Go After Iran and Syria, Not Iraq, Graham Tells NY Times

NewsMax ^ | 9/10/02

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

Intelligence Committee chairman Senator Bob Graham, says the Bush administration's focus on Iraq distracts from the war against terrorism and describes Syria and Iran as nations that should be the first targets of any aggressive effort against state sponsors of terrorist activity.

The Florida Democrat, also told the Times he fears that the U.S. is becoming "bogged down" in an unproductive manhunt in Afghanistan and that America needs an "aggressive war plan" to strike at terrorist organizations.

"Victory is going to be won on the offensive, going to where the terrorists are and aggressively taking them on," Graham said. He added that Iraq should not be the priority on the basis of President Bush's own criteria: those countries that were accomplices in the Sept. 11 attacks or that provided a sanctuary for terrorist groups.

"By those two standards, Iraq does not make it very high on the list of a terrorist state," Mr. Graham said.

The anti-terrorism campaign, he said, should focus on countries that had a significant Qaeda presence or terrorist training camps. "Those are primarily in Syria, in the Syrian-controlled areas of Lebanon and in Iran," the senator said.

He added a warning: "Avoid the allure of distractions. At this point, I think Iraq is a primary distraction from achieving our goals or reducing the threat of international terrorism."

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

What advantages will Hussein have with nuclear weapons?

[kpp_kpp]

oh come on. get the one in the middle first, then move west, east, AND south.

[PhiKapMom]

Can you believe this? Sure hope in 2004 he is swept out of the Senate by a Florida Republican!

[omega4412]

...Go After Iran and Syria...

Next. Take out Saddam and the weapons of mass destruction.
Then Iran, Syria, and the Bekaa Valley...

[meenie]

Many nations are behind the scenes supporting terrorists and using them to weaken the United States. You can count on them getting the WMD's from different rogue nations. Such is the price we pay for our various police and peacekeeping actions.

[Seydlitz]

Has it occurred to Senator Dumbass that Iraq provides an ideal staging area for use against both Iran and Syria?

[SunStar]

Iraq first, then Iran and Syria/Lebanon/Hizbullah.

[My2Cents]

The problem is that no Democrat member of Congress has any credibility on the issue of the war on terror. They are all in "stall" mode, hoping that Bush doesn't move on Iraq before the November elections. They know that if we move on Iraq before November, there will be an inevitable bounce for the President and his Party. Hence, the Honorable Senator Graham appears to come across as thoughtful and hawkish on the war on terror, when in reality he's simply playing the partisan game of spreading doubt and confusion about our nation's security needs and aims.

[My2Cents]

Plus, taking down Saddam and bringing regime change to Baghdad will destablize the radical Arab regimes of Syria and Iran. What does anyone want to bet that a successful operation in Iraq will cause Syria and Iran to "moderate" their policies. We may achieve huge secondary objectives by pursuing a direct operation against Iraq.

[Samwise]

If Bush goes after Syria or Iran first, he and his cohorts will be screaming bloody murder because he isn't going after Iraq.

Leadership is difficult.

Being a pain-in-the-ass yapping critic is easy.

[Contra]

Democrats are trying desperately to head off an attack of Iraq before the mid-term elections because they know it would give Bush and the Republicans an advantage going into the elections. That's all this statement is about. I do agree with the idea that we should strike Syria and Iran too, however; in fact, several others as well. If the President wanted to strike Iran and Syria prior to Iraq that would be fine too, all of them as well as others need to get hit. But say President Bush took the senator's advice and hit Iran and Syria before Iraq and before the mid-term elections, do you think the senator would still support that action? I bet he would change his tune then. Democrats are only interested in political gain, even if it means hurting the nation and the American people in the process.

[Guillermo]

Don't count on it. Bob Graham is unbeatable in Fla.

[jdege]

I don't know, I kind of like the Syrian option.

I mean, we're already having problems with access to staging areas.

Why not do an amphibious assault on Lebanon, roll over Syria, and then straight to Baghdad.

It's a direction he wouldn't be execting, and it would clean up a lot of messes...

[RightWhale]

Sen Graham is discussing which leachfield to dig up and backfill first, not whether all the leachfields will be drained. These Congressional Dems are hawk to the bone, always have been.

[ravingnutter]

He added that Iraq should not be the priority on the basis of President Bush's own criteria: those countries that were accomplices in the Sept. 11 attacks or that provided a sanctuary for terrorist groups.

I don't know about that...

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was visited at one of his palaces by Osama bin Laden in the '80s. A decade later, Saddam's son Uday met with bin Laden, and Saddam gave him money. "He gave to Osama bin Laden," says Parisoula Lampsos, who says she was Saddam's mistress for 30 years.

NY Post Story

We may soon see the part of the iceberg that is below the water line... In the last couple of days, we've heard about Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the Al Qaeda quartermaster who is said to have plotted the Sept. 11 attacks and financed the hijackers with money. He is also said to be a close associate and even relative of Ramzi Yousef, who is presently sitting in the federal slammer for the first World Trade Center bombing.

If we buy Laurie Mylroie's painstaking investigation of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing — as Paul Wolfowitz and James Woolsey evidently do — that concludes that Yousef was an Iraqi intelligence agent, and if we know that a relative of Yousef's was the mastermind of the Sept. 11 plot, the question arises: Why wouldn't we think that Saddam was involved in both attacks on the World Trade Center?

Saddam Hussein and Sept. 11

In the little Arab emirate of Qatar a few weeks ago, police arrested a suspect named Ahmed Shakir. The CIA and FBI are very interested in Shakir. For one thing, he comes from Iraq and thus offers a potential connection to Saddam Hussein. For another, he was spotted by Malaysian intelligence at a terrorist gathering in Kuala Lumpur in January 2000 to discuss the suicide bombing plot on the U.S. destroyer Cole. Also at that summit meeting were two of the men who later hijacked the plane that flew into the Pentagon on September 11.

Source

[TheRedSoxWinThePennant]

it will be interesting to see after we woop hussein's ass and start moving toward iran if he still has this posistion in my opinion he's just trying to look tough he knows saddam's head in #1 on the chopping block we'll see how he is when iran or syria is next in line graham is a boob

[yendu bwam]

We should (and will) go after Iraq, Iran AND Syria.

[The Great Satan]

Hmm, I think I'll trust Bush, Cheney, Condi, Wolfowitz and Rummy on this one.

[Delbert]

Go for a Tri Fecta and hit all 3.

[agincourt1415]

With you all the way, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria would not be but a long weekend. Yes Saudi better now than when the radical Muslims take over.