Posted on 07/24/2006 7:22:31 PM PDT by april15Bendovr
Will the Left Ever Support the War on Terrorism?
Why are American liberals convinced that there’s no connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda?
Why is it said “We had no reason to invade Iraq”?
With the 5th year anniversary of 9/11 nearing, I reflect on a letter I wrote to my family in the first few days following the attacks explaining how proud I was of my country. Like most Americans, we were angry, perhaps moreso because my brother-in-law, who is an NYPD Emergency Service Unit officer, had to dig through the rubble at Ground Zero for days on end trying to find the remains of his three ESU partners who were murdered by the terrorists.
Patriotism in America after 9/11 was rekindled by this terrible act, symbolized in many ways by the countless American flags flying throughout the country, including many attached to cars or storefront windows.
So five years later, I wonder what happened to the saying “United we stand, divided we fall”? Why does the Left in our country show such disdainful vitriol toward our president and our troops’ efforts?
Are there any connections between Saddam and terrorism? You don’t have to look very hard to find them. Frontline PBS ran a show titled “Gunning For Saddam,” covering a story about Salman Pak, which was described by Sabah Khodada--a captain in the Iraqi army from 1982 to 1992--as a “training camp on the Tigris River some 15 miles southeast of Iraq’s capital. Training was majorly on terrorism. They would be trained on assassinations, kidnapping, hijacking of airplanes, hijacking of buses, public buses, hijacking of trains and all other kinds of operations related to terrorism.”
People can say what they want of Ann Coulter denigrating the Jersey Girls, but it is clear these women were used to advance a political agenda including manipulating the 9-11 Commission. Ironic how the Left was eager to expose Enron executives but ignored the suspicion that head 9-11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick benefited financially from the $10.8 billion scandal involving accounting irregularities and outrageous bonuses at Fannie Mae. The Business & Media Institute’s Web site (www.freemarketproject.org) had a story titled “Media Ignore Democratic Ties to Fannie Mae Scandal,” which asserted: “The Business & Media Institute previously documented how much the media overlooked about Democratic connections to Fannie Mae. According to that April 2005 report: ‘Former Chief Executive Officer Franklin Raines and former Vice Chairman Jamie Gorelick were both instrumental figures in the Clinton administration.’ ” Not a word mentioned during the 9-11 hearing about that news or the fact that as No. 2 in the Clinton Justice Department as Deputy Attorney General, in 1995 Gorelick was a key architect of an information "wall" causing intelligence lapses leading to 9-11. Gorelick’s participation on the 9-11 Commission clearly was a conflict of interest. A 2004 Washington Times article titled “Memos show Gorelick involvement in 'wall'” noted: “Newly released Justice Department memos show that September 11 panel commissioner Jamie S. Gorelick was more intimately involved than previously thought with hampering communications between U.S. intelligence and law-enforcement agencies fighting terrorism. As the No. 2 person in the Clinton Justice Department, Ms. Gorelick rejected advice from the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, who warned against placing more limits on communications between law-enforcement officials and prosecutors pursuing counterterrorism cases, according to several internal documents written in summer 1995.”
I am in agreement with syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin on her blog entry titled “9/11 Commission Ignored Key Facts On Hijackers,” In which she said: “The 9/11 Commission was supposed to give the American people a complete, unbiased story of the government failures that led up to the September 11 terrorist attacks. But the Commission now admits its acclaimed Final Report ignored key information provided by a U.S. Army data mining project, Able Danger, which identified Mohammed Atta and several other hijackers as potential terrorists prior to the September 11 attacks. The Able Danger team recommended that Atta and the other suspected terrorists be deported. That recommendation, however, was not shared with law enforcement officials, presumably because of the ‘wall’ between intelligence activities and domestic law enforcement. According to the New York Times, the 9/11 Commission officials said that Able Danger had not been included in their report because some of the information sounded inconsistent with what they thought they knew about Atta. In other words, the Commission staffers were told about the project but ignored it because it didn't fit their pre-conceived conclusions.”
This same info had been confirmed by Laurie Mylroie and Mansoor Ijaz, who were both President Clinton’s advisors on the Middle East. In a CNN article titled “Laurie Mylroie: Is Iraq involved with U.S. terror attacks?” Mylroie said: “Iraq is a difficult problem, and has been since the Gulf War. Many mistakes have been made, because it's inevitable that in human endeavor there are mistakes. Under the Clinton administration, specifically in February 1993 with the first attack on the Trade Center, Clinton dealt with the issue dishonestly. New York FBI believed in 1993 that Iraq was behind the Trade Center bombing. That was accepted by the White House, that New York FBI might well be right. In June, 1993, Clinton attacked Iraqi intelligence headquarters. He said that that was punishment for Saddam's attempt to kill George Bush when Bush visited Kuwait in April, but Clinton also believed that it would deter Saddam from all future attacks of terrorism, and that it would address the WTC bombing, too, so that Saddam would not think to carry out further attacks against the U.S.”
The Left insisted that we solve the Saddam and Iraq problems with other world leaders via the United Nations. Yes that is the same organization involved in the Oil for Food scandal.What exactly did the U.N. do to stop Saddam in the past? Reference.com defines Resolution 1441: “United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 is a resolution by the UN Security Council, passed unanimously on November 8, 2002, offering Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284), notably to provide "an accurate full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by Resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles". Resolution 1441 threatens "serious consequences" if these are not met. It reasserted demands that UN weapons inspectors should have "immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access" to sites of their choosing, in order to ascertain compliance.”
