor or turn a blind eye toward” al-Qaida operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi or his associates.

What do you suppose the committee had to say about these documents?

Captured Iraqi Document ISGC-2004-019920 Page 6

From blogger The Dread Pundit Bluto:

2002 Iraqi Intelligence Correspondence concerning the presence of al-Qaida Members in Iraq. Correspondence between IRS members on a suspicion, later confirmed, of the presence of an Al-Qaeda terrorist group. Moreover, it includes photos and names.

Page 7 from Document ISGC-2004-019920

Captured Iraqi Document ISGQ-2003-00004500-0

Laura Mansfield translated this document at Pajamas Media:

Saddam Hussein’s government was aware not just of the presence of Al Qaeda terrorist Abu Mus’ab Al Zarqawi, but also was aware that the Anbar province in Iraq was being used as a launch point for organized groups of jihadis headed to fight the United States in Afghanistan.

The document, addressed to the Security Board, Fedayeen Saddam at the office of the Presidency in Iraq, reports what it describes as a “rumor”, says:

there is a group of Iraqi and Saudi Arabians numbering around 3,000 who have gone in an unofficial capacity to Afghanistan and have joined the mujahidin to fight with and aid them in defeating the American Zionist Imperialist attack

This clearly indicates that Iraq was being used as a transit point or launch point for Saudi Arabian jihadis, as well as Iraqis, who wanted to go join the forces of Osama Bin Laden in Iraq in November 2001, nearly a year and a half before the US and Coalition forces commenced military action against Saddam Hussein’s regime.

Document: ISGZ-2004-009247 via Pajamas

Saddam Agents meet with Osama bin Laden:
From Ray Robison:
In the report the Iraqis talk about their meeting with Osama Bin Laden… In the meeting, Bin Laden asked the Iraqis for joint operations against the Foreign forces (US military) in the land of Hijaz (Saudia or Saudi Arabia).” – jveritas

In the Name of God the Most Merciful and the Most Compassionate.

The Saudi Opposition and Achieving the Relation and Contact With Them

(Translation of part of Page 4)

2. The Commission of Reform and Advise

Led by the Saudi Osama Bin Laden who belongs to a wealthy Saudi family with roots go back to Hadramoot and connected strongly with the ruling family in Saudia, and he is one of the leaders of the Arab Afghan who volunteered for Jihad in Afghanistan, and after the expulsion of the Soviets he moved to stay in Sudan in the year 1992 after the arrival of the Islamists to power in Sudan.

And because of his stands against the Saudi Royal family because of the foreign presence inside it, the Saudi authorities made a decision to withdraw his Saudi citizenship, and we moved toward The Comission from our side and through the following:

Translation of page 5

A. During the visit of the Sudanese Dr. Abrahim Al Sanoosi to the country and his meeting with Mr. Uday Saddam Hussein on 13/12/1994 and with the presence of the respectful Sir the Director of the Apparatus he indicated that the opposition person Osama Bin Laden who is staying in Sudan and who was cautious and fears that he will be accused by his opponents that he became an agent for Iraq, is ready to meet with him in Sudan (The results of the meeting were written to the Honorable Presidency according to our letter 872 on 17/12/1994).

B. The approval of the Honorable Presidency was granted to meet with the opposition person Osama Bin Laden by the Apparatus according to letter 128 on 11/1/1995 (attachment 6) and the meting with him was completed by Mr. M.A ex-4th Directory in Sudan and with the presence of the Sudanese Dr. Abrahim AL Sanoosi on 19/2/1995 and a discussion occurred about his organization, and he requested the broadcasting of Sheikh Sleiman AL Awada (who has influence in Saudia and outside since he is a known and influential religious personality) and dedicate a program for them through the station directed inside the country and make joint operations against the forces of infidels in the land of Hijaz ( the Honorable Presidency has been notified with the details of the meeting according to our letter 370 in 4/3/1995 attachment 7).

Captured Iraqi Document CMPC-2003-001488

Via Pajamas Media Translated by Omar at Iraq the Model:

In the name of God the merciful the compassionate Presidency of the Republic Intelligence Service 2/913/5th directorate

Sir: Director General of the 5th directorate
Subject: Information

Our Afghani source #002 (info on him in paper slip ‘1’) has informed us that Afghani consular Ahmed Dahistani (info on him in paper slip ‘2’) had spoken before him of the following:

1- That Usama Bin Ladin and the Taliban group in Afghanistan are in contact with Iraq and that a group from the Taliban and Usama Bin Ladin’s group had conducted a visit to Iraq.

2- That America possesses evidence that Iraq and Usama Bin Ladin’s group had cooperated to strike targets inside America.

3- Incase Taliban and Usama’s group are proven involved in those sabotage operations, it will be possible that America directs strikes at Iraq and Afghanistan.

4- That the Afghani consular had heard about the Iraq connections with Usama Bin Ladin’s group during his presence in Iran.

5- In the light of what preceded we suggest writing to the Intentions Committee about the above information.

Please be informed…..your feedback please…..with appreciation.
)signature) (signature(
Information office send immediately to the
Of the 5th directorate/3 Intentions Committee

Then, of course, there is this memo as reported by Stephen Hayes in the Weekly Standard:

OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda–perhaps even for Mohamed Atta–according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

The memo, dated October 27, 2003, was sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

The primary go-between throughout these early stages was Sudanese strongman Hassan al-Turabi, a leader of the al Qaeda-affiliated National Islamic Front. Numerous sources have confirmed this. One defector reported that “al-Turabi was instrumental in arranging the Iraqi-al Qaeda relationship. The defector said Iraq sought al Qaeda influence through its connections with Afghanistan, to facilitate the transshipment of proscribed weapons and equipment to Iraq. In return, Iraq provided al Qaeda with training and instructors.”

