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.
Apparently you didn't really read my post.
TE: post #58 - You are quite right.... Thank you for bringing me back to center on this.
I read your post. I took exception to one part of your post that seemed out of context. Lone and overshadowing are two words with different meanings. A lot of FReepers like to have their cake and eat it too. Also, just wanted to restate and clarify the use of the term media "myth".
If I misjudged your remarks, my apology.
self-o ping-o
It still makes sense to most people, and that's why the 'Craps can't get traction. Lots of folks remember Germany did not cause Pearl Harbor.
Are you self-pinging again? You can go blind that way....
Here's the yin and the yang of it:
The left, and I include the MSM here, could care less about the facts. That's the yin.
And now for the yang, the right has to stop caring what the MSM says and call a liar a liar. McCain did it and I have no love for John McCain. Cheney danced around it today but far too many republican Congress critters reserve their right to remain silent as they go through life enthralled with the idea of being eunuchs.
No. I just think you took it awful seriously especially since I accepted your correction. I will stand firmly on the word 'lone' and I think your own first reply to me reinforces that. I also stand by my assessment that WMDs weren't an 'overshadowing' issue in terms of the President's case for war. Perhaps 'overtowering' would have been a better word. You may disagree.
I would say 'central' and even 'prominent' would be fitting but I listened to every single speech he made running up to invading Iraq (and read the transcripts afterwards) and I never took away from those speeches that WMDs were most important. The Pres. clearly imparted to me that the main issue was Saddam's unpredictability, arrogance and antipathy towards the US and Isreal combined with Iraq's close ties with terrorism. WMDs were simply the most fearful manifestation that might come from that situation. It was that situation that was intolerable not the materials themselves. I thought the Pres. articulated that very well.
Here is somebody who doesn't think so.
"Why, oh why, is Syria still inhabitable?"
>>>> ... I listened to every single speech he made running up to invading Iraq (and read the transcripts afterwards) and I never took away from those speeches that WMDs were most important.
I find that hard to believe. I posted cuts from three speeches Bush gave leading up to the invasion of Iraq, March,16,17,19 of 2003. And a snippet from his UN speech of September.12, 2002. They all revolve around Saddam's WMD. Every speech Bush, Cheney and other administration personnel gave leading up to the war, all revolved around Saddam's WMD.
>>>>The Pres. clearly imparted to me that the main issue was Saddam's unpredictability, arrogance and antipathy towards the US and Isreal combined with Iraq's close ties with terrorism.
Saddam was always unpredictable and arrogant. And it was no secret he hated Israel and the US. Those aren't good enough reasons to go to war. Saddam was a terrorist who sponsered terror acts against Israel. Still not a good enough reason to go to war. The President's main claim, the driving force for going to war against Iraq and sending our troops into harms way, was Saddam's WMD.
Bottom line. If the issue of Saddam having WMD didn't exist, Congress would never have given authority for Bush to use military force against Iraq. The WMD issue tipped the scale. As I pointed out, WMD were found in Iraq, just not the large amounts everyone thought would be found. I'm convinced, Iraq had WMD and just before the invasion, those WMD were either shipped out of country, destroyed or buried in the sands of Iraq. We may never know what happened to them.
I firmly believe the Congress made the right move in authorizing military force against Iraq. WMD in the hands of a madman like Saddam would eventually led to mass death and destruction.
No. I think I've been pretty consistent.
I posted cuts from three speeches Bush gave ...
Excerpting is a great method for manipulating the meaning of a speech. Taking things out of their context to make them seem different. Spinning.
Saddam was always unpredictable and arrogant.
Yes he was. He built up a history.
And it was no secret he hated Israel and the US.
What was the give away? Scuds into Israel? Shooting at our planes during a cease fire?
Those aren't good enough reasons to go to war.
They are in my book.
Saddam was a terrorist who sponsered terror acts against Israel. Still not a good enough reason to go to war.
When you add it to the former and invading Kuwait and gassing the Kurds and throwing the UN inspecters out twice and frequent threats to attack the US and an attempt to assassinate a former President it is.
The President's main claim, the driving force for going to war against Iraq and sending our troops into harms way, was Saddam's WMD.
That's your opinion. Also the MSMs opinion. Also the Dem/libs opinion. I don't share it.
Bottom line. If the issue of Saddam having WMD didn't exist, Congress would never have given authority for Bush to use military force against Iraq.
Easy to say. I guess you are a mind reader or else you have all of those Senators and Congressmen in your personal confidence. Either way it must be nice.
I respectfully disagree. IMHO, you remain quite confused.
>>>>Excerpting is a great method for manipulating the meaning of a speech. Taking things out of their context to make them seem different. Spinning.
Spinning? Hardly. Changing the subject won't help you. Read the speeches. Bush`s words are quite clear, Saddam must be disarmed of his WMD. Period. If you like I can post the speeches in full format for you. Let me know.
"Those aren't good enough reasons to go to war."
>>>>They are in my book.
Thank God you're not POTUS.
"The President's main claim, the driving force for going to war against Iraq and sending our troops into harms way, was Saddam's WMD."
>>>>That's your opinion. I don't share it.
That was the President's main rationale for going to war, which I agreed with. I thought you did as well, till you changed your mind. These are the facts. If you want to overlook the truth, if you want to change your mind, if you want to rewrite history, I can't stop you. I can and will correct your false public statements, as required.
"Bottom line. If the issue of Saddam having WMD didn't exist, Congress would never have given authority for Bush to use military force against Iraq."
>>>>Easy to say. I guess you are a mind reader or else you have all of those Senators and Congressmen in your personal confidence. Either way it must be nice.
Without US and allied intelligence agencies reporting Saddam's WMD were becoming "a grave and gathering danger" to American and allied interests, Bush wouldn't have asked for Congressional authority to use military force against Iraq.
Without US and allied intelligence agencies reporting Saddam's WMD were becoming "a grave and gathering danger" to American and allied interests, Congress wouldn't have given authority for Bush to use military force against Iraq.
The issue of the intelligence gathered on Saddam's WMD and whether it was good or bad info, is now being used by the Dems to hit Bush over the head with and so far, its working. The reason its working is simple. The President hasn't used the bully pulpit enough. Bush&Company haven't defended themselves like they should have. Calling Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and other members of the administration liars, will not win out in the end, I'm confident of that. This effort by the Dems is nothing but a political red herring. Pure sophistry. Too bad there are so many ignorant and uninformed Americans who are falling for this ruse.
Liberals like to put forth opinions as facts too. I prefer to put forth opinions as opinions.
What a cop-out. Opinions are like a**holes, everyones got one, but the facts speak for themselves. If you have any evidence to support your contention, that disarming Saddam of his WMD wasn't the central reason PresBush took us to war in Iraq, feel free to post the details. Otherwise, face it, you lost the argument and the debate.
Considering the opponent it's a disappointment I will get over in a minute or two.
So I take it from your weak response, you have no evidence to offer that supports your baseless contention. Figures.
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.