More Media Lies
VIETNAM VETERANS FOR ACADEMIC REFORM
Leonard Magruder - Founder/President
Professor of psychology - Suffolk College, N.Y.,
Director of Counseling and Research - Univ. of N.D. (ret.)
Member: National Association of Scholars
MEDIA LYING ABOUT NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUES REACHING CRITICAL MASS WITH MISREPRESENTATION OF NEW PENTAGON REPORT
also
We recently sent out an article with the following headline:
OBAMA SHOWS ALARMING LACK OF KNOWLEDGE CONCERNING SADDAM - AL-QAEDA LINKS
“I have some news for John McCain. There was no such thing as al-Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq.”
Barak Obama
To that article, being sent out again below, we now add the following just in:
Report Shows Link Between Saddam and al-Qaeda: Mainstream Media Wrong Again
Guest Column | By Tim Wilson | March 17, 2008
… a report which starts with the following sentence: “The Iraqi Perspectives Project (IPP) review of captured Iraqi documents uncovered strong evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism.”
The actual report goes on to detail that, despite having examined only 15% of the documents, they found solid links to al-Qaeda number two Ayman al-Zawahiri’s Egyptian Islamic Jihad, al-Qaeda spokesman and Imam Sheik Omar Abdul-Rahman’s Islamic Group, al-Qaeda’s Bahranian arm known as the Army of Mohammed, the Islamic Movement of Kurdistan which was the forerunner of al-Qaeda in Iraq, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar who was a key ally of Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and the Abu Sayyaf group, another al-Qaeda affiliate in the Philippines. In particular, on page 42 of the report they acknowledge that “Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda’s stated goals and objectives. 97″
…any analyst worthy of the title would conclude that this report affirms the contention that Saddam Hussein supported al-Qaeda.
In the light of all this evidence, the mainstream media headlines :
· ABC (”Report Shows No Link Between Saddam and al Qaeda”)
· CNN (”Hussein’s Iraq and al Qaeda not linked, Pentagon says”
· The NY Times (”Study Finds No Qaeda-Hussein Tie”)
It is always possible these publications employ journalists and editors who can’t actually read English!
————————–
The earlier article
Following is the article we sent out on March 22 , 2006, summarizing all the data at that time showing the connection between Saddam Hussain and al-Qaeda. The article refers to an even earlier article on this subject released in February, 2003. It is alarming that a presidential candidate can make such a dogmatic, but untrue statement.It is also alarming that the media did not correct Obama on this. The article in posted at our archive at V-V-A-R.org under that date.
Also, what knowledge did Obama think he had to vote not going to war, when it was clear to all other Senators, including major Democratic leaders, that there was indeed a threat, with Senator Edwards in particular, making it clear that no one felt they were being fooled by President Bush. All had access to the same intelligence as the president had.
——————————————-
The March 22, 2006 Newsletter
NEWSLETTER: PENTAGON PROOF NOTHING NEW. WE EXPOSED THE SADDAM/al-QAEDA CONNECTION IN 2003.
By Leonard Magruder
The Pentagon yesterday posted pre-war documents, some of which showed links between Saddam and al-Qaeda.The documents were released by the Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte. They showed the Iraq regime had cooperated with the bin Laden group to strike the U.S.
The material released made it clear that Osama bin Laden had been in contact with Iraq and had visited Baghdad. In 2003, a 16-page, top-secret government memo to the Senate Intelligence Committee said bin Laden and Saddam had an operational relationship between the early 1990’s and 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, as well as financial and logistical support, and may have been involved in the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole and the 9/11 attacks.
In 2003 Vietnam Veterans for Academic Reform sent out the article below, revealing at that time many of the points that appear in the new Pentagon release.
———————————
Released in February, 2003. Commentary follows.
VIETNAM VETERANS FOR ACADEMIC REFORM -
Leonard Magruder - Founder/President
Former professor of psychology, Suffolk College, N.Y.
In front page articles around the nation yesterday, Democrat and other critics said there can be no link between al-Qaeda and Iraq, as suggested by Bush, because of ideological differences and lack of evidence. We suggest they just don’t do their homework.
From Insight Magazine - The Washington Times
This summer, Vice-President Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Tenet outlined for senior congressmen the scope of NSA-collected ‘signals intelligence’ (SIGINT) from satellites of contacts between Baghdad, Iraq, and al-Qaeda before and after the September 11 terror attacks. Intelligence sources say the SIGNIT ‘definitely’ involved discussion of nuclear weapons of interest to al-Qaeda.
Rumsfeld said, ‘Intelligence on these contacts has been increasing since 1998,’ and has expanded to include ‘credible evidence’ that al-Qaeda leaders sought contact in Iraq for assistance in acquiring WMDs.