Stephen Hayes also has a Weekly Standard report on Saddam’s terror training camps published in January, 2006, from captured Saddam documents claiming-

Saddam Hussein trained thousands of radical Islamic terrorists from the region at camps in Iraq over the four years immediately preceding the U.S. invasion.”

Then there is the story on Al Qaeda’s current leader in Iraq, Abu al Masri, who took over the reins of terror after Al Zarqawi had a 500 pound bomb drop in on him in April of this year.

Abu al Masri, the current head of Al Qaeda in Iraq, organized terror camps in southern Iraq after he fled Afghanistan when the Taliban government fell in 2001.

Al-Masri – which means “the Egyptian” – is another foreign fighter who trained in Afghanistan like Zarqawi, coalition officials said. No one knows his real name.

The terrorist is said to be about 38 years old and got his beginning in Egypt, where he joined the Islamic Brotherhood. He fled from Egypt and moved to Afghanistan, where he trained in explosives at the al-Faruq Al Qaeda camp. There he met Zarqawi, officials said.

After the fall of the Taliban, Masri escaped to Iraq and set up with the Jordanian-born Zarqawi. The Egyptian specialized in vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices. He helped establish the Baghdad cell of Al Qaeda in early 2003, officials said.

Obviously, there is much more information out there.
This is just a start.

A. Jacksonian has much more on the translated Saddam documents…

Saddam Dossier
Powerline Forward
Broad Advances
Joint Forces
The Vanguard Moves Forward
Rolling Out
The Gathering
Calling All Translators

World Net Daily has much more on this story.

Update: The New York Sun had this report on Thursday, September 14, 2006:

The Deputy prime minister of Iraq yesterday offered a sharp contradiction of the conventional wisdom here that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Al Qaeda had no connection before the 2003 war.

Powerline has more on the failings of the Senate Intelligence report.


Blogger A Jacksonian said…
What is interesting about the anthrax is that either Saddam had to have scientists work out how to weaponize it or had to buy the information on how to weaponize it. Although ‘Dr. Germ’ may have been capable of the former, dealing with the quickly decaying chemical industry in Iraq to do so would require an isolation of equipment, lab space and supplies which should be recognizeable in documentation and logistics. The crude variety seen in the US post-9/11 was, at best, something that could be done as a first-stage process, but was only ‘weaponized’ once it was de-clumped from exposure do air and indicates none of the dessicant properties that any biologist would realize is necessary for weaponization. ‘Dr. Germ’ in Iraq had that skill and would have seen that as unsatisfactory. Thus we are left with three sources of weaponizing anthrax.Everyone likes to point to the US, and the Army did explore means and methods to make such, but sharply curbed that and looked towards protection schema vice complete weaponization. Still a prime source, but those documents are under the heaviest control in the Army and no one, absolutely NO ONE has stepped forward or been fingered in this as they would know with the invasion of Iraq that ‘the jig was up’.

Source two is the USSR/Russia. Documents point to a high involvement in Spetznatz forces coming into Iraq pre-invasion and removing equipment and supplies and ‘sanitizing’ facilities. A number of Russian scientists have talked about their work, but none have indicated involvement with Iraq on bio weapons, just chemical. A rogue scientist or two post-USSR may have gone southwards, but there is a difference in that and a full weaponized program.

Basically the infrastructure is not there for Iraq to have fully done this without outside help. And that leads to source number 3, the only other group on the planet to have made fully weaponized anthrax save for getting the wrong strain: Aum Shinrikyo. Clean, efficient, small-scale manufacture of weaponized anthrax in the early 1990’s.

My guess would be that Iraq had gotten to the relatively primitive capability that their degraded biochem facilities would allow, which is to realize that they needed a better set of industrial techniques to get something that would be fully weaponized for long term use and distribution. The spores, themselves, can live through just about anything, including being in the outer part of an explosive shell. What happens is that they gain moisture and tend to fall to the ground quickly, thus becoming a problem for ruminants and grazers unless one is in an arid climate. Getting the spores made and freeze dried at the spore level is, itself, a tedious affair by all accounts, and about where Iraq could get without a larger scale industry to do the necessary work on dessicant production and adhesion and de-cohesion once ingested or in the lung lining. That is quite trickly to make a molecule that fits well with the spore, rejects general humidity, but will have also adhere to a protein structure and allow the spore to go free. That latter is necessary for spray application and such… but for letters the first and more clumpy stage where the individual doing the mechanical process of opening the letter to distribute the spores works relatively well, as we found out.

Without actual samples being looked at in a scanning electron microscope and having chemical tests done on them, we can never be fully sure just how far the situation was. If it was only the primitive capability, as seen in the post-9/11 letters in the US, then you can have a wide ability. But if a single shell or aerosol device turns up of properly freeze-dried and dessicant added spores shows up, then the chemical finger print and spore type will lead to the supplier. Those things are *not* made by mistake, do *not* age to obselescence and take a firm and directed capability to manufacture.

8:52 AM
Blogger scott said…
It’s interesting also is that Iraq was considered “secular” and would not have aligned with al-Qaeda. Why would they lead each document with an item praising Allah?
4:42 PM
Blogger Kuni said…
And you didn’t post the order by Saddam to arrest Zarqawi, which was in that Document dump; why? The pictures you posted were meant to be used to identify Zarqawi so he could be arrested.Furthermore every single example you have given has been debunked. I may get around to dealing with each and every one later; but for now I’ll address the:

1- That Usama Bin Ladin and the Taliban group in Afghanistan are in contact with Iraq and that a group from the Taliban and Usama Bin Ladin’s group had conducted a visit to Iraq.

Why didn’t you post that, that was a discussion, that an Iraqi agent overheard and Afghani saying? Which it was.

It was a spy reporting back to Iraq that he heard someone claiming to say that there were “Links”; DOH!

8:15 AM
Blogger A Jacksonian said…
Interesting thing about that arrest warrant… Zarqawi was in Baghdad for 3-4 weeks just prior to that in a hospital run by one of his sons. Now, after trafficking with a number of high level terrorists, like Abu Nidal and being a safe haven for one of the WTC bombers and having direct links to the PLO and various other terrorist organizations, what are the chances that Zarqawi, already a known Jordanian terrorist swinging over to al Qaeda, would go unnoticed in Saddam’s police state? And just what are the chances that Zarqawi really could have evaded the various secret police run by Saddam and his sons? Then we have the fact that Zarqawi fled up to the Kurdish territory, with which Saddam had no love lost… so putting out a ‘warrant’ for the arrest of a known terrorist is quite hollow. Unless you buy the fact that Zarqawi, quite the ruthless butcher and who’s cunning leads to killing children, was so miraculously able to heal up thoroughly, evade all of the various police and military, escape through the no-fly, no-drive zone without *any* help… and only *then* Saddam realizing he was actually IN IRAQ?What part of ‘needing help to get INTO the Kurdish region’ is not being addressed here? Perhaps Zarqawi went to Iran? Just what sort of cross-border traffic *did* Saddam allow? And, exactly, how would Zarqawi then evade the various border patrols and military? Maybe he just said he was an illegal looking for work…

Sorry, that strains the credulity over-much. With out damn good connections Zarqawi was not getting *into* Iraq unnoticed and then *into* a hospital that is high profile unnoticed, and then getting *out* of the Saddam controlled areas without Saddam or *any* of his cohorts knowing about it and *helping*.

10:26 AM
Blogger Ikez said…
Some updates on Saddam Hussein’s use of his European and Asian embassies for terrorism, carbomb, explosive storage, is now up at

23rd June 2006



Alexandria, VA—Since the fall of Baghdad in April 2003 there have been thousands of news stories declaring as fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq. A typical media example comes from CBS’s Ed Bradley, who said on 60 Minutes April 26, “no weapons of mass destruction surfaced in Iraq.”

However, a partially declassified Army National Ground Intelligence Center report confirms that since 2003 U.S. forces have discovered more than 500 shells of ordinance containing sarin or mustard gas, i.e., WMD. It is now a definitive fact that there were WMDs in Iraq, and that Saddam Hussein lied to the world when he said Iraq had no WMD.

This information was disclosed at a Wednesday, June 21, press conference held by Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-PA), chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

To date, some of the top media have refused to report this story. They include:

CBS Evening News
CBS The Early Show
ABC World News Tonight
ABC Good Morning America
ABC Nightline
NBC Today
Los Angeles Times
USA Today

To date, some of the top media that have downplayed or dismissed the findings include:

CNN: Quoted Democrat Jane Harman, “nothing new here,” and weapons inspector Charles Duelfer that the ordinance did not constitute an ongoing WMD program.
NBC Nightly News: “One senator’s new claim that weapons of mass destruction have been found.”
MSNBC Countdown: “They are WMD: weapons of minor discomfort.”
New York Times: headline, “For Diehards, Search for Saddam Hussein’s Unconventional Weapons Isn’t Over”
Washington Post: “Democrats criticize claim on Iraqi arms.”
Associated Press: “… probably are so old they couldn’t be used as designed …”
Knight Ridder Newspapers: “… no new evidence …”

Ironically, the one news agency that reported the facts and quoted from the declassified report was the French Agence France-Press. It noted that the weapons could be sold on the black market and “use of these weapons by terrorists or insurgent groups would have implications for coalition forces in Iraq. The possibility of use outside Iraq cannot be ruled out.”

Experts agree that the WMD discussed in the report are older weapons, not new ones generated in the late 1990s, but they do nonetheless constitute WMD. As Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said: “They are weapons of mass destruction. They are harmful to human beings. And they have been found.” Therefore, no one can now honestly claim there were no WMD in Iraq and the media must correct the record.

“The media have a major responsibility now to report the facts about WMD in Iraq,” said MRC President Brent Bozell. “Those facts now refute the ‘no WMD’ claim, endlessly reported by the media and exploited by political left-wingers anxious to ascribe evil motives to the United States. If Iraq is the issue haunting America, as the media claim, then the evidence of Iraq’s WMD should bring some rationality to that issue and some reassurance to the public. The top media have a duty to report on this and not ignore it because it doesn’t fit their political agenda.”

To schedule an interview with MRC President Bozell or an MRC spokesperson, please contact Tim Scheiderer (x. 126) or Colleen O’Boyle (x. 122) at 703.683.9733.

Wednesday, 18th April 2007

Melanie Phillips talks to Dave Gaubatz, a former US Air Force special agent, who passed on vital intelligence to the Iraq Survey Group — and is dismayed that nothing happened

It’s a fair bet that you have never heard of a guy called Dave Gaubatz. It’s also a fair bet that you think the hunt for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has found absolutely nothing, nada, zilch; and that therefore there never were any WMD programmes in Saddam’s Iraq to justify the war ostensibly waged to protect the world from Saddam’s use of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.

Dave Gaubatz, however, says that you could not be more wrong. Saddam’s WMD did exist. He should know, because he found the sites where he is certain they were stored. And the reason you don’t know about this is that the American administration failed to act on his information, ‘lost’ his classified reports and is now doing everything it can to prevent disclosure of the terrible fact that, through its own incompetence, it allowed Saddam’s WMD to end up in the hands of the very terrorist states against whom it is so controversially at war.

Israel Struck Syrian Nuclear Project, Analysts Say

‘A site attacked last month by Israel was a partly constructed nuclear reactor, according to Israeli and American intelligence.’


