Posted on 09/11/2014 5:43:42 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
“We went to Afghanistan, Harkin because that’s where the G-Damn terrorists were training and planning”
As vile as Tom Harkin is he happens to be right about Iraq having no connection to 9-11. Those claims originated with the discredited Ahmed Chalabi, a political scam artist. No one has ever produced any evidence backing up Chalabi and we have had years to do it.
Iraq was notable before 9-11 because no Iraqis had ever been found as members of Arab terrorist cells. Saddam Hussein was as far from being an Islamic zealot as his hero Joe Stalin whom he imitated right down to the mustache. Saddam even had Christians in his cabinet. He didn’t care about religion. He cared about power.
Tom Harkin has been a communist sympathizer since his visit to VN in 1970 with pro-VC propagandist Don Luce.
Harkin also falsely claimed to be a Vietnam veteran.
He worked very hard to support the Marxist Sandinista dictatorship in Nicaragua in the mid-1980’s, along with Kerry, Chris Dodd and Ted Kennedy.
Supported the Soviet/Communist Party USA “peace” front, the U.S. Peace Council, the US affiliate of the Soviet KGB’s “World Peace Council” (1979 supporter of the founding of the USPC, led by longtime CPUSA leader and Hanoi supporter/Castro supporter, Mike Meyerson).
see both volumes of “The Enemies Within” and “The Enemies Within: Communists, Marxists and Socialists in the US Congress”, Trevor Loudon, =2011 and 2013, www.pacificfreedomfoundation.com, for details and photos of Harkin and the others mentioned above.
Perhaps not.
Same as before 9/11...
It figures he would not get the significance of the last twenty years or so.
Actually, Jennifer, we under-reacted to 911. The entire middle east should have been put on notice that western powers will never ever tolerate such barbarism. A Truman response was needed and deserved. Saudis should have been undercut by an hyper shift towards domestic energy. The training camps and supporters should have been radiated out of existence.
Harkin never flew a mission he didn’t like - LOL!
Why are you perpetrating the myth that Iraq was part of our 9/11 response? Were you under a rock in 2003?
Why don’t you go read the Wikipedia on the Iraq war or other online information sources before wasting our time -along with Mr. Harkin, on uninformed assumptions?
As Bush clearly stated on many occasions the Iraq war was due to Saddam’s continued violation of UN sanctions and WMD inspections which led to the strong suspicion Saddam was continuing his development of WMDs.
Perhaps I shouldn’t be so hard on you. During the Iraq war there were a few idiots on FR quoting DU sources saying Saddam didn’t have any WMDs even though he gassed his own people and Iranians during the 80s.
“Why are you perpetrating the myth that Iraq was part of our 9/11 response? “
Oh, I suppose for reasons like those that prompt Victor Davis Hanson to do so as well. He features 9-11 prominently on his own list of why we invaded Iraq. So you may want to set him straight after you re-educate me:
” On the tenth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, the back-and-forth recriminations continue, but in all the “not me” defenses, we have forgotten, over the ensuing decade, the climate of 2003 and why we invaded in the first place. The war was predicated on six suppositions:
“1. 9/11 and the 1991 Gulf War. The Bush administration made the argument that in the post-9/11 climate there should be a belated reckoning with Saddam Hussein.
“2. Afghanistan. A second reason was the rapid victory in the war in Afghanistan immediately following 9/11.
“3. Everyone on board. A third reason was the overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress, in the media, and among the public — for reasons well beyond WMD.
“4. WMD. A fourth reason was the specter of WMD.
“5. Nation-building. A fifth reason was the notion of reformulating Iraq, so that instead of being the problem in the region it would become a solution.
“6. Oil! Sixth and last was the issue of oil. Had Iraq been Rwanda, the Bush administration would not have invaded.
“TEN YEARS LATER
The invasion of Iraq was a perfect storm predicated on all these suppositions — the absence of any one of which might well have postponed or precluded the invasion.”
“Why don’t you go read the Wikipedia on the Iraq war or other online information sources before wasting our time -along with Mr. Harkin, on uninformed assumptions?”
Pardon me for wasting your time. While evidently Wikipedia says something you that find more amenable, I think I’ll stick with VDH and National Review just this time. Thanks for your concern.
Rather than a single writer’s fantasies try referencing the actual political resolutions and it’s justifications.
The resolution cited many factors as justifying the use of military force against Iraq:[2][3]
• Iraq’s noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.
• Iraq “continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability” and “actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability” posed a “threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region.”
• Iraq’s “brutal repression of its civilian population.”
• Iraq’s “capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people”.
• Iraq’s hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
• Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
• Iraq’s “continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations,” including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
• Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.
• The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them.
• The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
• The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.
• Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution#Contents
VDH’s #6: Oil? Spit. We didn’t get a dime’s worth of oil out of Iraq and the country is awash in it.
“Rather than a single writer’s fantasies”
Since you evidently haven’t a clue who Victor Davis Hanson is I suggest you ask around before making a bigger fool of yourself.
“• Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.”
This citation you posted from the Iraq Resolution links Iraq with 9-11. It’s difficult to argue that the Bush administration never claimed any such link when your own source offers evidence to the contrary.
In the end no proof was ever found to back up the claim that al-Qaeda was in Iraq while Saddam was in power. That claim originated with political con artist Ahmed Chalabi whom I mentioned upthread. Chalabi was the source of much of the bad information that misled US intelligence agencies in the runup to the Iraq war. The French suspect that Chalabi was working for Iran.
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.