Iraq was a terrorist state -- despite biased media and Democratic Party officials' claims

The Weekly Standard ^ | Jan. 16, 2006 | Stephen F. Hayes

[GoLightly]

When this topic comes up, I'm always reminded of this article:

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/02/12/terror.meeting/

Check the date & the author. Then scroll down & check out the related stories.

[federal]

bookmark

[pookie18]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp

[Loyal Buckeye]

No mention of the $10 million Hussein paid to North Korea for missle technology?

[hawkaw]

Thanks for this and I am aware of the activities of the former regime. However, I don't think the former regime's connection to terrorism is what the poll is telling us.

I think the poll is telling us that a percentage of the American people believe the current violence in Iraq is not related to the War on Terror.

I don't have any problem linking the WOT to Iraq since AQ is fighting the Americans and the INF in Iraq. But for some reason a lot of Americans (and Canadians) have bought the con job of the drive by media and the Rats.

I think the Administration needs to just keep on coming out and saying over and over that AQ is in Iraq just like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Indonesia etc. and thus, there is a need to stay in Iraq until such time as the INF are strong enough on their own to kick the sh!t out of the terrorists.

[Coop]

Ping & bookmark

[sruleoflaw]

Yes, what you wrote here, I see as exactly right: I don't have any problem linking the WOT to Iraq since AQ is fighting the Americans and the INF in Iraq. But for some reason a lot of Americans (and Canadians) have bought the con job of the drive by media and the Rats.

The reason we needed to go into Iraq was because it was a terrorist state, training 2,000 terrorists a years, holding 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium (whatever do terrorists do with that material?), giving sanctuary to other terrorists -- BUT THE MEDIA IGNORES THE STORY TO MAKE BUSH LOOK BAD.

[Allegra]

The reason we needed to go into Iraq was because it was a terrorist state, training 2,000 terrorists a years, holding 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium (whatever do terrorists do with that material?), giving sanctuary to other terrorists -- BUT THE MEDIA IGNORES THE STORY TO MAKE BUSH LOOK BAD.

Exactly.

This whole mission in Iraq has been so bady misrepresented and distorted by the media from the beginning. The media knows the positive things and progress that are going on here because you just can't miss it. They just flatly refuse to acknowledge it or report it, because as you said, they do not want this perceived as a success.

It goes completely against their leftist agenda.

[mvpel]

Now the left is trying to pull a TANG on the Iraqi documents, with nutball conspiracy theories that the documents were planted by the CIA or whatever.

[cwb]

Nice piece of work. While not as eloquent as Hayes, I put together my own essay and opinions on this same subject...and why Iraq is perhaps the most important campaign in the WOT:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1683075/posts

[okie01]

The most basic thing we could accomplish right now is cutting the Iran to Syria supply pipeline to Hezbollah, which unless some inbred goat poker has invented the mass/energy transporter, must either be going through northern Iraq and/or Turkey.

I believe the primary supply lines between Iran and Syria, thence to Hezbollah, are via air and sea.

[GOPJ]

Thanks for the ping.

[cookcounty]

Old but cogent,

The idiot left succeeded in implanting ito the American brain that Saddam was "just another 2-bit dictator."

What other current dictator:

---caused the violent deaths of 2 million people?,
---invaded the country to the east of him?
---invaded the country to the south of him?
---launched SCUD missles against civilian populations in Iran, Israel and Saudi Arabia?
---used poison gas against his enemies?
---used poison gas against his own people?
---paid the families of suicide bombers ---and openly, repeatedly boasted about it?

[sruleoflaw]

Excellent points.

[LtKerst]

You may have heard the news today of a CBS/New York Times poll that stated 51 percent of the American people do not believe Iraq is linked to the war

This is How the NY Times Measures the effect of their
Dis-Imformation Agenda.

[LtKerst]

Salman Pak, Salman Pak
Grab your Box Knife! Let's Attack!
Saddam Has a Plane there
Cummon! Show you Care!

Salman Pak, Salman Pak
Grab Your Box Knife! Let's Attack!
Cut the throats of Stewardesses!
72 virgins..Sweet caresses!

Salman Pak, Salman Pak
Grab Your Box Knife Let's Attack!
Don't "CUT" the Infedels any Slack!
The NewYork Times Has Your back!

Salman Pak, Salman Pak.
Board the Plane , No turning back.
Onward Islam! All Over the World!
Body Parts all over Hurled!

Fill the Nations all with dread!
The fangs of Bin Laden dripping Red.
Their "weakling" will is begins to Crack!
Don't fear..The NY Times Has Our Back.

[308MBR]

So then, are our AWACs all located somewhere else? Are we looking for coke smugglers with our satellites instead of watching for these loads of plunder, however they may be hauled?

More border nonsense!

[okie01]

So then, are our AWACs all located somewhere else? Are we looking for coke smugglers with our satellites instead of watching for these loads of plunder, however they may be hauled?

If a ship is at sea, headed from Bandar Abbas to Latakia, there's no way of knowing what it might be carrying.

And no authority under which it might be stopped and searched, much less its cargo impounded.

Certainly, we have the power to undertake such interdiction, but it is unlikely that we would break any international laws to do it.

[308MBR]

Dead and wounded American soldiers laying everywhere, civillians blown to bits, and all we're worried about are some friggin' "laws" agreed to by a bunch of unelected bureaucrats at the UN?

SCREW THAT!

Jeez!