Published: October 14, 2007

WASHINGTON, Oct. 13 — Israel’s air attack on Syria last month was directed against a site that Israeli and American intelligence analysts judged was a partly constructed nuclear reactor, apparently modeled on one North Korea has used to create its stockpile of nuclear weapons fuel, according to American and foreign officials with access to the intelligence reports.

The description of the target addresses one of the central mysteries surrounding the Sept. 6 attack, and suggests that Israel carried out the raid to demonstrate its determination to snuff out even a nascent nuclear project in a neighboring state. The Bush administration was divided at the time about the wisdom of Israel’s strike, American officials said, and some senior policy makers still regard the attack as premature.

The attack on the reactor project has echoes of an Israeli raid more than a quarter century ago, in 1981, when Israel destroyed the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq shortly before it was to have begun operating. That attack was officially condemned by the Reagan administration, though Israelis consider it among their military’s finest moments. In the weeks before the Iraq war, Bush administration officials said they believed that the attack set back Iraq’s nuclear ambitions by many years.

By contrast, the facility that the Israelis struck in Syria appears to have been much further from completion, the American and foreign officials said. They said it would have been years before the Syrians could have used the reactor to produce the spent nuclear fuel that could, through a series of additional steps, be reprocessed into bomb-grade plutonium.

Many details remain unclear, most notably how much progress the Syrians had made in construction before the Israelis struck, the role of any assistance provided by North Korea, and whether the Syrians could make a plausible case that the reactor was intended to produce electricity. In Washington and Israel, information about the raid has been wrapped in extraordinary secrecy and restricted to just a handful of officials, while the Israeli press has been prohibited from publishing information about the attack.

The New York Times reported this week that a debate had begun within the Bush administration about whether the information secretly cited by Israel to justify its attack should be interpreted by the United States as reason to toughen its approach to Syria and North Korea. In later interviews, officials made clear that the disagreements within the administration began this summer, as a debate about whether an Israeli attack on the incomplete reactor was warranted then.

The officials did not say that the administration had ultimately opposed the Israeli strike, but that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates were particularly concerned about the ramifications of a pre-emptive strike in the absence of an urgent threat.

“There wasn’t a lot of debate about the evidence,” said one American official familiar with the intense discussions over the summer between Washington and the government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel. “There was a lot of debate about how to respond to it.”

Even though it has signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Syria would not have been obligated to declare the existence of a reactor during the early phases of construction. It would have also had the legal right to complete construction of the reactor, as long as its purpose was to generate electricity.

In his only public comment on the raid, Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, acknowledged this month that Israeli jets dropped bombs on a building that he said was “related to the military” but which he insisted was “not used.”

A senior Israeli official, while declining to speak about the specific nature of the target, said the strike was intended to “re-establish the credibility of our deterrent power,” signaling that Israel meant to send a message to the Syrians that even the potential for a nuclear weapons program would not be permitted. But several American officials said the strike may also have been intended by Israel as a signal to Iran and its nuclear aspirations. Neither Iran nor any Arab government except for Syria has criticized the Israeli raid, suggesting that Israel is not the only country that would be disturbed by a nuclear Syria. North Korea did issue a protest.

The target of the Israeli raid and the American debate about the Syrian project were described by government officials and nongovernment experts interviewed in recent weeks in the United States and the Middle East. All insisted on anonymity because of rules that prohibit discussing classified information. The officials who described the target of the attack included some on each side of the debate about whether a partly constructed Syrian nuclear reactor should be seen as an urgent concern, as well as some who described themselves as neutral on the question.

The White House press secretary, Dana Perino, said Saturday that the administration would have no comment on the intelligence issues surrounding the Israeli strike. Israel has also refused to comment.

Israel Struck Syrian Nuclear Project, Analysts Say


Article Tools Sponsored By

Published: October 14, 2007

(Page 2 of 2)

Nuclear reactors can be used for both peaceful and non-peaceful purposes. A reactor’s spent fuel can be reprocessed to extract plutonium, one of two paths to building a nuclear weapon. The other path — enriching uranium in centrifuges — is the method that Iran is accused of pursuing with an intent to build a weapon of its own.

Syria is known to have only one nuclear reactor, a small one built for research purposes. But in the past decade, Syria has several times sought unsuccessfully to buy one, first from Argentina, then from Russia. On those occasions, Israel reacted strongly but did not threaten military action. Earlier this year, Mr. Assad spoke publicly in general terms about Syria’s desire to develop nuclear power, but his government did not announce a plan to build a new reactor.

The Gulf Cooperation Council, a group of Persian Gulf states, has also called for an expansion of nuclear power in the Middle East for energy purposes, but many experts have interpreted that statement as a response to Iran’s nuclear program. They have warned that the region may be poised for a wave of proliferation. Israel is believed to be the only nuclear-armed nation in the region.

The partly constructed Syrian reactor was detected earlier this year by satellite photographs, according to American officials. They suggested that the facility had been brought to American attention by the Israelis, but would not discuss why American spy agencies seemed to have missed the early phases of construction.

North Korea has long provided assistance to Syria on a ballistic missile program, but any assistance toward the construction of the reactor would have been the first clear evidence of ties between the two countries on a nuclear program. North Korea has successfully used its five-megawatt reactor at the Yongbyon nuclear complex to reprocess nuclear fuel into bomb-grade material, a model that some American and Israeli officials believe Syria may have been trying to replicate.

The North conducted a partly successful test of a nuclear device a year ago, prompting renewed fears that the desperately poor country might seek to sell its nuclear technology. President Bush issued a specific warning to the North on Oct. 9, 2006, just hours after the test, noting that it was “leading proliferator of missile technology, including transfers to Iran and Syria.” He went on to warn that “the transfer of nuclear weapons or material by North Korea to states or non-state entities would be considered a grave threat to the United States, and we would hold North Korea fully accountable.”

