Posted on 06/04/2004 1:01:43 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
On Sept. 20, 2001, President Bush told a joint session of the Congress – to thunderous applause: "We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
The president paused, drew a deep breath, and told the Congress, the country and the world, "From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."
The cheers resounded from both sides of the aisle – even Teddy Kennedy lumbered to his feet. The fires were finally out at the Pentagon. The ruins of the World Trade Center still smoldered in New York. The country was numb with grief.
As we investigated who dared to kill more innocent Americans in a few hours than were lost on D-Day or at Pearl Harbor, some of the evidence seemed to point in the direction of Baghdad.
There were mysterious meetings between Mohammed Atta in Prague before 9-11 and between senior Iraqi and al-Qaida envoys. There was Hussein's connection to the Kurdish al-Qaida affiliate, Ansar al-Islam. There was the hindsight intelligence that seem to suggest a connection between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein that developed following the first Gulf War.
Until early 2003, it would have been difficult for any civilized nation to argue Saddam's Iraq was not a terrorist regime. Saddam sent paymasters to the Palestinian Authority to dole out checks to the families of suicide bombers. He supplied cash and weapons to Palestinian terrorists.
Saddam's agents were sent to Kuwait to carry out a terrorist attack aimed at assassinating former President George Bush. Even such political luminaries as John Kerry, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Madeline Albright and Richard Cohen all used the word "terrorist" at one time or another to describe Saddam's regime.
Since the fall of Saddam, documents have been authenticated detailing high-level meetings between members of Saddam's regime and members of al-Qaida. Iraqi agents traveled to Afghanistan in 1998 to meet with Osama bin Laden. Osama's representatives were accommodated in Baghdad. One document even outlines a deal between Saddam's government and al-Qaida to provide training facilities.
On Jan. 15, 1999, ABC News reported that three intelligence agencies believed Saddam had offered asylum to bin Laden. Peter Jennings announced that, "Intelligence sources say bin Laden's long relationship with the Iraqis began as he helped Sudan's fundamentalist government in their efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction."
Those "intelligence sources" relied on by Peter Jennings were not Bush administration sources ... Bush was governor of Texas in January 1999.
When the Clinton administration finally got around to indicting Osama bin Laden for the 1998 Africa bombings, the indictment said, in part: "al-Qaida reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al-Qaida would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al-Qaida would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."
On Aug. 27, 1998 – 20 days after al-Qaida attacked the U.S. embassies in Africa – Babel (a very interesting name, biblically speaking), the government newspaper run by Saddam's son Uday Hussein, published an editorial proclaiming bin Laden "an Arab and Islamic hero."
A bit more than a year after Saddam's regime crumbled, the evidence of a link between Saddam's Hussein and al-Qaida is undisputed. So, under the Bush Doctrine, as enunciated in his speech and approved by Congress, and under previously established U.S. policy for regime change in Iraq, as declared by President Clinton in 1998, it defies evidence and honesty how half the nation can argue the war was not justified.
Yet Al Gore's recent speech supporting John Kerry made declarations so far off the wall that New York Post columnist John Podhoretz questioned whether Gore had gone clinically insane.
Even John Kerry distanced himself from Al Gore – but only to keep Gore from slobbering all over him. After the coast was clear, Kerry repeated the same charges, but managed to do so without his eyes bugging out and his face turning purple.
They charged that George Bush led America recklessly into an unjustified war and, worst of all, began laying plans for this reckless attack – in advance. Never mind that it was acknowledged in the past by all sides to be a proven terrorist state with clear ties to al-Qaida!
Now fully grasp the enormity of this deception being peddled here: When the intelligence upon which everyone relied for the past 12 years was discovered to be flawed, somehow, that became evidence that Bush "lied." For this charge to be true, we would have to establish that the president had sources of evidence more credible than what President Clinton and all the other Democratic luminaries had.
Whether or not WMD will be found eventually – which remains a distinct possibility – is rhetorical. But the evidence strongly supports doing whatever was necessary to remove Saddam and prevent Iraq from becoming a haven for the al-Qaida terrorist network that we just drove out of Afghanistan.
The evidence clearly shows that Bush is not guilty as charged. But his hanging is to proceed right on schedule. In this coming election, the Democrats – backed by a new breed of liberals – want to win at any cost. It matters not what the truth is. The only thing that matters is to spin information so that it enables you to win. And with such allies as Hollywood and the standard media, the "spin doctors" can get lies repeated enough to take on the semblance of truth.
But how does all this affect the troops who are daily risking their lives? Somewhere in Iraq this morning, an American soldier will pick up this week's Newsweek and read these words from a column by Christopher Dickey: "American soldiers in Iraq have been put in the wrong place at the wrong time for the wrong reasons. But like any G.I. Joe in World War II, they're making the best of a bad situation."
I think Dickey intended to compliment the troops. But what if your best friend died in your arms because he was "put in the wrong place at the wrong time for the wrong reasons"?
Bump!
While the Clintoons were selling nuclear/ballistic missile secrets to China and covering up Jihadist attacks on America, all those alphabet soup news orginizations were quiet as mouses.
Thanks, freeper friend.
Saddam at least knew 9/11 was coming and had a decade's old relationship with Osama bin Laden.
Even Bill Clinton admitted in the late 90's that OBL agreed not to attack Iraq in exchange for WMD training.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1127451/posts
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.