Posted on 07/24/2006 7:22:31 PM PDT by april15Bendovr
Will the Left Ever Support the War on Terrorism?
Why are American liberals convinced that there’s no connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda?
Why is it said “We had no reason to invade Iraq”?
With the 5th year anniversary of 9/11 nearing, I reflect on a letter I wrote to my family in the first few days following the attacks explaining how proud I was of my country. Like most Americans, we were angry, perhaps moreso because my brother-in-law, who is an NYPD Emergency Service Unit officer, had to dig through the rubble at Ground Zero for days on end trying to find the remains of his three ESU partners who were murdered by the terrorists.
Patriotism in America after 9/11 was rekindled by this terrible act, symbolized in many ways by the countless American flags flying throughout the country, including many attached to cars or storefront windows.
So five years later, I wonder what happened to the saying “United we stand, divided we fall”? Why does the Left in our country show such disdainful vitriol toward our president and our troops’ efforts?
Are there any connections between Saddam and terrorism? You don’t have to look very hard to find them. Frontline PBS ran a show titled “Gunning For Saddam,” covering a story about Salman Pak, which was described by Sabah Khodada--a captain in the Iraqi army from 1982 to 1992--as a “training camp on the Tigris River some 15 miles southeast of Iraq’s capital. Training was majorly on terrorism. They would be trained on assassinations, kidnapping, hijacking of airplanes, hijacking of buses, public buses, hijacking of trains and all other kinds of operations related to terrorism.”
People can say what they want of Ann Coulter denigrating the Jersey Girls, but it is clear these women were used to advance a political agenda including manipulating the 9-11 Commission. Ironic how the Left was eager to expose Enron executives but ignored the suspicion that head 9-11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick benefited financially from the $10.8 billion scandal involving accounting irregularities and outrageous bonuses at Fannie Mae. The Business & Media Institute’s Web site (www.freemarketproject.org) had a story titled “Media Ignore Democratic Ties to Fannie Mae Scandal,” which asserted: “The Business & Media Institute previously documented how much the media overlooked about Democratic connections to Fannie Mae. According to that April 2005 report: ‘Former Chief Executive Officer Franklin Raines and former Vice Chairman Jamie Gorelick were both instrumental figures in the Clinton administration.’ ” Not a word mentioned during the 9-11 hearing about that news or the fact that as No. 2 in the Clinton Justice Department as Deputy Attorney General, in 1995 Gorelick was a key architect of an information "wall" causing intelligence lapses leading to 9-11. Gorelick’s participation on the 9-11 Commission clearly was a conflict of interest. A 2004 Washington Times article titled “Memos show Gorelick involvement in 'wall'” noted: “Newly released Justice Department memos show that September 11 panel commissioner Jamie S. Gorelick was more intimately involved than previously thought with hampering communications between U.S. intelligence and law-enforcement agencies fighting terrorism. As the No. 2 person in the Clinton Justice Department, Ms. Gorelick rejected advice from the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, who warned against placing more limits on communications between law-enforcement officials and prosecutors pursuing counterterrorism cases, according to several internal documents written in summer 1995.”
I am in agreement with syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin on her blog entry titled “9/11 Commission Ignored Key Facts On Hijackers,” In which she said: “The 9/11 Commission was supposed to give the American people a complete, unbiased story of the government failures that led up to the September 11 terrorist attacks. But the Commission now admits its acclaimed Final Report ignored key information provided by a U.S. Army data mining project, Able Danger, which identified Mohammed Atta and several other hijackers as potential terrorists prior to the September 11 attacks. The Able Danger team recommended that Atta and the other suspected terrorists be deported. That recommendation, however, was not shared with law enforcement officials, presumably because of the ‘wall’ between intelligence activities and domestic law enforcement. According to the New York Times, the 9/11 Commission officials said that Able Danger had not been included in their report because some of the information sounded inconsistent with what they thought they knew about Atta. In other words, the Commission staffers were told about the project but ignored it because it didn't fit their pre-conceived conclusions.”
This same info had been confirmed by Laurie Mylroie and Mansoor Ijaz, who were both President Clinton’s advisors on the Middle East. In a CNN article titled “Laurie Mylroie: Is Iraq involved with U.S. terror attacks?” Mylroie said: “Iraq is a difficult problem, and has been since the Gulf War. Many mistakes have been made, because it's inevitable that in human endeavor there are mistakes. Under the Clinton administration, specifically in February 1993 with the first attack on the Trade Center, Clinton dealt with the issue dishonestly. New York FBI believed in 1993 that Iraq was behind the Trade Center bombing. That was accepted by the White House, that New York FBI might well be right. In June, 1993, Clinton attacked Iraqi intelligence headquarters. He said that that was punishment for Saddam's attempt to kill George Bush when Bush visited Kuwait in April, but Clinton also believed that it would deter Saddam from all future attacks of terrorism, and that it would address the WTC bombing, too, so that Saddam would not think to carry out further attacks against the U.S.”
The Left insisted that we solve the Saddam and Iraq problems with other world leaders via the United Nations. Yes that is the same organization involved in the Oil for Food scandal.What exactly did the U.N. do to stop Saddam in the past? Reference.com defines Resolution 1441: “United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 is a resolution by the UN Security Council, passed unanimously on November 8, 2002, offering Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284), notably to provide "an accurate full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by Resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles". Resolution 1441 threatens "serious consequences" if these are not met. It reasserted demands that UN weapons inspectors should have "immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access" to sites of their choosing, in order to ascertain compliance.”