While Bush administration officials have made clear in recent weeks that the target of the Israeli raid was linked to North Korea in some way, Mr. Bush has not repeated his warning since the attack. In fact, the administration has said very little about the country’s suspected role in the Syria case, apparently for fear of upending negotiations now under way in which North Korea has pledged to begin disabling its nuclear facilities.

While the partly constructed Syrian reactor appears to be based on North Korea’s design, the American and foreign officials would not say whether they believed the North Koreans sold or gave the plans to the Syrians, or whether the North’s own experts were there at the time of the attack. It is possible, some officials said, that the transfer of the technology occurred several years ago.

According to two senior administration officials, the subject was raised when the United States, North Korea and four other nations met in Beijing earlier this month.

Behind closed doors, however, Vice President Dick Cheney and other hawkish members of the administration have made the case that the same intelligence that prompted Israel to attack should lead the United States to reconsider delicate negotiations with North Korea over ending its nuclear program, as well as America’s diplomatic strategy toward Syria, which has been invited to join Middle East peace talks in Annapolis, Md., next month.

Mr. Cheney in particular, officials say, has also cited the indications that North Korea aided Syria to question the Bush administration’s agreement to supply the North with large amounts of fuel oil. During Mr. Bush’s first term, Mr. Cheney was among the advocates of a strategy to squeeze the North Korean government in hopes that it would collapse, and the administration cut off oil shipments set up under an agreement between North Korea and the Clinton administration, saying the North had cheated on that accord.

The new shipments, agreed to last February, are linked to North Korea’s carrying through on its pledge to disable its nuclear facilities by the end of the year. Nonetheless, Mr. Bush has approved going ahead with that agreement, even after he was aware of the Syrian program.

Nuclear experts say that North Korea’s main reactor, while small by international standards, is big enough to produce roughly one bomb’s worth of plutonium a year.

In an interview, Dr. Siegfried S. Hecker of Stanford University, a former director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, said building a reactor based on North Korea’s design might take from three to six years.

Nuke program parts unearthed in Baghdad back yard

Thursday, June 26, 2003 Posted: 1047 GMT ( 6:47 PM HKT)

U.S. officials: Find is not smoking gun

(CNN) — The CIA has in its hands the critical parts of a key piece of Iraqi nuclear technology — parts needed to develop a bomb program — that were dug up in a back yard in Baghdad, CNN has learned.

The parts, with accompanying plans, were unearthed by Iraqi scientist Mahdi Obeidi who had hidden them under a rose bush in his garden 12 years ago under orders from Qusay Hussein and Saddam Hussein’s then son-in-law, Hussein Kamel.

U.S. officials emphasized this was not evidence Iraq had a nuclear weapon — but it was evidence the Iraqis concealed plans to reconstitute their nuclear program as soon as the world was no longer looking.

The parts and documents Obeidi gave the CIA were shown exclusively to CNN at CIA headquarters in Virginia.

Obeidi told CNN the parts of a gas centrifuge system for enriching uranium were part of a highly sophisticated system he was ordered to hide to be ready to rebuild the bomb program.

“I have very important things at my disposal that I have been ordered to have, to keep, and I’ve kept them, and I don’t want this to proliferate, because of its potential consequences if it falls in the hands of tyrants, in the hands of dictators or of terrorists,” said Obeidi, who has been taken out of Iraq with the help of the U.S. government.

Obeidi also said he was not the only scientist ordered to hide that type of equipment.

“I think there may be more than three other copies. And I think it is quite important to look at this list so they will not fall into the hands of the wrong people,” he said.

Centrifuges are drums or cylinders that spin at high speed and separate heavy and light molecules, allowing increasingly enriched uranium to be drawn off.

David Kay, who led three U.N. arms inspection missions in Iraq in 1991-92 and now heads the CIA’s search for unconventional weapons, started work two days ago in Baghdad. CNN spoke to him about the case over a secure teleconferencing line.

“It begins to tell us how huge our job is,” Kay said. “Remember, his material was buried in a barrel behind his house in a rose garden.

“There’s no way that that would have been discovered by normal international inspections. I couldn’t have done it. My successors couldn’t have done it.”

Kay said he had mixed emotions when he saw the centrifuge components: “It was a realization that I hadn’t gotten all the parts [of Iraq’s nuclear program]. So there was a moment of regret, but there was also an exhilaration that now maybe we have a chance to take this to the very bottom.”

CNN had this story last week but made a decision to withhold it at the request of the U.S. government, which cited safety and national security concerns.

The U.S. government told CNN the security and safety issues have been dealt with and there is no risk now in telling the story fully.

The gas centrifuge equipment dates to Iraq’s pre-1991 efforts to build nuclear weapons.

Experts said the documents and pieces Obeidi gave the United States were the critical information and parts to restart a nuclear weapons program, and would have saved Saddam’s regime several years and as much as hundreds of millions of dollars for research.

David Albright, who was a U.N. nuclear weapons inspector in Iraq in the 1990s, said inspectors “understood that Iraq probably hid centrifuge documents, may have had components, and so it is very important that those items be found.”

“What it is that Obeidi was ordered to keep was all the information and some centrifuge components, so that if he was given the order, he could restart the centrifuge program,” said Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington.

“In a sense, the program was in hibernation. He was the key to the restart of this centrifuge program, and he never got the order. So in that sense it doesn’t show at all that Iraq had a nuclear program. And Obeidi told me that he never worked on a nuclear program after 1991.”

Obeidi said he felt unsafe in Iraq after the U.S.-led invasion and that he was getting pressure from different corners of the country.

He also said other Iraqi scientists were watching to see if he was safe after he cooperated with the U.S. government.

Now that he and his family are safely out of Iraq, Obeidi said he believes other scientists would come forward with other components of Iraq’s weapons program.