While the left was hoping to cash in on America’s ADD and ADHD problems, they neglect to point out Operation Desert Fox. Described by Reference.com: “Operation Desert Fox was the military codename for a major three-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets from December 16-December 18, 1998 by the United States and United Kingdom. It was a major flare-up in the Iraq disarmament crisis. The stated goal of the cruise missile and bombing attacks was to "degrade" Saddam Hussein's ability to produce weapons of mass destruction. In reaction to the attack, three of five permanent members of the UN Security Council (Russia, France, and the People's Republic of China) called for lifting of the eight-year oil embargo on Iraq, recasting or disbanding UNSCOM, and firing its chairman, Australian diplomat Richard Butler. The strikes came at a particularly difficult time for US President Bill Clinton, as he was impeached on December 19.”
There have been many documents found in Iraq showing links. These documents have been described as the Harmony Database. Many are studied at the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point. They are also referred to as Docex Project. Millions of documents that sat deep within a warehouse in Doha, Qatar, may shed some light on links between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Recently they have been released by National Intelligence Director John Negroponte to the general public. Why would the Left be so convinced there are no connections when we still have intelligence information in the process of being translated?
Recently Fox News published an article on their Web site titled “Iraq How-to Manual Directed Arab Military Operatives In Afghanistan.” The article said, “The document, apparently written before the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, could bolster the Bush administration's contention that Saddam Hussein was providing support for Islamic extremists who were plotting against America.”
Why is the New York Times printing our intelligence secrets? According to Snopes.com, “After the September 11 terrorist attacks on America, Stephen Jukes, Reuters' head of global news, directed his staff to avoid the using word ‘terrorist’ in their news reports to describe the perpetrators of those attacks.” Are they trying to be competitive with Al Jazeera in aiding the enemy? We captured Saddam when the liberals said it could not be done and we killed his murderous sons Uday and Qusay. We killed Zarqawi when the liberals said it could not be done, and now members of the United States Senate report weapons of mass destruction when the Left said there were none. There seems to be a media blackout on many of these connections, and I want to know why. Is American liberals’ perception so faulty and anger so strong that they are willing for us to lose the war on terrorism? We can’t hold hands with radical Islamic terrorists or Al Qaeda and sing Kumbaya.
Not until after Islamic fascist kill over 5 million people ... THEN the left will finally succumb to being wrong... But again this is just a guess ... If I'm wrong .... The left will never get it.
I've shared several times on this forum, my experiences in sharing adult beverages with various Union professionals. Red Diaper babies all, and I think they are a typical representation of the types that run the day to day work of the Democrat Party. They truly believe this nation is the source of all the world's ills. Ironically, these 'proletariat loving' types were incredibly rude to the wait staff.
David Horowitz has several books on the subject, all accurate. Ward Churchill, of the "...they were all little Eichmann's..." fame,has many adherents to that thought.
The Donks are self destructing. Tie the Kos albatros around their necks.
Negative,Will Robinson.In moonbatland, War on Terror = Bush.
Most Letters to the Editor only allow for about 400 words. Fat chance I would ever get published.
Yes, but only if terrorist are angry white males--especially Christians (but increasingly Jews too). Everyone else can't possibly be a terrorist. They are only exercising "alternative resistance" against oppression (by angry white males).
I was being sarcastic .. hard to show that online ;) freep on!
It is offensive to suggest that the Left does not support the War on Terrorism. They support the war more fervently than any. The only problem is that they support it from the wrong side.
I would like to think that if a certain number of Americans died, then the rest (even the Left) would come to their senses. [G-d forbid that ever happens] However, I don't hold out much hope for that--even if 5M+ died. The essence of being a liberal is perpetual self-delusion; that is a hard habit to break.
Will the Left Ever Support the War on Terrorism?
Just as soon as a pro-US, right-wing terrorist organization springs up, I'm sure they'll join the War on Terrorism enthusiastically.
Not as we know it now.
When the enemy hangs a liberal member of congress for violating shari'a, then maybe, unless it can be blamed on a Republican.
I am still looking for the quote from Joe Kennedy during a Congressional hearing stating "We need not go to war with Germany. Hitler is no threat to America."
I heard Sean Hannity talking about it on his radio show.
"Will the Left Ever Support the War on Terrorism?"
Jeeez. . .I hope not, then they might actually come up
with a credible alternative and regain some semblance of
discipline and responsibility, however fleeting this would be, and finally recognize that they have squandered six and a half years of potential, effective bicameral politics and all in the name of the socialist international.
No! Not even for the JEWS who they scrounge their $ off of.
save
The left doesn't think there is a war on terror, having said that I'd say no. Move along.
Huh?
That reminds me of an observation I made awhile ago.
freedom fighter : freedom :: fire fighter: fireThere are occasional exceptions, but the analogy seems to hold more often than not.
seeing the left thinks we are the terrorist yes they will support the war on terror. God those people are so screwed up.
"So five years later, I wonder what happened to the saying “United we stand, divided we fall”?
I have not forgotten. 9/11/2001 is always in my thoughts and deeds.
It's my pesonal choice, to do what I said I would.
There is a very good Boston radio program on Sunday night WRKO AM 68 called Pundit Review.
http://www.wrko.com/showdj.asp?djid=28302
These guys have been doing a great job posting links on their website and not afraid to talk about it on their radio program.
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.