From Sam Pender

The war in Iraq isn't over, but it is progressing. The President stood before the Mission Accomplished banner, told us there'd be tough times ahead, and announced that the major combat operations/assault phase of removing Saddam Hussein from power had been completed. The occupation phase didn't go very smoothly, but a governing council was formed, it elected leaders, elections from precincts up to regions have already been held, and in 60-90 days, general elections will be held. More importantly, no matter how tough the occupation phase was, sovereignty was still handed over successfully to Iraq. After the US election, the reconstruction phase will boost into higher gear as the money and infrastructure for that reconstruction operation is almost ready.

What do we know about Iraq? Was it the right thing to do, and was it done right?

Well, for 2 1/2 yrs now Presidential candidates have been telling us that the President mislead the US and the world to war in Iraq, and that he rushed to war; ie that sanctions, inspections, and diplomacy hadn't been given enough time. We now know none of that was the case-that the Democratic Party's squad of Presidential candidates (the most opposition candidates in American history), lied to us.

The Senate Intelligence Committee (on which Sen John Edwards serves) investigated 911, and found that faulty intelligence was to blame for that attack. It also reported that Saddam Hussein had links to Al Queda, but no hardcore evidence that he was involved in 911 directly-possibly indirectly though.

The Senate Intelligence Committee investigated the claims about WMD and Al Queda ties to Iraq after the assault phase was complete, and they said that the administration's claims about WMD were not exaggerated, distorted, or even pressured-they weren't lies, but estimates made from bad intelligence. They also said that the administration's claims about Iraq's ties to Al Queda were not exaggerated, manipulated, distorted, or pressured...they were accurate.

The British investigated the claims about Iraq in several different commissions. The Hutton investigation showed that the intel was bad from all over the world, and that it wasn't manipulated. So did the Butler report, and others.

The 911 Commission investigated 911, and found that faulty intelligence was to blame for that attack. It also reported that Saddam Hussein had links to Al Qaeda, but no hardcore evidence that he was involved in 911 directly-possibly indirectly though.

The Australian govt found the same thing-bad intelligence from all over the world indicated Saddam had WMD.

The Iraqi Survey Group's final report showed that Saddam had almost completely eroded sanctions by corruption and bribery via the Oil-For-Food program, and that he'd bought UN Security Council vetos from France, Russia, and China to ensure that the US would have to invade without UN mandate. It also showed that while no stockpiles of nuclear bombs or other WMD had been found, Saddam had confessed his eagerness to restart his programs, and that he had kept them intact covertly for what the ISG calls "breakout capactity." That is to say that some of the hidden programs were capable of producing fresh WMD stockpiles in months, weeks, or even hours....much faster than the US could have built up an invasion force AFTER development had been detected.

We also know from intel BEFORE President Bush was even a candidate in 1999, that Saddam annually and bi-annually personally sent his most powerful intelligence services leaders to personally meet with Bin Laden. Each time, the purposes remain a mystery, in many cases it's believed that Saddam was offering Bin Laden safe haven in Iraq. Bin Laden reportedly rejected these offers on the basis that his HQ in Afghanistan was safe and operable, but after the US invasion-when Bin Laden was driven into Pakistan, few doubt that Saddam's offer would have been rejected again in the absence of a US military threat on Saddam. If the US hadn't put pressure on Iraq, and Bin Laden had chosen to setup operations in Iraq-under Saddam's allegiance, than in just hours, it would have been too late to act.

What? You say Saddam and Bin Laden hated each other? Not so. We know from the testimony of the 1998 Embassy bombers that one of them actually brokered the 1993 non-aggression agreement between the two. We know that Al Queda's #2 man Ayman Al Zawahiri (some say the real brains of AQ), personally travelled to Iraq almost every year-staying for weeks at a time, and personally meeting with the highest levels of Iraqi govt-including Saddam's sons who ran the intelligence services. We know that after the 91 Gulf War, Saddam tried to appear more like a religious zealot. He claimed to have rediscovered his Islamic roots going back to Mohammed. He built the largest mosques in the world, called for jihad against the Americans, and even added Islamic religious phrases to the Iraqi flag. Meanwhile, Bin Laden declared war on the US 5 times before 911-each time citing American presence in the Gulf region (Op Southern Watch no-fly-zoes enforcing UN814), American oppression of Iraqis, and the Palestinian issue. Well, the two men didn't/don't love each other, but it's clear they were willing to put up with each other, and even work together. In 1993, it was Bin laden who asked to setup ops in Iraq-his first choice of locations. In 1996/7/8/9/00, it was Saddam asking Bin Laden to move his HQ to Iraq. After the US drove him from Afghanistan, with the offer out there there can be no doubt of Bin Laden's next move...to Iraq.

-President Bush didn't lie-the intel from all over the world was bad
-President Bush didn't manipulate or distort intel, it was bad from every country
-Sanctions were almost completely gone
-Inspections weren't going to prove Saddam had disarmed (Dr Blix said the only way that could happen was if Saddam tried to use the inspections to prove it, and Saddam has revealed he had no intention of doing that)
-Diplomacy had failed since Saddam had bribed members of the UN Sec Council
-WMD stockpiles weren't found, but a covert "breakout capability" was found, and WMD made in hours is just as dangerous as a stockpile. Gen Franks described it best, "What we found was a disassembled pistol on a table sitting next to piles of bullets and empty magazines."
-Iraq's ties to Al Queda were definately there, and the risk of Bin Laden and Saddam linking up was very VERY real.

We also know that everything the Democratic Presidential Candidate Squad has told us about Iraq was a lie.
-Bush didn't lie
-Sanctions never would have worked (ask Castro about that one)
-Inspections never would have worked (Saddam's interrogations and post-war finds proved that)
-The WMD threat was real (Pres Kerry will have to invade Iran before there's a nuclear WMD stockpile, so...will a nuclear WMD program be the causus beli for him?)
-Diplomacy was dead
-There were no more allies to be had for the Coalition
-Saddam's ties to Bin Laden were far tighter than most realize.

What we know now, is that President Bush did the right thing by invading Iraq, and though the Democratic Party supported him en masse (even going so far as to write the authorization to use force themselves), as soon as it was passed candidates came out of the woodwork. They started the longest Presidential campaign in American history. They played on the fears and concerns of the world to present themselves as being ANTI-war after they had authorized the war. They claimed there was another way to deal with Saddam-a peaceful way that somehow hadn't been tried in 12 years. They ignored the lessons of Munich, appeasement policies, and Neville Chamberlin. They ignored the fact that diplomacy NEVER removed a psychotic and absolute dictator. Time and time again, those same candidates lied, mislead, and misjudged the situation.

President Bush did not. He saw the threat, and acted. Polls be damned. Political career be damned. He acted while others followed the path of President Clinton, and waited on pipedreams of peace with men who have actually had prisoners eaten alive by dogs in their office...for fun.

GWB might stumble on some words from time to time, but who is the real fool?

...feel free to pass this on and post it wherever you deem appropriate
(From Sam Pender, author of Iraq's Smoking Gun-available on Amazon.com)