Before the Iraq war, U.S. officials said Iraq tried to purchase aluminum tubes that could be used in centrifuges that enrich uranium.

In his March 7 presentation to the U.N. Security Council, however, International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei said there was no evidence “Iraq intended to use these 81-millimeter tubes for any project other than the reverse engineering of rockets.” (Full story)

U.S. officials, including President Bush, also had cited British intelligence documents indicating Iraq may have tried to buy 500 tons of uranium from Niger, but the IAEA said the documents were obvious fakes.

CNN correspondents Mike Boettcher and David Ensor and producer Maria Fleet contributed to this story.

President Discusses Beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom

22march 2003 white house
President’s Radio Address

PRESIDENT: Good morning. American and coalition forces have begun a concerted campaign against the regime of Saddam Hussein. In this war, our coalition is broad, more than 40 countries from across the globe. Our cause is just, the security of the nations we serve and the peace of the world. And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein’s support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people.

President George W. Bush meets with his war council at Camp David, Saturday morning, March 22, 2003. Present at the table are, from left, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard B. Myers, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Chief of Staff to the Vice President Lewis Libby, Chief of Staff Andy Card, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, CIA Director George Tenet, and Chief Counsel to the President Alberto Gonzalez.   White House photo by Eric Draper The future of peace and the hopes of the Iraqi people now depend on our fighting forces in the Middle East. They are conducting themselves in the highest traditions of the American military. They are doing their job with skill and bravery, and with the finest of allies beside them. At every stage of this conflict the world will see both the power of our military, and the honorable and decent spirit of the men and women who serve.

In this conflict, American and coalition forces face enemies who have no regard for the conventions of war or rules of morality. Iraqi officials have placed troops and equipment in civilian areas, attempting to use innocent men, women and children as shields for the dictator’s army. I want Americans and all the world to know that coalition forces will make every effort to spare innocent civilians from harm.

A campaign on harsh terrain in a vast country could be longer and more difficult than some have predicted. And helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable, and free country will require our sustained commitment. Yet, whatever is required of us, we will carry out all the duties we have accepted.

Across America this weekend, the families of our military are praying that our men and women will return safely and soon. Millions of Americans are praying with them for the safety of their loved ones and for the protection of all the innocent. Our entire nation appreciates the sacrifices made by military families, and many citizens who live near military families are showing their support in practical ways, such as by helping with child care, or home repairs. All families with loved ones serving in this war can know this: Our forces will be coming home as soon as their work is done.

Our nation entered this conflict reluctantly, yet with a clear and firm purpose. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. Now that conflict has come, the only way to limit its duration is to apply decisive force. This will not be a campaign of half-measures. It is a fight for the security of our nation and the peace of the world, and we will accept no outcome but victory.

Thank you for listening.


August 24, 2008

Who Lied About Iraq?

By Randall Hoven

Do not believe that post-invasion intelligence invalidates our justification for using military force against Saddam’s Iraq. The truth is the exact opposite.  The US was fully justified to use military force against Iraq, even knowing what we know now — especially knowing what we know now.  We should not allow the false story — almost accepted as fact — as we head into a Presidential election, to go unchallenged.

