Go to: => TOP Page; ROAD MAP; Search Page; What's New? Page; Emmaus Ministries Page
[COMMENT: I am not surprised that such evidence is
coming forth. Why was it not put out there long ago by Bush et al?
Will this be refuted? E. Fox]
From: Gary L. Bauer, Chairman
Campaign for Working Families
Date: Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Bush Was Right
Yesterday brought another round of bad polling news for President Bush. A
Gallup/USA Today poll pegged the president's approval rating at a dismal
31%, with 65% disapproving of his job performance. CNN pollsters delved
into the latter figure to try and find out exactly what issues were driving
the president's numbers down. The top issue cited by those who disapproved
was the war in Iraq at 56%, with 58% saying they disapproved of the
decision to go war, and 53% saying the decision to invade Iraq has made the
U.S. less safe from terrorism.
At the same time, there is new information coming out about exactly what
prompted U.S. action against Saddam Hussein. Columnist Joel Mowbray has
devoted significant time and energy to reviewing post-war intelligence
information coming out of Iraq, and his findings are shocking. Even more
so, however, has been the Big Media blackout of this information that goes
a long way toward vindicating the president.
According to Mowbray, the Pentagon commissioned an "after-action analysis
report" on Iraq. The 230-page "book-length report analyzed thousands of
Iraqi documents and interviews with over 100 officials of Saddam's regime."
The report details Saddam's active role in terrorism dating back to 1994
with the establishment of Al Qaeda-like terrorist training camps run by the
Fedayeen, which "trained some 7,200 Iraqis in the art of terrorism in the
first year alone." By 1998, these camps were training jihadists from
Egypt, Syria, Jordan, the Palestinian territories, and other Gulf states.
Then there is this statement from a summary of the Pentagon report in
Foreign Affairs magazine:
"In a document dated May 1999, Saddam's older son, Uday, ordered
preparations for 'special operations, assassinations, and bombings, for the
centers and traitor symbols in London, Iran and the self-ruled areas
[Kurdistan].' Preparations for 'Blessed July,' a regime-directed wave of
'martyrdom' operations against targets in the West, were well under way at
the time of the coalition invasion."
I want to draw your attention to that last line. In June of 2004, one year
after the invasion of Iraq, Russian President Vladimir Putin made a
stunning announcement that got virtually no coverage here in the United
States. Here is an excerpt from an Associated Press report out of
Kazakstan on June 19, 2004, about Putin's statement:
"Russian President Vladimir Putin said Friday his government warned
Washington that Saddam Hussein's regime was preparing attacks in the United
States and its interests abroad -- an assertion that appears to bolster
President Bush's contention that Iraq was a threat. ...'After Sept. 11, 2001,
and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, the Russian special
services . . . received information that officials from Saddam's regime
were preparing terrorist attacks in the United States and outside it
against the U.S. military and other interests,' Putin said."
Now, put yourself in President Bush's position. Three thousand Americans
have recently been murdered in downtown Manhattan by jihadists, and the
president of Russia tells you that Saddam is "preparing terrorist attacks
in the United States and outside it against the U.S. military and other
interests." We now know -- from captured Iraqi documents -- that Putin was
telling the truth.
Yesterday I met with a retired Israeli general, a man who has been on the
frontlines of the war against terrorism for many, many years. Toward the
end of the conversation, I asked him why the United States has not been hit
again since September 11th. He said it could be strategy, but there is
evidence that the Islamists were shocked by President Bush's strong
reaction. They didn't believe we had the will to fight back. After all,
the U.S. response to a string of terrorist attacks, beginning with the 1993
bombing of the World Trade Center towers, was to treat each incident as an
unrelated criminal offense, rather than coordinated acts of war committed
by a common enemy. That mentality changed after September 11th.
The Israeli general I spoke with said Bush is absolutely right - that by
taking the war to Islamofascists, we are preventing them from bringing the
war to us. He said that was the lesson Israel has learned. Against this
enemy, so totally consumed with hatred and so determined to kill, the best
defense is a good offense.
My friends, as frustrating as the headlines out of Iraq may be, the
alternative to a "good offense" is to invite more atrocities like September
11th. As we now know, that is clearly what Saddam Hussein intended. I
don't know about you, but I believe President Bush made the right call by
invading Iraq and removing that threat against America.
Campaign for Working Families
2800 Shirlington Road
Arlington, VA 22206
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *