Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

It's all about 9/11 (Iraq's links to AQ)
National Review ^ | June 29, 2005 | Andrew McCarthy

Posted on 06/29/2005 10:27:29 AM PDT by Peach

June 29, 2005, 9:12 a.m. It’s All About 9/11 The president links Iraq and al Qaeda — and the usual suspects moan.

President George W. Bush forcefully explained last night — some of us would say finally forcefully explained last night after too long a lull — why our military operations in Iraq are crucial to success in the war on terror.

It was good to hear the commander-in-chief remind people that this is still the war against terror. Specifically, against Islamo-fascists who slaughtered 3000 Americans on September 11, 2001. Who spent the eight years before those atrocities murdering and promising to murder Americans — as their leader put it in 1998, all Americans, including civilians, anywhere in the world where they could be found.

It is not the war for democratization. It is not the war for stability. Democratization and stability are not unimportant. They are among a host of developments that could help defeat the enemy.

But they are not the primary goal of this war, which is to destroy the network of Islamic militants who declared war against the United States when they bombed the World Trade Center on February 26, 1993, and finally jarred us into an appropriate response when they demolished that complex, struck the Pentagon, and killed 3000 of us on September 11, 2001.

That is why we are in Iraq.

On September 12, 2001, no one in America cared about whether there would be enough Sunni participation in a fledgling Iraqi democracy if Saddam were ever toppled. No one in lower Manhattan cared whether the electricity would work in Baghdad, or whether Muqtada al-Sadr’s Shiite militia could be coaxed into a political process. They cared about smashing terrorists and the states that supported them for the purpose of promoting American national security.

Saddam Hussein’s regime was a crucial part of that response because it was a safety net for al Qaeda. A place where terror attacks against the United States and the West were planned. A place where Saddam’s intelligence service aided and abetted al Qaeda terrorists planning operations. A place where terrorists could hide safely between attacks. A place where terrorists could lick their wounds. A place where committed terrorists could receive vital training in weapons construction and paramilitary tactics. In short, a platform of precisely the type without which an international terror network cannot succeed.

The president should know he hit the sweet spot during his Fort Bragg speech because all the right people are angry. The New York Times, with predictable disingenuousness, is railing this morning that the 9/11 references in the speech are out of bounds because Iraq had “nothing whatsoever to do with the terrorist attacks.” Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and the tedious David Gergen, among others, are in Gergen’s words “offended” about use of the 9/11 “trump card.”

If the president is guilty of anything, it's not that he's dwelling on 9/11 enough. It's that the administration has not done a good enough job of probing and underscoring the nexus between the Saddam regime and al Qaeda. It is absolutely appropriate, it is vital, for him to stress that connection. This is still the war on terror, and Iraq, where the terrorists are still arrayed against us, remains a big part of that equation.

And not just because every jihadist with an AK-47 and a prayer rug has made his way there since we invaded. No, it’s because Saddam made Iraq their cozy place to land long before that. They are fighting effectively there because they’ve been invited to dig in for years.

The president needs to be talking about Saddam and terror because that’s what will get their attention in Damascus and Teheran. It’s not about the great experiment in democratization — as helpful as it would be to establish a healthy political culture in that part of the world. It’s about making our enemies know we are coming for them if they abet and harbor and promote and plan with the people who are trying to kill us.

On that score, nobody should worry about anything the Times or David Gergen or Senator Reid has to say about all this until they have some straight answers on questions like these. What does the “nothing whatsoever” crowd have to say about:

Ahmed Hikmat Shakir — the Iraqi Intelligence operative who facilitated a 9/11 hijacker into Malaysia and was in attendance at the Kuala Lampur meeting with two of the hijackers, and other conspirators, at what is roundly acknowledged to be the initial 9/11 planning session in January 2000? Who was arrested after the 9/11 attacks in possession of contact information for several known terrorists? Who managed to make his way out of Jordanian custody over our objections after the 9/11 attacks because of special pleading by Saddam’s regime?

Saddam's intelligence agency's efforts to recruit jihadists to bomb Radio Free Europe in Prague in the late 1990's?

Mohammed Atta's unexplained visits to Prague in 2000, and his alleged visit there in April 2001 which — notwithstanding the 9/11 Commission's dismissal of it (based on interviewing exactly zero relevant witnesses) — the Czechs have not retracted?

The Clinton Justice Department's allegation in a 1998 indictment (two months before the embassy bombings) against bin Laden, to wit: In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.

Seized Iraq Intelligence Service records indicating that Saddam's henchmen regarded bin Laden as an asset as early as 1992?

Saddam's hosting of al Qaeda No. 2, Ayman Zawahiri beginning in the early 1990’s, and reports of a large payment of money to Zawahiri in 1998?

Saddam’s ten years of harboring of 1993 World Trade Center bomber Abdul Rahman Yasin?

Iraqi Intelligence Service operatives being dispatched to meet with bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998 (the year of bin Laden’s fatwa demanding the killing of all Americans, as well as the embassy bombings)?

Saddam’s official press lionizing bin Laden as “an Arab and Islamic hero” following the 1998 embassy bombing attacks?

The continued insistence of high-ranking Clinton administration officials to the 9/11 Commission that the 1998 retaliatory strikes (after the embassy bombings) against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory were justified because the factory was a chemical weapons hub tied to Iraq and bin Laden?

Top Clinton administration counterterrorism official Richard Clarke’s assertions, based on intelligence reports in 1999, that Saddam had offered bin Laden asylum after the embassy bombings, and Clarke’s memo to then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, advising him not to fly U-2 missions against bin Laden in Afghanistan because he might be tipped off by Pakistani Intelligence, and “[a]rmed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad”? (See 9/11 Commission Final Report, p. 134 & n.135.)

Terror master Abu Musab Zarqawi's choice to boogie to Baghdad of all places when he needed surgery after fighting American forces in Afghanistan in 2001?

Saddam's Intelligence Service running a training camp at Salman Pak, were terrorists were instructed in tactics for assassination, kidnapping and hijacking?

Former CIA Director George Tenet’s October 7, 2002 letter to Congress, which asserted:

Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank.

We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade.

Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression.

Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad.

We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.

Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of relationship with Al Qaeda suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action.

There's more. Stephen Hayes’s book, The Connection, remains required reading. But these are just the questions; the answers — if someone will just investigate the questions rather than pretending there’s “nothing whatsoever” there — will provide more still.

So Gergen, Reid, the Times, and the rest are “offended” at the president's reminding us of 9/11? The rest of us should be offended, too. Offended at the “nothing whatsoever” crowd’s inexplicable lack of curiosity about these ties, and about the answers to these questions.

Just tell us one thing: Do you have any good answer to what Ahmed Hikmat Shakir was doing with the 9/11 hijackers in Kuala Lampur? Can you explain it?

If not, why aren't you moving heaven and earth to find out the answer?

— Andrew C. McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.


TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 911; alqaeda; alqaedaandiraq; iraq; osamabinladen; saddam
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150 next last
Ahmed Hikmat Shakir — the Iraqi Intelligence operative who facilitated a 9/11 hijacker into Malaysia and was in attendance at the Kuala Lampur meeting with two of the hijackers, and other conspirators, at what is roundly acknowledged to be the initial 9/11 planning session in January 2000? Who was arrested after the 9/11 attacks in possession of contact information for several known terrorists? Who managed to make his way out of Jordanian custody over our objections after the 9/11 attacks because of special pleading by Saddam’s regime?

Saddam's intelligence agency's efforts to recruit jihadists to bomb Radio Free Europe in Prague in the late 1990's?

Mohammed Atta's unexplained visits to Prague in 2000, and his alleged visit there in April 2001 which — notwithstanding the 9/11 Commission's dismissal of it (based on interviewing exactly zero relevant witnesses) — the Czechs have not retracted?

The Clinton Justice Department's allegation in a 1998 indictment (two months before the embassy bombings) against bin Laden, to wit: In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.

Seized Iraq Intelligence Service records indicating that Saddam's henchmen regarded bin Laden as an asset as early as 1992?