The False Story
“The United States invaded Iraq based on false premises. The administration orchestrated a public relations drive to prove that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and connections to the 9/11 terrorists – both proved false.” USA Today
While these two sentences came from USA Today, they describe the words behind the music of the “Bush lied, people died” meme echoing throughout the media chambers since at least 2004.  The lies in just these two sentences are almost Shakespearian in their layered texture.  The statement even lays out a false premise in accusing the Bush administration of using false premises.  If lying is an art, our media have mastered it.
The Premise
Our invasion of Iraq was not based on a public relations drive; it was based on Public Law 107-243, otherwise known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq, passed by the 107th Congress in October of 2002 .  (Herein referred to as the “Authorization”.)  It passed the House with a vote of 296 to 133 (by 69%) and the Senate with a vote of 77 to 23 (by 77%), including 58% of Senate Democrats.  In short, it was overwhelming; it was bipartisan; and it was law.
Did the Authorization try to “prove that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction”?  Was that proved false?
No and no.
The Authorization has 23 “whereas” clauses, or reasons to justify military invasion, only some of which mention WMD.  Here is a prime example.
“Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated.”  [Emphasis added.]
There are several things to notice in that clause.  First is the tense of the verb “had.”  The clause does not claim that Iraq has WMD now (in 2002), but that it at one time had them.  Secondly, the only stockpiles mentioned are of chemical weapons.  Of biological and nuclear weapons it mentions only programs.  At no place does the Authorization say that any WMD are current (post-1991).
Another clause states Iraq continues “to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability” (my emphasis).  Again, capabilities and potential capabilities are mentioned, but not ready-to-use weapons or even weapon programs, much less large stockpiles of modern WMD.
Feel free to read all 23 clauses.  The Authorization never claims that Iraq had large stockpiles of modern WMD in 2002, which later became, for no good reason, the threshold used for validation by the media and administration critics.  (The logical fallacy employed by Bush’s critics here is the “straw man.”)
Am I being hyper-technical in parsing the grammar of the Authorization — wallowing in what the meaning of “is” is?  No.It is the media that is spinning by demanding that only finding large stockpiles of modern WMD would legitimize the war. I am using the actual law as clearly stated.  Such an authorization, passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law by the President, was not just cobbled together willy-nilly.  It was the law of the land — carefully crafted, debated and passed.  Words matter.
So what was found post-invasion?  The Duelfer Report noted that 53 chemical weapons were found.
“Beginning in May 2004, ISG recovered a series of chemical weapons from Coalition military units and other sources.  A total of 53 munitions have been recovered.”  (Found on page 97 of Annex F of Volume 3.)
That number later grew to over 500 chemical weapons.  You can now check the “large stockpiles of chemical weapons” off your checklist (even though the Authorization did not claim they existed in 2002 or later).
What about biological and nuclear programs?
“Initially, Saddam chose to conceal his nuclear program in its entirety, as he did with Iraq’s BW [Biological Warfare] program.  Aggressive UN inspections after Desert Storm forced Saddam to admit the existence of the program and destroy or surrender components of the program.  In the wake of Desert Storm, Iraq took steps to conceal key elements of its program and preserve what it could of the professional capabilities of its nuclear scientific community.”  [Emphasis added.]
You may now also check the biological and nuclear weapons programs off your checklist.  At one time he had them.  The only question was how active such programs were in 2002.  But we know that he had them at one time and that he also concealed them later.  Were these programs still active, but concealed, in 2002 or had he put them on hiatus?  For the purpose of the Authorization, the answer doesn’t matter, but let’s examine it anyway.
As to concealment, note the following Duelferisms.
  • The word “conceal” is found 57 times in Volume 1 alone.
  • “Many locations associated with previous WMD programs and sites under monitoring by the United Nations have been completely looted…  Often there is nothing but a concrete slab at locations where once stood plants or laboratories.”
  • “We cannot express a firm view on the possibility that WMD elements were relocated out of Iraq prior to the war.”
  • “ISG technical experts fully evaluated less than one quarter of one percent of the over 10,000 weapons caches throughout Iraq.”
You can make what you will of those statements.  What I make of them is that Duelfer and his fellow inspectors really have no idea what happened with Saddam’s WMD, facilities or programs.  They didn’t look everywhere.  Where they did look was mostly “looted,” where “looting” could mean cleaned out to conceal evidence.  Saddam consistently concealed what he was up to.  And Duelfer cannot make a statement about what might have been transported out of Iraq.
The Duelfer Report is three volumes of “I don’t know.”  Post-invasion intelligence is no more trustworthy than pre-invasion intelligence.
In any case, Duelfer makes clear that Saddam had every intention of restoring the programs as soon as he could get sanctions lifted.  His very first finding, echoed often throughout the report, states his fundamental conclusion.
“[Saddam] wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction when sanctions were lifted.”
In short, the Authorization did not try to “prove that Iraq had WMD.”  Inasmuch as the Authorization mentioned WMD, such statements were fully validated by post-war intelligence.  And Duelfer went even further than Authorization claims by finding that Saddam had every intention of reconstituting his WMD has soon as he could bribe his way out of sanctions.
Did the Authorization try to “prove that Iraq had connections to the 911 terrorists”?  Was that proved false?
Again, no and no.
The Authorization mentions the September 11 attacks in five of the 23 “whereas” clauses.  Here is what it says in three such clauses, with the other two being repeats of the same sentiments.
  • “Members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for the attacks … are known to be in Iraq.”
  • The “attacks… underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of WMD by international terrorist organizations.”
  • “… necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those … who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.”
One clause mentions 9/11 only to provide a background of the gravity of the situation.  Another clause explicitly says that all terrorists are to be targeted, noting that the 9/11 terrorists are only a subset of that larger threat.
There is only one statement in all of the Authorization that connects Iraq with al Qaida and the 9/11 attacks, and then only indirectly.  All it says is that some al Qaida members were known to be in Iraq.
Note that nowhere in the Authorization is there any claim of even a logistical, training or strategic relationship between al Qaida and Iraq, much less an operational or planning one for the 9/11 attacks in particular.  Again for no good reason, this latter claim became the only legitimate threshold for military action per administration critics.
Were any al Qaida members in Iraq at the time of the Authorization?  Yes, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his cell.  The most recent Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on the matter concluded the following .
“[Pre-war administration] statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other al-Qa’ida-related terrorist members were substantiated by the intelligence assessments.  Intelligence assessments noted Zarqawi’s presence in Iraq and his ability to travel and operate within the country.
“Postwar information supports prewar assessments and statements that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was in Baghdad and that al-Qa’ida was present in northern Iraq.”
This report is the product of a Democrat-controlled Senate committee, chaired by John D. Rockefeller (D-WV), in a Democrat-controlled Senate.  Moreover, more extensive Iraq-al-Qaida links have also been substantiated.  According to the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report,
“One of the reported contacts [between Iraq and al-Qa’ida before the war] has been confirmed, and two other meetings have since been identified.”
Judge Harold Baer ruled in Federal court that Iraq was indeed partially responsible for the September 11 attacks, enough so that the plaintiffs could be awarded damages against Saddam’s Iraq .  The judge ruled there was “a sufficient basis for a reasonable jury to draw inferences”
“that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al Qaeda…. Iraq collaborated in or supported bin Laden/al Qaeda’s terrorist acts of September 11…  Iraq provided materiel support to al Qaeda and that it did so with knowledge and intent to further al Qaeda’s criminal acts.”
Judge Harold Baer is not some 10-Commandment-Displaying Reaganite; he was appointed by President Clinton.  Significant testimony in the case came from James Woolsey, President Clinton’s CIA chief from 1993 to 1995.
In short, not only was the language of the Authorization validated, but significantly more involvement between Iraq and al Qaida has been substantiated by a Democrat-controlled Senate, a Clinton-appointed federal judge and a Clinton-appointed former CIA chief.
So what was the terrorist-WMD reason for military action in Iraq?
The September 11 attacks demonstrated to all of us that terrorist threats are not empty. Those of us who doubted the seriousness of such threats (and I was one of them) had our heads cleared on 9/11.  Moreover, the attacks demonstrated just how deadly terrorists could be with only box-cutters and other low-tech tools.  Between their words and their actions, we knew we could not let terrorists get their hands on WMD.
On the other hand, hostile states could use terrorists as covert or plausibly-deniable WMD delivery devices.  The nightmare nexus would be a hostile state with both WMD and terrorist connections.
Iraq had both WMD and terrorist connections.  In short, as the Authorization puts it in its sixth “whereas,”
“Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations.”
It was also not obvious that Saddam would not use WMD himself, without resorting to terrorists as middlemen.  He had already used them “against other nations and [his] own people.”  He had expressed his hatred of the US in word and deed by, among other things, attempting “to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces.”
What are some of those “other things” that made Iraq in “materiel and unacceptable breach of its international obligations”?
  • Iraq agreed to a cease-fire when it surrendered in Desert Storm in 1991.  It was in “direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire.”
  • Iraq agreed to eliminate its WMD programs in 1991.  It was later caught continuing those programs, concealing them and thwarting weapons inspectors to the point of kicking them out of the country.
  • Iraq agreed to “end its support for international terrorism” in 1991.  It continued to “aid and harbor” international terrorist organizations, including those “that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens.”
  • Iraq “engaged in brutal repression of its civilian population.”
  • Iraq refused “to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman.”
  • Iraq failed “to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait.”
  • Iraq attempted “to assassinate former President Bush.”
  • Iraq fired “on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council.”
  • Iraq persisted in violating multiple United Nations resolutions.  Congress authorized the President “to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 674, and 677.”
If Saddam’s Iraq was not an “outlaw regime,” then there is no such thing.
Regardless of the careful wording of the Authorization, did the Bush administration orchestrate a “public relations drive” that was “proved false”?
Inasmuch as a public relations drive was mounted, it was examined by a Democrat-controlled Senate Committee on Intelligence and largely found to be “substantiated by intelligence.” This biased report from Chairman John Rockefeller’s committee analyzed various statements by Bush administration officials and compared them to post-war intelligence.  Here is what they found (emphasis added).
  • “Statements by the President, Vice President, Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor regarding possible Iraqi nuclear weapons program were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates, but did not convey the substantial disagreements that existed in the intelligence community.”
  • “Statements … regarding Iraq’s possession of biological agents, weapons, production capability, and use of mobile biological laboratories were substantiated by intelligence information.”
  • “Statements … regarding Iraq’s possession of chemical weapons were substantiated by intelligence information.”
  • “Statements … regarding Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction were generally substantiated by intelligence information, though many statements made regarding ongoing production prior to late 2002 reflected a higher level of certainty than the intelligence judgments themselves.”
  • “Statements … regarding Iraqi ballistic missiles were generally substantiated by available intelligence.”
  • “Statements … that Iraq was developing unmanned aerial vehicles that could be use to deliver chemical or biological weapons were generally substantiated by intelligence information, but did not convey the substantial disagreements or evolving views that existed in the intelligence community.”
  • “Statements … regarding Iraq’s support for terrorist groups other than al-Qa’ida were substantiated by intelligence information.”
  • “Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other al-Qa’ida-related terrorist members were substantiated by the intelligence assessments.”
Substantiated, substantiated, substantiated by the intelligence.  And these conclusions from some of the most ardent Bush-bashers in the Senate.  About the worst they could come up with was that the Bush administration made claims with more confidence than seemed warranted by the intelligence community.
Tell me, if military action is considered necessary and legal, by both Congress and the Executive branch, is it OK for the President to muster domestic and international support for such action by using rhetorical persuasion?  I dare say, he would be negligent if he didn’t.
The True Story
The Bush administration did not lie.  Saddam’s Iraq was a threat to the US that demanded the use of military force.  That was not just Bush’s “cowboy” opinion; that was the written law, passed by huge and bipartisan margins in both houses of Congress.  That opinion was supported by both pre-war intelligence and post-war intelligence.
Moreover, the “legal case” was solid and Iraq was given chance after chance after chance.
  • The authorization noted at least 10 UN resolutions, spread out over a decade, to justify the use of US military force.
  • The Authorization noted that “the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in … Public Law 107-40.”  [Emphasis added.]
  • The Authorization noted Public Law 105-235 (passed under President Clinton) that urged the President “to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.”
The invasion of Iraq was arguably the most justified case of military action the US has ever taken in its history, based on national defense, validated intelligence and legal authority, not to mention morality.  Articles of impeachment would have made more sense if Bush had not invaded.
That the exact opposite story is what a majority of Americans appear to believe, and a super-majority of non-Americans, is a scary thought.  The truth has been sabotaged, and not by President Bush or his allies.