Top intelligence officials have told Insight Magazine about Saddam’s possible possession of portable tactical nuclear weapons bombs. Said one official, “In intelligence parlance the likelihood that Iraq has these bombs and that it may have provided some to al-Qaeda is ‘B-percent’, which means “highest degree of probability.” These portable nuclear devices were built by the former Soviet KGB and are believed to have enough destructive power to level a major inner-city area.
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton , speaking in October 2002, said this:
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile-delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members.”
STOP RIGHT HERE ! WHY HAS THE MEDIA NOT QUESTIONED HILLARY ABOUTTHIS ?
Our commentary:
In searching for the hard-core intelligence in this material we note the following:
Some of the information came from unnamed “intelligence sources” which may or may not be accurate. In these cases we have to tentatively trust the writer or investigative reporter. In some of the information provided the source in named, as in the case of David Kay, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Tenet.
The core of the argument is that, whether through missing nuclear devices obtained from the Soviet Union, or through their own efforts, Iraq has, or at one time had, possession of weapons of mass destruction. It is also clear that there was an extensive contact between al-Qaeda and Iraq, and it is clearly and reasonably believed by the experts that Iraq gave such devices to bin Laden, especially as it became more probable that Iraq would be invaded.
In any case the main point is that Iraq did have WMD at some point, and the Bush administration chose not to accept Saddam’s claim that they no longer existed. With Saddam’s reputation as a liar, war on Iraq was therefore a very rational decision by the Bush administration. Had it not done so it is reasonably certain that Saddam would have revived his nuclear program and then shared it with al-Qaeda.
The new Pentagon documents released March 17, 2006, pretty well support what we put together in our 2003 article. More support comes from General Tom McInerney, the Fox News Military Analyst. He just returned from a second visit to Iraq. This is what he said of the newly released Pentagon documents and audiotapes of Saddam Hussein’s conversations with his key officials in an interview March 20th with FrontPageMagazine.
“I just reviewed this additional release of documents. This release continues to confirm that Osama bin Laden and aL-Qaeda were in contact with Iraq intelligence for sanctuary, training, and plans for acts of terrorism against the U.S. and in the U.S. This supports 12 hours of tapes we heard of Saddam Hussein’s that discussed using proxies (Al Qaeda) to attack the U.S. with WMD, nuclear or biological. Some people are still in denial even with the latest release as it gets in the way of their agenda.
A press release just in from ABC News reports that their Investigative Unit found that the “documents discuss Osama bin Laden, weapons of mass destruction, al-Qaeda and more. One Iraqi Intelligence document reported that “Osama bin Laden and the Taliban are in contact with Iraq and members of the two groups had visited Iraq.” Also, that “the U.S. has proof the Iraqi government and bin Laden’s group agreed to attack targets inside America.”
————————————————-
Updated information on the Saddam/al-Qaeda connection recently appeared in the book by Norman Podhoretz, “World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism,” 2007.
What of the related charge that it was still another lied to suggest, as Bush had, and his people had, that a connection could be traced between Saddam Hussein and the al-Qaeda terrorists who had attacked us on 9/11. This charge would also be rejected by the Senate Intelligence Committee. Contrary to how its findings would be summarized by the mainstream media , the committee’s report would explicitly conclude that al -Qaeda has in fact had a cooperative, if informal, relationship with Iraq agents working under Saddam. The report of the bipartisan 9/11 commission would come to the same conclusions, as would a comparable independent British investigation conducted by Lord Butler, pointing to “meetings…between Iraqi representatives and senior al-Qaeda operatives.”
The main lie that the president was accused of telling was that Saddam Hussein possessed an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction , or WMD, as they came to be called.
But there could be no doubt whatsoever that Bush believed in the truth of what he was saying about WMD in Iraq.
How could it have been otherwise ? George Tenet, his own CIA Director had assured him that the case was a “slam dunk.” In using this phrase Tenet had the backing of all fifteen agencies involved in gathering intelligence for the Untied States. In the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of 2002, where their collective views were summarized, one of the conclusions offered with “high confidence ” was that,
“Iraq is continuing , and in some areas expanding its chemical , biological, nuclear, and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions.”
The intelligence agencies of Britain, Germany, Russia, China, Israel and France had all agreed with the judgement. In other words, the consensus of the intelligence community was overwhelming in the period leading up to the invasion of Iraq that Saddam definitely had an arsenal of chemical and biological weapons and that he was also in all probability well on his way to rebuilding the nuclear capability that the Israelis had damaged by bombing the Osirak reactor in 1981. Another conclusion the National Intelligence of Estimate of 2002 had reached with “high confidence” was that :
“Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months to a year once it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material.”
Leading Democrats in Congress did not entertain any doubts on this score. (Except for Obama, for some unexplained reason) A group of Democratic senators , including such liberals as Carl Levin, Tom Daschle , and John Kerry, with Bob Graham, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd later joining the chorus, urged the president:
“To make necessary actions, including , if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons-of-mass-destruction programs.”
