Posted on 11/19/2005 12:55:30 PM PST by new yorker 77
What is this baloney that there were no connections between Iraq and Osama bin Laden? Even the 9/11 Commission Report, which I believe is lacking in many respects, includes some useful findings all but ignored today by the media and war critics. Consider the following excerpts:
Page 61:
Bin Ladin was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq, even though Iraq's dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist agenda — save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against 'Crusaders' during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army.
To protect his own ties with Iraq, [Sudan's Islamic leader] Turabi, reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremist operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad's control. In the late 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Ladin's help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.
With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to his request. ... [T]he ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish common connections.
Page 66:
... In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin's Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large are attacks in December.
Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occured in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States. ...
The report goes on to say that no evidence was unearthed of a "collaborative operational relationship" or Iraqi cooperation in the 9/11 attacks. However, the existence of bin Ladin/al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein/Iraq connections, over a number of years, is indisputable.
Given this fact, and that both the president and Congress were informed by numerous intelligence officials and agencies that Saddam Hussein was pursuing weapons of mass destruction, it is simply a falsehood to claim that Iraq did not pose a national-security risk to the United States, or that there were no serious connections between Iraq and al Qaeda — connections which could develop further if Iraq had not been attacked.
Here's what Congress itself said in October 2002 in passing a joint resolution justifying and authorizing war against Iraq:
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people; Whereas members of al Qaida, 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;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself; ...
Did Iraq pose a serious threat to our national security? Yes. Did Congress believe Iraq posed a serious threat? Yes. Did Iraq have or seek to obtain weapons of mass destruction? Yes. Those are the facts.
— Mark R. Levin is author of the best-selling Men In Black, president of Landmark Legal Foundation, and a radio talk-show host on WABC in New York.
*cough cough*
http://www.foia.cia.gov/duelfer/Iraqs_WMD_Vol3.pdf
Link does work you liar.
"I agree. The more stridently and desperately conservatives defend the pretext for the war the more foolish we look."
YOU are not a conservative, but a Dem operative as shown by your posts praising Joe Wilson, and your claims that Murtha never said "Immediate Withdraw" from Iraq.
If Salman Pak was a terrorist camp it would be a house hold name. The defector that made the claims about its being used as a terrorist camp claimed that they had excercises where they landed on speeding trains in helicopters in order to hijack them. His credibility was deemed fanciful.
"If Salman Pak was a terrorist camp it would be a house hold name."
Hey Doc, got those pics of Salman Pak terrorist training camp handy?
The LAME stream media sat on the story.
You see, the media doesn't want us to win, just like the DEMS don't want us to win.
Do you think they'd report on the fact that uranium was found in Irq?
Not in any appreciable manner.
Frankly, I think my posts are over your head. If ad hominems and character assassination is all you can respond with I suggest you refrain from reading my posts.
Yeah but, but.. those are facts.
After we were attacked by the cowards of 9/11, President Bush told the world:
IF YOU AID/ABET OUR ENEMIES,
YOU ARE THE ENEMY.
It was a fair warning. People seem to have forgotten his warning.
"Frankly, I think my posts are over your head."
All liberals think that.
And they're always wrong.
"If ad hominems and character assassination is all you can respond with I suggest you refrain from reading my posts."
If lying, your claim that the Duelfer report link didn't work, and spouting DNC talking points is all you have, you should refrain from being here as FR is not a liberal debating forum.
You are most definitely a Dem.
LOL!!
Even Fox is barely watchable and only then in spurts.
5.56mm
bump
I disagree with you. Your solution of "just let Iraq/9/11thingy go" still leaves all those the CommiCrats brainwashed believing all the lies about the President and VP inventing the story so as to go to war for oil.
That's a serious and valid concern and and you've got a good argument. However, I stick by my position of defocussing on the link between Saddam and Al Quaida on grounds that are both cynical and practical.
The cynic in me says the brainwashed masses are not likely to listen to any argument. Even the rational Democrats who believe the President simply made some errors with no ill intent are staying silent on that point because they know it is to their political advantage to let the loonies have free reign.
The pragmatist in me says that nothing succeeds like success. Remember the quote "It's the economy stupid." Well the economy is OK so it's not the economy but the war. We need to win the war.
I believe that focusing on the reality that we are commited there now, that the consequences of leaving early are massive, the humanitarian good that we have done, what a bad guy Saddam was and our plan to leave Iraq with a stable friendly democracy is the way to get the support we need to finish the job. When we win the war many of these other concerns will evaporate so I think we need to focus on how best to do that.
But I respect your concerns and if I thought we had a reasonable chance of changing minds then I'd agree with your strategy.
jihad bump
bump for later
Have you in fact praised Joe Wilson?
I suspect there are more WMDs yet to be found in Iraq and a good deal of material that was secreted out of Iraq. I know that there was more found than you have listed. I have read accounts of it on FR taken from major news services. I'm sure you have too. Thank you for bringing me back to center on this. It is easy to forget the original point when you take the defensive against propaganda. (ie Moore/Sheehy/Kennedy/Murtha)
bump for bookmark.
This argument has nothing to do with WMD being the "lone issue". However, disarming Saddam of his WMD was the "overshadowing" issue for invading Iraq and the one issue exceeding all others. You need to reread what I posted and what you posted.
You clearly stated that WMD weren't the centerpiece of Bush's reasoning for invading Iraq. You couldn't more wrong. I gave you several quotes from the President that specifically say, WMD were the major reason, the issue of central importance for invading Iraq.
>>>>... it shouldn't be forgotten that 9/11 and Al Queda were hardly the centerpiece for the administrations case for war. Nor were WMDs. It is simply leftist/MSM myth that the President made those things the most important.
It's no my myth my FRiend.
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.