Saddam's hosting of al Qaeda No. 2, Ayman Zawahiri beginning in the early 1990’s, and reports of a large payment of money to Zawahiri in 1998?

Saddam’s ten years of harboring of 1993 World Trade Center bomber Abdul Rahman Yasin?

Iraqi Intelligence Service operatives being dispatched to meet with bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998 (the year of bin Laden’s fatwa demanding the killing of all Americans, as well as the embassy bombings)?

Saddam’s official press lionizing bin Laden as “an Arab and Islamic hero” following the 1998 embassy bombing attacks?

The continued insistence of high-ranking Clinton administration officials to the 9/11 Commission that the 1998 retaliatory strikes (after the embassy bombings) against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory were justified because the factory was a chemical weapons hub tied to Iraq and bin Laden?

Top Clinton administration counterterrorism official Richard Clarke’s assertions, based on intelligence reports in 1999, that Saddam had offered bin Laden asylum after the embassy bombings, and Clarke’s memo to then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, advising him not to fly U-2 missions against bin Laden in Afghanistan because he might be tipped off by Pakistani Intelligence, and “[a]rmed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad”? (See 9/11 Commission Final Report, p. 134 & n.135.)

Terror master Abu Musab Zarqawi's choice to boogie to Baghdad of all places when he needed surgery after fighting American forces in Afghanistan in 2001?

Saddam's Intelligence Service running a training camp at Salman Pak, were terrorists were instructed in tactics for assassination, kidnapping and hijacking?

Former CIA Director George Tenet’s October 7, 2002 letter to Congress, which asserted:

Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank.

We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade.

Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression.

Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad.

We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.

Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of relationship with Al Qaeda suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action.

1 posted on 06/29/2005 10:27:34 AM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Peach

Read about the Clinton indictment against OBL which cited the terrorists's connections with Iraq and the agreement OBL and Iraq had together.

Read about the articles written in the 90's by the MSM about the growing relationship between Saddam and OBL.

That and more here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1327993/posts


2 posted on 06/29/2005 10:29:26 AM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peach
Thanks for posting this, Peach.

Note to John Kerry: Terrorists ARE weapons of mass destruction.

3 posted on 06/29/2005 10:31:30 AM PDT by mewzilla (Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist. John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla

You're welcome, mewzilla.

I'm starting to think that some Democrats are weapons of mass destruction too. Their words have almost certainly emboldened the enemy and OBL must be laughing his head off at how the liars in the media and Congress have divided the country.


4 posted on 06/29/2005 10:33:22 AM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Peach

Outstanding article and post, Peach. People in our culture suffer from a severe case of Attention Deficit Disorder, and unfortunately, but vitally, our President needs to continue to remind the American people why we are in Iraq, and Afghanistan, and about 70 other nations where there is some kind of American presence to combat international terrorism.


5 posted on 06/29/2005 10:36:56 AM PDT by My2Cents ("In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." - George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peach

The left's reply to al the above proof:

"Nuh uh, Bush is evil"


6 posted on 06/29/2005 10:37:48 AM PDT by Turbo Pig (...to close with and destroy the enemy...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peach

Anybody have a connection with FOX News? Contact them and ask them to please present this list to all the Bush-hating dimocraps out there who are whining about Dubya's statement. Then ask them why in the world they STILL think there is no connection.

THAT would be bringing balance to the issue.


7 posted on 06/29/2005 10:39:02 AM PDT by Lee'sGhost (Crom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
ABC's Terry Moran just reported that the only time Bush got applause was in the middle of his speech when a White House advance team member started clapping all on their own in order to cajole the soldiers into clapping, which they dutifully did.

So even the applause was phony.

8 posted on 06/29/2005 10:39:36 AM PDT by MurryMom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Peach

Thank you!


9 posted on 06/29/2005 10:39:46 AM PDT by Lee'sGhost (Crom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents

Hi, My2Cents. Long time no see.

I do so wish the president or someone in the administration would go through some of these connections in an interview or press conference.

Support for the war and our soldiers would increase tenfold, it would help unit the country, shut up some of the liars in Congress, and the terrorists would see more resolve in the WOT and understand more fully they cannot win.