This Democratic drumbeat continued and even intensified when Bush succeeded Clinton in 2001, and it featured many who would later pretend to have been deceived by the Bush White House. All of this should have sufficed to prove far beyond any even unreasonable doubt that Bush had been telling what he believed to be the truth about Saddam’s stockpile of WMD. It also disposed of the fallback charge that Bush had lied by exaggerating or “hyping” or “cherry -picking ” the intelligence presented to him.
The intelligence presented to him was shared by everybody.
But what really exposed how the Democrats conjured up the fairy tale about Bush manipulating the intelligence is seen in this admission by John Edwards:
“I was convinced that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and was doing everything in his power to get nuclear weapons… I didn’t rely on George Bush for that . And I personally think there is some dishonesty in suggesting that members of the United States Senate relied on George Bush for that information , because I don’t think it is true. It’s not the truth. I hear people say, ‘Well, you know, George Bush misled us . I was there, it’s not what happened. I was on the Intelligence Committee , so I got direct information from the intelligence community. And then I had a series of meetings with former Clinton administration people. And they were all saying the same thing. And there was nary a dissenting voice.”
Another fallback charge is that Bush, operating mainly through Cheney, had somehow forced the CIA into telling him what he wanted to hear. But in its report of 2004 , the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, while criticizing the CIA for relying on what in hindsight looked like weak or faulty intelligence, stated that it;
“Did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence, or pressure analysts to change their judgements related to Iraq’s weapons-of-mass-destruction capabilities.
The March 2005 report of the equally bipartisan Robb-Silberman Commission, set up to investigate intelligence failures on Iraq, reached the same conclusion:
“No evidence of political pressure to influence the intelligence community’s prewar assessments of Iraq’s weapons programs…Analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgement.”
If, given all this, George W. Bush had failed to take action against Iraq, he would have been guilty of an egregious dereliction of his responsibility to “preserve, protect, and defend ” this country ” “against all enemies, foreign and domestic” and for that he would truly have deserved to be impeached.
CONCLUSION
Senator Barak Obama has done no homework on the possibility of an Iraqi-aL-Qaeda connection.The dogmatic statement that there is no connection is not justified.
His lone vote against the Iraq war, which he constantly mentions, was in fact a dangerous gamble based on no intelligence information unique to him whatsoever.Nor could it have been, as he would have been obligated to share that information with the rest of the Senate and there is no record of that. Flying in the face of evidence that all the other Democratic senators took seriously, it represents a huge failure of judgement.
But by far the most frightening statement made by Obama, in a policy speech in Washington in last August, is -”We are not at war with Islam.” In this statement he joins the media and university cover-up about the danger of Islam that is robbing the American people of the ability to make critical judgements about their most vital security interests in a time of war.
The truth of the matter is seen in this statement by Sam Harris in his best seller, “The End of Faith.”
” Most people in position of leadership in this country will say there is no direct link between the Muslim faith and terrorism. It is clear, however, that Muslims hate the West because of their faith and that the Koran mandates such hatred. It is widely claimed by ‘moderates’ that Islam is a ‘religion of peace.’ You need only to read the Koran to see that this is untrue. The basic thrust of Islam is undeniable: convert, subjugate, or kill unbelievers; kill apostates, and conquer the world. There is no substitute for confronting the Koran itself. On almost every page, the Koran instructs Muslims to despise non-believers. On almost every page it prepares the ground for religious conflict.
We are at war with Islam. It may not serve our immediate foreign policy objectives for our political leaders to openly acknowledge this fact, but it is unambiguously the truth. It is not true that we are at war with an otherwise ‘peaceful religion’ that has been ‘hijacked’ by extremists. We are at war with precisely the vision of life that is prescribed to all Muslims in the Koran. A future in which Islam and the West do not stand on the brink of mutual annihilation is a future in which most Muslims have learned to ignore most of their scriptures.”
Now we understand Obama’s vote . It had nothing to do with superior insight. It was based on ideology. Obama does not understand the nature of the enemy. If the election does come down to Obama versus McCain, in view of the fact that America possibly faces nuclear attack, the only subject of debate must be how each sees the enemy.
” Senator Obama has been at his best as an icon, able with his command of words to meet other people’s psychic needs, including a need to dispel white guilt by supporting his candidacy. But President of the United States, in a time of national danger, under a looming threat of nuclear terrorism? No.”
Thomas Sowell, noted African-American scholar at Stanford.
Regarding Obama’s promise to pull out of Iraq, the question the polls need to be asking now is:
“Should we pull out of a war we are winning ?
As we saw in the case of Vietnam, Democrats have a bad habit of pulling out of wars we are winning, abandoning allies to tyranny and genocide.
magruder44@aol.com
v-v-a-r.org
wmdterror.com
785-312-9303
