World War III is closer than you think

from Agape Press
by Chad Groening

...A former real estate broker who took a video camera to Iraq to search for the truth says he cannot understand why any American can be so bitterly opposed to President Bush's decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power.{Especially when it should have been done during the first Gulf War.}

But Brad Maaske hopes his new documentary -- Weapons of Mass Destruction: The Murderous Reign of Saddam Hussein -- will change some minds.

Maaske traveled to Iraq after hearing a heart-wrenching account from an Iraqi woman who was a victim of Saddam's brutality. He says so-called human rights activists ought to be thrilled that the U.S. deposed the dictator.

"I would think that the human rights activists would say, 'Wow, America [has been] stopping these kinds of things from happening by taking Saddam out of power. He was murdering people every day. He was training terrorists.'"

But Maaske says instead, the American Left seems to pull for a failure in the Middle East. "I read [negative] stories that say that this will sure be a victory for Bush ... if this [Iraqi] constitution is approved," he says. "Or I hear other experts say the trial of Saddam is unfair; they don't know what they're doing."

Such reports, he says, make it sound as if the Left is "rooting for a failure in the Middle East." {They are. Because it reflects badly on a President they refuse to support. Even if, in the end, Bush is correct; and the massive Muslim hordes run over the liberals, they will still curse Bush with their dying breath! Isn't this cutting off your nose in spite of your face or however that saying goes?}


Saddam's 500-ton Uranium Stockpile
from Newsmax

"Maybe that's why the press seldom discusses the fact that Saddam already had a staggeringly large stockpile of uranium - 500 tons, to be exact. "

"...in his 2004 book, 'The Bomb in My Garden,' Dr. Mahdi Obeidi told U.S. interrogators: 'Saddam kept funding the IAEC [Iraq Atomic Energy Commission] from 1991 ... until the war in 2003.' "

"If the average American were aware of these undisputed facts, the debate over Iraq's weapons of mass destruction would have been decided long ago - in President Bush's favor."



from Human Events Online: Democrats Push Big Lie About War
by Allan H. Ryskind


From 1995 to 1996 and from 1999 to 2001, Kenneth M. Pollack served as director for Gulf affairs at the National Security Council, where he was the principal working-level official responsible for implementation of Clinton’s policy toward Iraq.

Prior to serving Clinton, he spent seven years in the CIA as a Persian Gulf military analyst.

Was Clinton’s seasoned expert on the Gulf also in on the Bush plan to fabricate evidence? The conspiracy buffs may think so, for in 2002, when Bush was in office and worrying about what to do about Saddam, Pollack wrote a book titled The Threatening Storm. The subtitle was more provocative: The Case for Invading Iraq.

After analyzing all the WMD {weapons of mass destruction} evidence at his command, and Saddam Hussein’s career as an aggressor, a mass murderer and a political thug who could not be trusted to keep his word, Pollack concluded:

• “Unfortunately, the only prudent and realistic course of action left to the United States is to mount a full-scale invasion of Iraq to smash the Iraqi armed forces.”
  

When the WMD weren’t found, Pollack wrote an article for the Atlantic Monthly for its first issue in 2004.


He was critical of the Bush Administration’s handling of the war, but he made several informative observations in his critique. Among them:

• “The U.S. intelligence community’s belief that Saddam was aggressively pursuing weapons of mass destruction pre-dated Bush’s inauguration and therefore cannot be attributed to political pressure.”
  
• “In October of 2002, the National Intelligence Council, the highest analytical body in the U.S. intelligence community, issued a classified National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s WMD representing the consensus of the intelligence community. Although after the war some complained that the NIE had been a rush job and that the NIE should have been more careful in its choice of language, in fact, the report accurately reflected what intelligence analysts had been telling Clinton Administration officials like me for years in verbal briefings.”
  
  

Pollack, citing this crucial report, then said: “U.S. government analysts were not alone in these views. In the late spring of 2002, I participated in a Washington meeting about Iraq WMD.

Those present included nearly 20 former inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), the force established in 1991 to oversee the elimination of WMD in Iraq.

• “One of the senior people put a question to the group. Did anyone in the room doubt that Iraq was currently operating a secret centrifuge plant? No one did. Three people added that they believed Iraq was also operating a secret calutron plant (a facility for separating uranium isotopes.)
  
• “Other nations’ intelligence services were similarly aligned with U.S. views. Somewhat remarkably, given how adamantly Germany would oppose the war, the German Federal Intelligence Service held the bleakest view of all, arguing that Iraq might be able to build a nuclear weapon within three years [without outside fissile material]. Israel, Russia, Britain, China and even France held positions similar to that of the United States.”
  

Pollack’s account alone puts the lie to the charge that Bush took us to war on “manufactured” intelligence.

History will determine whether the Bush Administration did the right thing in invading Iraq and we may yet discover definitively why so many experts appeared to have misjudged the WMD threat. But we can conclude that the President took us to war based on convincing, uncooked data compiled by intelligence analysts in both the Clinton and Bush Administrations.

Those who say Bush “lied us into war” based on “manufactured” intelligence are either ignorant or malicious. {I'd say they are BOTH. Time to be quiet Cindy Sheehan and the liberal lefties.}

Either way, they are dangerously undermining whatever chance we still have of rescuing Iraq from chaos and catastrophe.

Top of Page