Randall Hoven’s writings can be found at

Free Hit Counter


6 Responses to “Saddam, Al Qaeda & Terrorism WRIT LARGE Enough for the “Blind” Left”

  1. All of a Left-Wing hails “Cameron Heir to Blair” « Tony Blair Says:

    […] Saddam & Terrorism Writ Large Enough for the Blind Left […]

  2. Blair’s ‘Yale’ video. And the limits of Islam’s ‘friendship/alliances’ « Tony Blair Says:

    […] Saddam’s links to terrorism & Al Qaeda – Writ LARGE enough for even the Blind Left […]

  3. USpace Says:

    Well done, great post, very comprehensive. I put it in my ‘library’.


    absurd thought –
    God of the Universe says
    never invade countries

    let them attack yours instead
    never rescue the oppressed

    absurd thought –
    God of the Universe says
    ignore creeping sharia

    don’t believe Jihadists
    want world domination

    • keeptonyblairforpm Says:

      Thanks USpace,

      Of course THIS kind of “proof” is never sought by the UNbalanced antis, is it?

  4. John Says:

    Do you mind if I quote a couple of your articles as long as I provide credit and sources
    back to your website? My blog is in the very same
    niche as yours and my users would really benefit from some of
    the information you present here. Please let me know if this ok with you.


  5. click Says:

    If you like a particular colour, try wearing a maxi skirt with that colour in the pattern.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s