While the left was hoping to cash in on America’s ADD and ADHD problems, they neglect to point out Operation Desert Fox. Described by Reference.com: “Operation Desert Fox was the military codename for a major three-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets from December 16-December 18, 1998 by the United States and United Kingdom. It was a major flare-up in the Iraq disarmament crisis. The stated goal of the cruise missile and bombing attacks was to "degrade" Saddam Hussein's ability to produce weapons of mass destruction. In reaction to the attack, three of five permanent members of the UN Security Council (Russia, France, and the People's Republic of China) called for lifting of the eight-year oil embargo on Iraq, recasting or disbanding UNSCOM, and firing its chairman, Australian diplomat Richard Butler. The strikes came at a particularly difficult time for US President Bill Clinton, as he was impeached on December 19.”
There have been many documents found in Iraq showing links. These documents have been described as the Harmony Database. Many are studied at the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point. They are also referred to as Docex Project. Millions of documents that sat deep within a warehouse in Doha, Qatar, may shed some light on links between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Recently they have been released by National Intelligence Director John Negroponte to the general public. Why would the Left be so convinced there are no connections when we still have intelligence information in the process of being translated?
Recently Fox News published an article on their Web site titled “Iraq How-to Manual Directed Arab Military Operatives In Afghanistan.” The article said, “The document, apparently written before the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, could bolster the Bush administration's contention that Saddam Hussein was providing support for Islamic extremists who were plotting against America.”
Why is the New York Times printing our intelligence secrets? According to Snopes.com, “After the September 11 terrorist attacks on America, Stephen Jukes, Reuters' head of global news, directed his staff to avoid the using word ‘terrorist’ in their news reports to describe the perpetrators of those attacks.” Are they trying to be competitive with Al Jazeera in aiding the enemy? We captured Saddam when the liberals said it could not be done and we killed his murderous sons Uday and Qusay. We killed Zarqawi when the liberals said it could not be done, and now members of the United States Senate report weapons of mass destruction when the Left said there were none. There seems to be a media blackout on many of these connections, and I want to know why. Is American liberals’ perception so faulty and anger so strong that they are willing for us to lose the war on terrorism? We can’t hold hands with radical Islamic terrorists or Al Qaeda and sing Kumbaya.
Answer: NO.
Only if Bill Clinton replaces Kofi, and the War consists of inaction, building Nuclear plants for hostile regimes and allows for the bugging of the State Department..
The Activism sidebar is reserved for Activism, protests, news and business of Free Republic Chapters.
Not this.
Please read the following for FR's posting rules for further guidelines.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1611173/posts
Thanks,
The hard left has decided that all problems in the world are the fault of America and that we deserve whatever happens to us. They seem to think that if America withdraws from the world, the world will be happy happy joy joy land.
I would love to send this to newspapers but I'm afaid it is to many words for a letter to the editor.
Only when the War on Terror is fought only with words.
If I had a nickel for every letter I had to drop from my letters....... : ) I'm bookmarking to read when the neurons in my brain are energized. Looked good on a fly over ; )
The moment a Democrat President declares War on Terror (and actually means it in stark contrast to BJ Clinton), that is when the MSM will discover this very serious war against Nazi-like Islamic-terrorists that has been allowed to blossom under Republican rule.
Check it out.
...Born in a Palestinian refugee camp in Lebanon, [Imad] Hamad was a suspected member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), the Communist faction of Palestinian terrorism responsible for countless homicide bombings and the October 2001 assassination of Israeli Tourism Minister Rehavam Zeevi.
The INS was so opposed to Hamad’s presence in the United States that it fought to deport him for over two decades. But, under political pressure from Michigan politicians, like Senator Carl Levin and Rep. David Bonior, the immigration judge chose to disregard classified evidence, and he is now a U.S. citizen. (Hamad’s lawyer, Noel Saleh, proudly proclaimed that he—Saleh—financially supported Hezbollah.)
Since then, as Midwest Regional Director of the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), Hamad has been busy promoting the terrorist cause—doing interviews throughout the Detroit media supporting Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic hate....------- "Madeline Sweeney might be turning over in her grave," by Debbie Schlussel
The leftwingnuts are quite aware that they are part of the terrorist apparatus.
Yes, when America changes its name to Terrorism.
What's good for terrorists is good for the left. The enemy of their enemy is their friend. My new tag.
Sure they will, when they can define "terrorism" as the action of anyone who seeks to stop leftists from subverting the Constitution.
Never ever. One too many alleged pacifists or nutjobs get in the way.
I pray that millions of Americans can rid themselves of their harmful mental disorder.
In a word.....NO
The reason they can do this is because they live in a society protected from destruction by the fear of violent retaliation. The US has not had to get involved in many wars because others are too scared to start with us--due to our military power. These liberals conveniently sidestep that fact and jump right to being anti-war, a position they could not take in a country that had no mighty military protecting its citizens.
They will never support the WOT because they know that whatever they do WE will support it, and in the process protect them without their having to ask for that protection.
Given that one of their most revered saints, Bobby Kennedy, was murdered by an anti-Israel Palestinian, yet the Left continues to support the Palestinians, I'd say... um, probably not.
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.