January 07, 2006

Will THIS Proof Be Accepted by The Left?

Look at what Stephen F. Hayes has written in the current Weekly Standard. There is credible proof of Iraq as terrorist training ground.

THE FORMER IRAQI REGIME OF 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, according to documents and photographs recovered by the U.S. military in postwar Iraq. The existence and character of these documents has been confirmed to THE WEEKLY STANDARD by eleven U.S. government officials.

The secret training took place primarily at three camps--in Samarra, Ramadi, and Salman Pak--and was directed by elite Iraqi military units. Interviews by U.S. government interrogators with Iraqi regime officials and military leaders corroborate the documentary evidence. Many of the fighters were drawn from terrorist groups in northern Africa with close ties to al Qaeda, chief among them Algeria's GSPC and the Sudanese Islamic Army. Some 2,000 terrorists were trained at these Iraqi camps each year from 1999 to 2002, putting the total number at or above 8,000. Intelligence officials believe that some of these terrorists returned to Iraq and are responsible for attacks against Americans and Iraqis. According to three officials with knowledge of the intelligence on Iraqi training camps, White House and National Security Council officials were briefed on these findings in May 2005; senior Defense Department officials subsequently received the same briefing.

The photographs and documents on Iraqi training camps come from a collection of some 2 million "exploitable items" captured in postwar Iraq and Afghanistan. They include handwritten notes, typed documents, audiotapes, videotapes, compact discs, floppy discs, and computer hard drives. Taken together, this collection could give U.S. intelligence officials and policymakers an inside look at the activities of the former Iraqi regime in the months and years before the Iraq war.

And what do the documents actually show?

Other officials familiar with the captured documents were less cautious. "As much as we overestimated WMD, it appears we underestimated [Saddam Hussein's] support for transregional terrorists," says one intelligence official.

Speaking of Ansar al Islam, the al Qaeda-linked terrorist group that operated in northern Iraq, the former high-ranking military intelligence officer says: "There is no question about the fact that AI had reach into Baghdad. There was an intelligence connection between that group and the regime, a financial connection between that group and the regime, and there was an equipment connection. It may have been the case that the IIS [Iraqi Intelligence Service] support for AI was meant to operate against the [anti-Saddam] Kurds. But there is no question IIS was supporting AI."

The official continued: "[Saddam] used these groups because he was interested in extending his influence and extending the influence of Iraq. There are definite and absolute ties to terrorism. The evidence is there, especially at the network level. How high up in the government was it sanctioned? I can't tell you. I don't know whether it was run by Qusay [Hussein] or [Izzat Ibrahim] al-Duri or someone else. I'm just not sure. But to say Iraq wasn't involved in terrorism is flat wrong."

Got that -- "to say Iraq wasn't involved in terrorism is flat wrong." So once again we can show that the case for war made by the President was both truthful and accurate, despite the partisan ramblings of members of the disloyal opposition.

Remember this from Teddy Kennedy (D-Chivas Regal)?

"Iraq was not a breeding ground for terrorism. Our invasion has made it one.”

And this from John Kerry (D-Wife's Money)?

"Iraq was not a terrorist haven before the invasion."

Or this from any number of KOSacks, DUmmies MoveOn morons and other sufferers of Bsh Deranngement Syndrome?

"Bush lied; soldiers died!"

It turns out that their statements were frighteningly wrong -- and gave aid, comfort, and support to our nation's enemies during time of war.. So it wis with no hesidtation that I say "Leftists lied; American soldiers died!"

MORE AT: Kokonut Pundits, Powerline Blog, Let Freedom Ring, GeMatt's Place, Protein Wisdom, Austin Bay, Noisy Room, Michelle Malkin, and MANY OTHERS.

Posted by: Greg at 01:07 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 681 words, total size 5 kb.

1 It's not proof - it's just another Steven Hayes distortion, just like when he had "secret documents" demonstrating that Hussein and bin Laden (remember him?) were connected, and the Pentagon had to specifically explain that he was wrong. That's pretty bad, when the lie is so bad that the DoD has to disclaim a favorable story. Hayes is a lying hack, desparate for attention and willing to claim that secret documents prove the existence of Santa Claus if it will get the right-wing blogosphere to link to him. You've been duped.

Posted by: Dan at Sun Jan 8 04:58:45 2006 (aSKj6)

2 Nope, the left will claim it's a fabrication of information. They'll say that because only 50,000 of the two million pages have been interpretted that other information may well be contradictory towards it.


The left won't accept it because to accept that would mean that every argument they've had against the war is wrong.

Posted by: Crazy Politico at Sun Jan 8 06:18:19 2006 (9js8I)

3 You were, of course, correct in your assessment, CP -- as witnessed by Dan's response.

Funny, though, that Dan provides not one link to his allegations while Hayes provides surces for his information.

Now who would qualify as a hack in that situation?

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun Jan 8 06:24:05 2006 (9js8I)

4 RWR - If I had tried to pass off my comment as serious journalism, you would be justified in calling me a hack, and I would probably have a job with the Weekly Standard.

Posted by: Dan at Sun Jan 8 11:38:38 2006 (aSKj6)

5 In other words, attack the source and provide no proof.

How liberal of you.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun Jan 8 14:24:13 2006 (PGZ7z)

6 I'm sorry, RWR, I didn't realize you wanted sources of the type that the Weekly Standard and Steven Hayes use. Here goes - this should settle it.

12 highly placed government officials have secret documents that demonstrate that Steven Hayes is a liar.

See, I made up facts to support a lie. How conservative of me.

Posted by: Dan at Mon Jan 9 01:20:59 2006 (aSKj6)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
12kb generated in CPU 0.0069, elapsed 0.0155 seconds.
21 queries taking 0.0105 seconds, 35 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
[/posts]