10 posted on 06/29/2005 10:39:56 AM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Lee'sGhost

You are more than welcome! Love your screen name.


11 posted on 06/29/2005 10:40:23 AM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Lee'sGhost

Good idea. I'll re-send to Brit Hume.


12 posted on 06/29/2005 10:40:44 AM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Peach
Andrew C. McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

Who the hell is Andrew C. McCarthy and what the hell is the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies?

13 posted on 06/29/2005 10:42:04 AM PDT by iconoclast (.. the president should "stop talking down" to Congress and the American people. - Anthony Cordesman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peach

Great Post !


14 posted on 06/29/2005 10:46:19 AM PDT by ex-Texan (Mathew 7:1 through 6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Turbo Pig

Or see #8 for another reply.


15 posted on 06/29/2005 10:46:47 AM PDT by JacksonCalhoun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Peach
The NY Times wrote a story in '98 about bin Laden's relationship with Saddam to build weapons (for future attack on American installations) in Iraq. I found this on a note and do not want to take the time to look this up on the other drive yet another case of selective liberal memory.
16 posted on 06/29/2005 10:47:50 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection (http://hour9.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

http://www.archive-news.net/Articles/SH040923.html


17 posted on 06/29/2005 10:49:01 AM PDT by petercooper (Mark Levin for Supreme Court Justice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

That article you referenced is in this link, as well as lots more. There is an article in the link written by FrontPage magazine which headlines all the articles written in the 90's about the relationship between Saddam and AQ.

Of course, that is all before this became a political football and the press thinks we can't look this stuff up. LOL

That and more here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1327993/posts


18 posted on 06/29/2005 10:50:37 AM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ex-Texan

Thank you, ex-Texan.

It seems timely since we're hearing all day about the Democrats outrage that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

I don't know which part of the WOT they don't understand :-)


19 posted on 06/29/2005 10:51:17 AM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: iconoclast; sheltonmac; ValenB4
Oh come on, it doesn't matter don't you know. The Duefler report, among others, has torn many of these 'links' to shreds. But it sells well to the citizens as a good scare tactic

As for who he is, here's the website. Look at the cast of characters on the board of advisors. Notice any people in particular? Looks like a renamed PNAC

20 posted on 06/29/2005 10:51:38 AM PDT by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: iconoclast

Why don't you google it up and learn about it?


21 posted on 06/29/2005 10:51:44 AM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: MurryMom

MM, I read what you post and think there but for the grace of God go I. But there is intellectual life after liberalism. Someday I hope you'll discover that.


22 posted on 06/29/2005 10:52:31 AM PDT by mewzilla (Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist. John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: iconoclast

I presume your question was more rhetorical in nature, however:

Andrew McCarthy is a former prosecutor, as the tagline states.

Here's their website:
http://www.defenddemocracy.org/

If you look deeper into their site, you will find his biography: http://www.defenddemocracy.org/biographies/biographies_show.htm?doc_id=239506

You'll find he's a little more involved with terrorism than say Terry Moran, Tim Russert, or Dan Rather.


23 posted on 06/29/2005 10:53:16 AM PDT by JacksonCalhoun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: MurryMom

Actually, the phony is you.

And it's so nice to see you believe Terry Moran.


24 posted on 06/29/2005 10:54:18 AM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: billbears

Which links have the Duelfer report torn to shreds?

That AQ had a relationship and agreement with Iraq? This isn't about WMD, it's about a connection between jihadists and Iraq, something we're told constantly by the libs wasn't present in Iraq before the war. Except it was.


25 posted on 06/29/2005 10:55:49 AM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla

LOL.


26 posted on 06/29/2005 10:56:05 AM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: JacksonCalhoun

Facts don't matter to freepers like the one you responded to. But I thank you for those links and attempt to inject a little common sense into the discussion.


27 posted on 06/29/2005 10:56:39 AM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla

Rush was reading this article today - and it came right after I had sent a scathing little note to FOX regarding some of the statements in Stephen Hayes book, "The Connection".

