DISMANTLING THE DEMOCRAT/NYTIMES "al LIBI LIE"

Democrats (led by Senator Levin) aligned with the NYTIMES are leaking what they claim is a smoking gun proving that the Bush Administration started the Iraq War on false premises. The GIST is that "Bush et al and the neocon cabal" were told in February 2002 by the DIA that an al Qaeda captive's intel should not be trusted, and that "Bush et al and the neocon cabal" used it anyhow.

NYTIMES: - "A high Qaeda official in American custody was identified as a likely fabricator months before the Bush administration began to use his statements as the foundation for its claims that Iraq trained Al Qaeda members to use biological and chemical weapons, according to newly declassified portions of a Defense Intelligence Agency document."

This is a CROCK OF BULL.

(1) NO SINGLE SOURCE WAS "THE FOUNDATION" FOR THE CHARGE THAT IRAQ TRAINED AL QAEDA MEMBERS TO USE BIO/CHEM WEAPONS.

IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT TRAINING MANUALS WERE FOUND IN AFGHANISTAN WHICH SHOWED THAT AL QAEDA WAS DEVELOPING BIO/CHEM WMD CAPABILITIES. SADDAM HAD EXPERTISE WHICH AL QAEDA - OR ANOTHER JIHADOTERRORIST GROUP - WOULD HAVE USED GIVEN THE CHANCE. BUSH WAS NOT GONNA GIVE THEM THAT CHANCE; BUSH SAID MANY MANY TIMES THAT SADDAM WAS NOT TRUSTWORTHY, AND THAT IN A POST-9/11 WORLD WE SHOULDN'T TAKE THAT CHANCE. HE IS RIGHT.

(2) THE ASSERTIONS BY AL LIBI WERE NOT THE SOLE BASIS FOR ISSUING UNSCR#1441, OR FOR ATTACKING SADDAM.

CONGRESSIONAL RESOLUTION #141 - AUTHORIZING BUSH TO MAKE WAR AGAINST SADDAM WAS A VERITABLE LAUNDRY LIST OF REASONS -

It was NOT limited to a Saddam/Al Qaeda/WMD operational nexus. Look for yourself. Do any of the following aspects of Joint Resolution #141 depend on al LIBI?! If you are intellectually HONEST you MUST conclude they DO NOT!
Summary od reasons in Joint RES. #141

(a) Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire
(b) Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region"
(c) Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population"
(d) Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people"
(e) Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of George Bush Sr, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War
(f) Iraq's connection to terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda
(g) Fear that Iraq would provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against the United States

Even though we haven't found any stockpiles, ands even if Saddam never trained al Qaeda in WMD, these reasons still hold water. THEY ARE ALL STILL TRUE. Note that (g) is the FEAR that this COULD happen, NOT the certainty that IT HAD ALREADY HAPPENED.

(3)THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION WAS CAREFUL TO STATE - MANY TIMES - THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT SADDAM AND AL QAEDA HAD AN OPERATIONAL RELATIONSHIP.

(4) FOREIGN INTEL SERVICES HAVE THEIR OWN SOURCES, AND NOT ONE QUESTIONED THE ASSERTION THAT SADDAM WAS POSSIBLY SHARING WMD KNOWLEDGE.

(5) al LIBI DID NOT RECANT HIS CLAIMS UNTIL 2004. THOUGH SOME REPEAT SOME ANALYSTS MAY HAVE DOUBTED HIM EARLIER, NOT ALL DID. BUSH BELIEVED - AS I DO NOW - THAT ONE MUST ERR ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION - WHICH MEANS, IN THIS CASE, ONE MUST ASSUME THE WORST, AND HOPE FOR THE BEST.

(6) THE DIA CRITIQUE WAS - IN HINDSIGHT - CORRECT. HINDISGHT ALWAYS IS. As is almost always the case when it comes to INTERPRETING intel, there were PROBABLY others who felt al Libi could be believed. Advice doesn't come in boxes labeled "good" and "bad" - and interpretations of intel don't come in boxes labeled "right" and "wrong."

It's up to the POLICY-MAKERS to choose among varying analyses and differing advice. BUSH CHOSE. In 2003. There was a national referendum on this choice (and his ability to choose) - it's called the election of 2004.

In my mind this post-war debate about the build up to war (what the Lweft sometimes calls "the RUSH to war") is a STUPID MEANINGLESS DEBATE. It's less interesting than debating the true causes of the Civil War or whether FDR knew in advance about Pearl Harbor. THE ONLY REASON THIS DEBATE IS GOING ON IS BECAUSE THE DEM AND THE MSM HAVE "BDS" AND CAN'T GET OVER IT! Their partisan and they want to hurt Bush and the GOP.

To the anti-Bushie Left - which OWNS the Democat Party and still dominates the MSM - the Iraq War is as ILLEGITIMATE as the Bush ELECTION IN 2000! And they are so angry they just can't seem to find the strength to MOVE ON! Pity, they are missing the greatest assertive advance of democracy since Reagan's - which culminated with the Fall of The Berlin Wall in 1989.

What Bush has wrought in Afghanistan and Iraq - and in Libya and Lebanon, and somewhat in Egypt, Kuwait, Qatar, (and soon in Syria) - is the FALL OF THE ISLAMOFASCIST WALL. And before this revolution is over it will have liberated as many people as were liberated by the collapse of the USSR.

And I believe that soon after the collapse of The Wall of Islamofascism, will come the fall of the multiculturalism, here and in Europe. Thank God.

More HERE.