Jul 10 2005
The liberals fantasy that Iraq and Al Quaeda were never connected so that there was no way WMD know-how could get into terrorists hands is being destroyed. First Christopher Hitchens rips Ronnie-boy Reagan for being niave and ignorant all at once (hat tip Hugh Hewitt) and now Stephen Hayes comes out with more details from GITMO interrogations where the MSM is missing the news because it buys into every detainee’s planned propoganda lines (hat tip Powerline).
John Lehman, a 9/11 commissioner, spoke to The Weekly Standard at the time the report was released. “There may well be–and probably will be–additional intelligence coming in from interrogations and from analysis of captured records and so forth which will fill out the intelligence picture. This is not phrased as–nor meant to be–the definitive word on Iraqi Intelligence activities.”
Lehman’s caution was prescient. A year later, we still cannot begin
to offer a “definitive” picture of the relationships entered into by Saddam Hussein’s operatives, but much more has already been learned from documents uncovered after the Iraq war. The evidence we present below, compiled from revelations in recent months, suggests an acute case of denial on the part of those who dismiss the Iraq-al Qaeda relationship.
Denial? how about criminal misinformation regarding the most serious aspect of our national security – where are the potential ties to terrorists which can allow them avenues and opportunities to attack us. Since the MSM jumped to conclusions they wanted to be true, they have given the wrong impression to the nation on what is a vital topic – where are we vulnerable.
Moreover, the following information was gleaned by the same people Dick Durbin and his liberal dead-enders in the Senate and Media joyfully likened to Nazi’s:
It details the case for designating an Iraqi member of al Qaeda, currently detained in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as an “enemy combatant.”
1. From 1987 to 1989, the detainee served as an infantryman in the Iraqi Army and received training on the mortar and rocket propelled grenades.
2. A Taliban recruiter in Baghdad convinced the detainee to travel to Afghanistan to join the Taliban in 1994.
3. The detainee admitted he was a member of the Taliban.
4. The detainee pledged allegiance to the supreme leader of the Taliban to help them take over all of Afghanistan.
5. The Taliban issued the detainee a Kalishnikov rifle in November 2000.
6. The detainee worked in a Taliban ammo and arms storage arsenal in Mazar-Es-Sharif organizing weapons and ammunition.
7. The detainee willingly associated with al Qaida members.
8. The detainee was a member of al Qaida.
9. An assistant to Usama Bin Ladin paid the detainee on three separate occasions between 1995 and 1997.
10. The detainee stayed at the al Farouq camp in Darwanta, Afghanistan, where he received 1,000 Rupees to continue his travels.
11. From 1997 to 1998, the detainee acted as a trusted agent for Usama Bin Ladin, executing three separate reconnaissance missions for the al Qaeda leader in Oman, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
12. In August 1998, the detainee traveled to Pakistan with a member of Iraqi Intelligence for the purpose of blowing up the Pakistan, United States and British embassies with chemical mortars.
13. Detainee was arrested by Pakistani authorities in Khudzar, Pakistan, in July 2002.
So now we know how alluring Al Quaeda was to many in a supposedly anti-AQ, secular regime like Saddam’s Iraq. And how these supposed enemies allowed people to cross back and forth within their very midst.
Dick Durbin, are you paying attention here?
And how did the liberal MSM deal with this bombshell story?
The Associated Press, on the other hand, probably felt obliged to run a story, since the “Summary of Evidence” was released in response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the AP itself. But after briefly describing the documents, the AP article downplayed its own scoop with a sentence almost as amusing as it is inane: “There is no indication the Iraqi’s alleged terror-related activities were on behalf of Saddam Hussein’s government, other than the brief mention of him traveling to Pakistan with a member of Iraqi intelligence.” That sentence minimizing the importance of the findings was enough, apparently, to convince most newspaper editors around the country not to run the AP story.
They request the information and when it fails to support their political views they ignore it. Do you think the MSM would ignore the story if instead the sentence read
“There is no indication the man‘s alleged terror-related activities were on behalf of the US government, other than the brief mention of him traveling to Pakistan with a member of the CIA“?
Of course they wouldn’t ignore this sentence – it would mean a Bush conspiracy had finally been unearthed after all these years of searching!