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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thank you, Eagles6. Some people would rather believe Terry Moran and the rest of the spin by the media. Sad.
mark for later
Seen your phony baloney, neocon website.
Back to the koolaid stand with ya.
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
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
Most good debaters do, Peachy.
Uh, yeah the wash post is a liberal rag and as some of us at FR know, the 911 commission was a whitewash and a soviet circus trial used to attack the administration. "Dick" Clark was completely discredited and one of the facilitators of terrorism on our soil sat on the commission instead of in front of it.
Now that would be interesting if you were a good debater.
You know you two have at it. I went through this with the invisible WMDs that had 'impeccable' sources for existing and we know how that has worked out. Conservatives were right and Republicans were wrong..again.
Don't use logic and facts. They are as alien to them as cosmic dust and in their view carry about as much weight.
Hard evidence Saddam’s WMDs were removed from Iraq: the CW plot against JordanNews of this foiled plot should have provided conclusive proof that what President Bush feared, and which justified the effort to take Saddam down, was real – that Saddam allowed the operation of terrorist groups, especially al-Qaeda, within Iraq, and that terrorists trained in Iraq and supplied with a significant quality of WMD materials from Iraq, could have international reach. News of this foiled terrorist plot to use WMDs in a spectacular attack in Jordan received scant attention in the US media. While ABC’s “Nightline” carried the story, and similar stories appeared in articles published in the New York Post and the Wall Street Journal, the American news media did not give this news the significant level of attention it deserved. The news media’s mantra is that the failure to find stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq is a scandal that rests on the head of George W. Bush. “Bush lied!” The real scandal here is the failure or refusal of the American news media to report and pursue events which give credence and justification to President Bush’s policies in Iraq.On April 13, 2004, Jordanian security forces foiled an al-Qaeda plot against the nation’s intelligence agency. The plot, reported on April 26 by Agence France-Presse (AFP), involved a plan to use trucks packed with 20 tons of chemical explosives, including blistering agents, nerve gas and choking agents. Jordanian officials estimated that had the attack been successful, the amount of chemicals involved had the potential of killing up to 80,000 people.
Six members of the terror network which planned to execute the plot were arrested and four others were killed in a series of raids in Jordan which concluded on April 20. The ringleader of the terror network was a Jordanian, Azmi al-Jayussi. Jayussi had been recruited for the operation in Iraq by al-Qaeda leader Abu Massab al-Zarqawi. Zarqawi was identified by Jordanian officials as the mastermind of chemical weapons plot.
According to a Jordanian security official interviewed by AFP, “Jayussi started to plan for the operation in Iraq where he had moved to from Afghanistan. He received direct orders from his leader, Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi, to whom Jayussi had pledged allegiance and absolute obedience since he met him in al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan.”
In a taped statement, Jayussi related how his first encounter with Zarqawi had been in Herat, Afghanistan, and how he later connected up with him again in Saddam’s Iraq. He stated that it was Zarqawi who had trained him in the use of “explosives and strong poisons.” Excerpts of Jayussi’s taped statement, which were aired on ABC’s “Nightline” on April 26, 2004, revealed that the planning and training for the WMD plot took place in Iraq more than a year before the US-led coalition invasion.
In Iraq, Zarqawi introduced Jayussi to another of his Jordanian followers, Muwafaq Adwan. Muwafaq was killed in a shootout with Jordanian police in Amman on April 20. Jayussi told Jordanian security officials that Zarqawi had ordered Muwafaq and him to Jordan where “[o]ur mission was to instigate military work” in the country.
In Jordan, Jayussi was aided by several Syrians under Zarqawi’s direction. The aim of their operation was to attack Jordan and its ruling family as part of a “war against crusaders and infidels.”
Anti-terror experts said that the network’s 20 tons of explosives would have caused “two explosions: a traditional one and a chemical in an area of two square kilometers.”
“The chemical explosion would lead to the emission of poisonous chemical gasses which would have caused physical deformities and direct injuries to the lungs and eyesight,” said one of the experts on a Jordanian news program. “Outside this circle, the human loss would amount to around 80,000 people dead and 160,000 injured.”
To fund the operation, Jayussi said that he received the equivalent of $170,000 (US) in installments from Zarqawi, sent through messengers, most of them from Syria.
Another arrested suspect, Ahmed Samir, told Jordanian security that he had been trained in Iraq by a Zarqawi aide and worked on explosives for two months in a factory in Ramtha, near the Jordanian-Syrian border.
BTW, I see many of the 'reports' you have provided are from little Billy Kristol's magazine. Small wonder than Andrew McCarthy reports the link exists considering his ties to Kristol and the rest of the PNAC lackeys
It's indisputable about the connections between Iraq and AQ and even the formerly disgraced impeached president Clinton knew it and mentioned it in the Justice Department's federal indictment against OBL.
But facts will get in the way of your agenda, I guess. For sure, don't actually READ the 9/11 Commission Report but instead accept the media's spin. I see that's working real well for some people.
LOL. Well said. Facts. Schmacts.
Oooo, ABC, there's an unbiased news outlet. I am sure that an MSM news outlet would NEVER make something up to hurt this president. Why, if is rolls off their lips, it must be gospel.
We're arguing with someone who doesn't want to believe any of it. But thank you for that post; it was a good one.
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.