For any congress person or media person to go on TV today and try portray there is "no connection" - is nothing but PURE POLITICS. They will say anything to try to make their "Bush lied" stick .. it ain't sticking .. and the public (by 70%) now believes we should stay in Iraq.

All the democrats attempts to push our getting out are in the toilet .. but I don't expect them to stop.

As I told FOX - Geeeeeez thanks for parading all the democrat/liberal continual whiners. This is making my day!!!


28 posted on 06/29/2005 10:57:49 AM PDT by CyberAnt (President Bush: "America is the greatest nation on the face of the earth")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Peach; MurryMom
MM should speak to some of the folks who were there rather than taking Moran's word for it.

Trust but verify, MM.

29 posted on 06/29/2005 11:00:23 AM PDT by mewzilla (Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist. John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla

Some people are just uneducable, imo :-)


30 posted on 06/29/2005 11:01:02 AM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: MurryMom
Ahhhh...our resident troll decided to pay us a visit!

Apparently you missed the pre-speech stuff...they made it clear that the soldiers were told not to make any noise at all during the speech. So much for your theory...and Terry Moron.

31 posted on 06/29/2005 11:01:48 AM PDT by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter

Don't you love it when the person who makes the first comment on every thread trashes Bush and/or his policies? Sometimes it's like they work togehter.


32 posted on 06/29/2005 11:03:00 AM PDT by GOPJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: MurryMom

Why peddle Moran's lies here? Do you really think anyone here is as stupid as you?


33 posted on 06/29/2005 11:03:10 AM PDT by Petronski (Oligarchy about one create least hand for anything)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Peach
"Love your screen name."

Thanks, Palmetto Peach.
34 posted on 06/29/2005 11:03:17 AM PDT by Lee'sGhost (Crom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: billbears

Any organization that counts Richard Perle and William Kristol as two of its key figures has less credibility than NAMBLA, as far as I'm concerned.


35 posted on 06/29/2005 11:05:39 AM PDT by Alberta's Child (I ain't got a dime, but what I got is mine. I ain't rich, but Lord I'm free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Peach

Libs, in my experience, come in two categories: the ignorant and the ideologues. The former you can inform, the second bunch there's no hope for. Unless they have an epiphany.


36 posted on 06/29/2005 11:05:58 AM PDT by mewzilla (Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist. John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: MurryMom

Don't you love it when the person who makes the first comment on every thread trashes Bush and/or his policies? Sometimes it's like they work together. Wow, and then you're here. Do all of you sit in the same room?


37 posted on 06/29/2005 11:06:11 AM PDT by GOPJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Peach
Why don't you google it up and learn about it?

I'm way ahead of you Peachy.

Why didn't you?

38 posted on 06/29/2005 11:07:36 AM PDT by iconoclast (.. the president should "stop talking down" to Congress and the American people. - Anthony Cordesman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Peach
something we're told constantly by the libs wasn't present in Iraq before the war. Except it was.

So you accept the Duelfer report? That's a step As for one report on the link.

The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.

Washington Post

But I bet that's a liberal report to isn't it?

39 posted on 06/29/2005 11:07:53 AM PDT by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Peach
something we're told constantly by the libs wasn't present in Iraq before the war. Except it was.

So you accept the Duelfer report? That's a step As for one report on the link.

The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.

Washington Post

But I bet that's a liberal report to isn't it?

40 posted on 06/29/2005 11:08:19 AM PDT by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: billbears

Have you actually read the 9/11 Commission Report? Because the characterization of it that it disproves the links between Iraq/AQ is incorrect. It actually bolsters the case.

It's in the link I provided, if you're interested. There are some 60 pages in the Commission Report which detail the relationship.

Unless you don't happen to think it's important that an Iraqi was actually present at one of AQ's pre planning 9/11 meetings. And more.


41 posted on 06/29/2005 11:10:23 AM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: iconoclast

You're the one who asked the question. I already knew. But you didn't, I see. Unless you just like asking questions to which you already know the answer.


42 posted on 06/29/2005 11:11:01 AM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Peach

Thanks for posting. There are a few DURTs( dim under the radar trolls) on FR today who believe what the dems and msm feed them rather than doing their own research. Those same ones who believe that if you have a good enough lawyer, then you are innocent of a crime you committed, ala, o.j. simpson. Keep up the good work.


43 posted on 06/29/2005 11:11:36 AM PDT by Eagles6 (Dig deeper, more ammo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla

I think you're exactly right about those two categories. SOmetimes it's just not worth the argument; other times there are Democrats who just have believed the MSM spin and when presented with facts, change their minds.


44 posted on 06/29/2005 11:12:05 AM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Eagles6

Thank you, Eagles6. Some people would rather believe Terry Moran and the rest of the spin by the media. Sad.


45 posted on 06/29/2005 11:12:49 AM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Peach

mark for later


46 posted on 06/29/2005 11:13:10 AM PDT by armymarinemom (My sons freed Iraqi and Afghanistan Honor Roll students.And we're unlikely to get a look into this t)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JacksonCalhoun
Been there.

Seen your phony baloney, neocon website.

Back to the koolaid stand with ya.

47 posted on 06/29/2005 11:14:03 AM PDT by iconoclast (.. the president should "stop talking down" to Congress and the American people. - Anthony Cordesman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: billbears

Here you go, billbears. Read quotes directly from the reports (9/11 Commission and Senate Ingelligence Committee):

9/11 Commission says prominent member of AQ served in Iraq's militia.
June 20, 2004. Reuters.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1156957/posts

9/11 Commission reaffirms Bush administration view of Iraq/AQ ties.
June 21, 2004. RNC.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1157478/posts

What the Senate Intelligence Report said about the connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
July 22, 2004. The Weekly Standard.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1173423/posts

The 9/11 Commission found specific connections between Iraq and AQ. Specific names and dates are given from the report.
July 22, 2004. The Daily Standard.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/354tdeij.asp

The 9/11 Commission and Iraq/AQ Connections.
July 26, 2004. The Weekly Standard.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1173008/posts

Clinton feared Iraq gave AQ chemical weapons in Sudan under a cooperative agreement they had.
July 2004. 9/11 Commission
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1087373948467

Information about Shakir, the Iraqi who met with AQ at a pre-9/11 planning meeting. Also information about the Iraqi who mixed the chemicals for the bomb of the first WTC bombing.
August 2, 2004. The Weekly Standard.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/357lnryy.asp?pg=2

Specific quotes from 9/11 Commission Report regarding links between AQ and Iraq.
July 30, 2004.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1182042/posts
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1193821/posts

Kerry disputing 9/11 Commission and Senate Intelligence Reports. Actual page numbers and quotes within article of what the Reports DID say regarding the connections.
September 20, 2004. The Weekly Standard.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1214954/posts

Both the Senate Intelligence Committee Report and the 9/11 Commission documented the links and relationship between AQ and Iraq.
October 5, 2005. The Weekly Standard.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/731hezhy.asp?pg=2

Senate Intelligence Report says Zarqawi operated out of Saddam controlled territory - Baghdad.
October 20, 2004. The Weekly Standard.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/803czhfn.asp

It looks like the 9/11 Commission got an important detail wrong. Shakir probably DID work the Iraqi Fedayeen and he had documents on him when arrested that linked him to the 1993 WTC bombing. And he drove the 9/11 hijackers to a planning meeting.
October 23, 2004. The Hoover Institute. http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/1254304/posts?page=1


48 posted on 06/29/2005 11:16:40 AM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

Here are the articles which put to bed the lie that Iraq didn't have a relationship with AQ.

Saddam was AQ's ATM and considered OBL an intelligence asset.

Even the Clinton administration noted in their federal indictment of OBL that he had an understanding not to attack Iraq in exchange for working together against the West.

And in the 90's, the MSM wrote dozens of articles about Saddam's relationship with the jihadists and how the first WTC bomber took refuge in Iraq.

That and more here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1327993/posts


49 posted on 06/29/2005 11:19:00 AM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Peach
Unless you just like asking questions to which you already know the answer.

Most good debaters do, Peachy.

50 posted on 06/29/2005 11:19:19 AM PDT by iconoclast (.. the president should "stop talking down" to Congress and the American people. - Anthony Cordesman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson