Iraq and the War on Terror
Wednesday, September 13, 2006 at 09:00AM Bottom Line Up Front: Iraq is not separate from the war on terror.
On the 5th anniversary of 9/11, President Bush gave a prime time address to the nation that included this statement:
I'm often asked why we're in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks. The answer is that the regime of Saddam Hussein was a clear threat. My administration, the Congress, and the United Nations saw the threat -- and after 9/11, Saddam's regime posed a risk that the world could not afford to take.
Osama bin Laden calls this fight "the Third World War" -- and he says that victory for the terrorists in Iraq will mean America's "defeat and disgrace forever."
Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy, along with others in his party, echoed this sentiment:
"The president should be ashamed of using a national day of mourning to commandeer the airwaves to give a speech that was designed not to unite the country and commemorate the fallen but to seek support for a war in Iraq that he has admitted had nothing to do with 9/11. There will be time to debate this president's policies in Iraq. September 11th is not that time."
Actually, Senator, it's the prime time to talk about both. )And since when are Democrats interested in uniting the country?) Iraq is an critical part in the war on terror. It is totally legitimate to examine our enemy of 9/11, which is not restricted to only Osama bin Laden and the terrorists who boarded the planes on 9/11. Let’s examine:
President Bush said in his 2002 State of the Union address that who ever aided and abetted terrorists would be considered part of the "axis of evil" Pres. Bush said in his address to Congress immediately following 9/11,
"Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. (Applause.) "
-Saddam supported the 9/11 attacks (photo right: mural found in Iraq in April 2003 by Marines; LARGE PHOTO)
-Saddam was a terrorist. He not only killed approximately a million of his own people, he incited a war with Iran, commonly called the “longest conventional war of the 20th Century” (1980-88), that claimed over 1 million Iranian their lives; he invaded Kuwait and terrorized Kuwaitis; he paid $25000 to the families of terrorists who’d blow themselves up while killing as many Jews as possible.
-along with al-Qaeda history of attack on the United States and her interests around the world (such as military bases and embassies), Saddam attempted to assassinate George Bush Sr. in Kuwait in 1993. Iraq also conducted 12 years of firing at US Air Force planes in the No-Fly Zone (1991-2003). Iraq has its own history, like al-Qaeda, of attacking America.
-Abu Musab al-Zarqawi received medical attention in Baghdad in 2001 after he was injured in Afghanistan during the initial phase of the war on terror.
- Saddam offered Osama asylum in Iraq. CNN reported on Feb. 13, 1999 that:
"Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to Osama bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers."
-Pertaining to the thousands of Iraqi Documents found by Coalition Forces since the Iraqi invasion of 2003, it has been shown that there was indeed an al-Qaeda/Saddam connection. Found in Iraq were documents showing:
- How-to manuals for Arab operatives working throughout Afghanistan before 9/11, and provided military assistance to the Taliban and Al Qaeda: 2RAD-2004-600760-ELC.PDF
- In 1999 the Taliban welcomed "Islamic relations with Iraq" to mediate among the Taliban, the Northern Alliance and Russia, and that the Taliban invited Iraqi officials to Afghanistan.
- Document FMSO Document CMPC-2003-001488.pdf dated 9/15/2001 by the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) regarding a meeting between Osama Bin Laden, the Taliban Group, Afghanistan, and the Iraqis. (hat tip: FIX4RSO)
-Iran, Iraq and North Korea were cited as the “axis of evil”. Look at the map below
Noting the position of Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan around Iran and the rest of the Middle Eastern geography, it's clear Iraq is NOT separate from the war on terror. The base of operations was Afghanistan....next to Iran.....next to Iraq...firmly sandwiched in the Middle East.
-Al-Qaeda attacked the US on 9/11.
-Al-Qaeda is in Iraq.
See the connection?
Vice President Dick Cheney shed more light on the connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq at a September 11th address:
"We've never been able to confirm a connection between Iraq and 9/11, but (a connection with Al-Qaeda is a) different issue".
"There are two totally different propositions here. People have consistently tried to confuse them. Al-Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was in Iraq before the US invasion.
"Zarqawi was in Baghdad after we took Afghanistan and before we went into Iraq. You had the poison facilities run by an affiliate of al-Qaeda ... This was a state sponsor of terror. He had a relationship with terror groups, no doubt about it."
On the same subject, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Sunday:
"There were ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda. We know that Zarqawi was running a poison network in Iraq."
"It would simply be wrong to say that the only problem in Iraq is sectarian violence between Sunni and Shiite."
"There is still a considerable problem of terrorism from extremists who simply want to see Iraq be a part of a Middle East in which the Bin Ladens of the world control."
Her point is buttressed by US Brig. Gen. Michael Barbero and Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld pointing to Iranian influence on Iraqi violence.
While Democrats say it was inappropriate for the President to talk about Iraq in remembrance of the 9/11 anniversary, it is not inappropriate to talk about what the US is doing to prevent another 9/11. Enter, a discussion on the war on terror. Enter, Iraq. The world now has fewer big named terrorists who supported Osama bin Laden, like Saddam, Uday and Qusay Hussein or Musab al-Zarqawi, to name a few. When the Democrats stop trying to divide and conquer America instead of our enemy is when they should be taken seriously on this issue.
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/680625
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (30)
Amy, Saddam Hussein did not support Osama bin Laden. Ironically he actually viewed al-Qa’ida as a threat. Here are some of the conclusions from the Senate Select Committee’s Report on Intelligence on Postwar Findings About Iraq (September 8, 2006):
“Postwar findings indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa’ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qa’ida to provide material or operational support. (Page 105)
“Postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi.” (Page 109)
“Postwar information supports prewar Intelligence Community assessments that there was no credible information that Iraq was complicit in or had foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks or any other al-Qa’ida strike.” (Page 110)
http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf
I understand and support the President’s decision to go into Iraq but we need to be honest with ourselves about the connection with al-Qa’ida. I do not believe he lied but it seems clear now that he based his decision on bad intelligence. I still believe we can and must prevail in Iraq. Whatever anyone’s feelings are about why we went into Iraq, there simply is no other option. If we lose now we will have inadvertently created what we had hoped to prevent in the first place.
You use one report as your evidence? Have you been reading any of the documents on the FMSO site? If not, start reading. There was more support than the Senate select-committe on blowing smoke up my arse!
Sheesh. Broaden the scope and realize it is a bigger theater of war than just linking two flippin' dots ...
I tire of this ... Amy, I think I'm just gonna read and not comment anymore ... :)
Fix is absolutely right. Dictators have no allies but themselves. HOWEVER, they supported each other's goals. This is just a fact.
Short on time...
“While document exploitation continues, additional reviews of documents recovered in Iraq are unlikely to provide information that would contradict the Committee’s finding or conclusions… Officials responsible for document exploitation efforts explicitly stated that they did not believe that the initial review process missed any documents of major significance regarding Iraq’s links to terrorism, and are in the process of reexamining the documents to ensure that none of significance were missed.” (Page 115)
http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf
I thought your source found no conclusive evidence, in their words, which cannot rule out the opposite?
Heck, why don't you just blame O.J. for 9/11?
I hope people see more of the lies and distortions revealed about the Bush Administration, so that more people aren't needlessly killed in this Iraq abomination. It's time for American conservatives to put the Kool-Aid down, and start using the common sense God gave them about these political shennanigans.
Silke is reading the report from the REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED SENATE.
I'll say it again....
REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED SENATE.
Now Silke, you're a bit less confrontational than I am on this site, but believe me, I have tried and tried to show the nefarious nature of the Bush agenda here, but they refuse to see.
But that's par for course for many fundamentalist conservatives. It seems they prefer fables over facts, rhetoric over reality and taboo over technology. I would really love to be wrong, but I think that if Bush sat up there on Monday night and gargled, you'd find posters awash with praise for his elocution.
It's really sad what right wingers have become.
--Cobra
Cobra, don't come back if we are so lost.
Sheesh, people, unless you've read these documents, shut your traps! And, get verifiable counter documents. I've read the document you provided, Silke. You are reading what you want into it. Yet, you have not found more, unless the New York Times and Reuters are your, credible sources.
Oh, that's right, they doctor photos ...
Sheesh ... I started commenting again, Amy. You gotta make me stop! :)
I have not read the documents you are referring to but I’m certainly open to new information. Could you please site which documents specifically refute what I stated earlier? You criticize me for referring to only one source however you have yet to provide any yourself.
Now, you people tell me how to prosecute a global war on terrorism in the middle east and NOT deal with Saddam/Iraq...
“Postwar information supports prewar Intelligence Community assessments that there was no credible information that Iraq was complicit in or had foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks or any other al-Qa’ida strike.” (Page 110)
AND
“While document exploitation continues, additional reviews of documents recovered in Iraq are unlikely to provide information that would contradict the Committee’s finding or conclusions… Officials responsible for document exploitation efforts explicitly stated that they did not believe that the initial review process missed any documents of major significance regarding Iraq’s links to terrorism, and are in the process of reexamining the documents to ensure that none of significance were missed.” (Page 115)
1) A lack of evidence does not mean there is none. The thousdands of documents found prove that.
2) No one is claiming that Saddam Hussein was in on 9/11. I went to great pains to outline that fact in this blog entry. The VP and Sec. of State said the same.
3) Saddam SUPPORTED 9/11 attacks. I've given proof of that. Couple that with the President's speech about harboring or supporting terrorists/terrorism.
4) Saddam may have been distrustful of al-Qaeda, but that doesn't mean he didn't support their attacks against America and Israel.
OK, but it’s a very good indicator. I’m interested in the specific documents you are referring to that refute the quotes I provided.
I’m sorry you can’t open the links. You can probably Google the Senate Select Committee Report on Intelligence on Postwar Findings About Iraq (September 8, 2006)
Amy said: “Saddam SUPPORTED 9/11 attacks. I’ve given proof of that. Couple that with the President’s speech about harboring or supporting terrorists/terrorism.”
But Saddam didn’t harbor Al-Qa’ida. In fact the exact opposite was true. As for supporting the 9/11 attacks, I seriously doubt the President meant philosophical or ideological support. He meant material, concrete support. Unfortunately there were quite a few people in the Middle East who cheered after 9/11 – that’s hardly a good reason for going to war.
http://fix4rso.com/2006/07/22/dots-i-dont-see-any-dots/
http://www.ctc.usma.edu/aq/AFGP-2002-601693-Trans.pdf
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,202277,00.html
http://70.168.46.200/released/03-23-06/2RAD-2004-600760-ELC.PDF
http://www.ctc.usma.edu/aq/AFGP-2002-601693-Trans.pdf
http://www.ctc.usma.edu/aq/AFGP-2002-601693-Trans.pdf
I HATE that Squarespace doesn't allow for HTML.
Silke, SADDAM WAS A TERRORIST. That is the point. And he encouraged terrorism. He gave MONEY to Palestinians/Hamaas to blow up Israelis. Israel is our ally. Remember we went to the 1st Gulf War because Kuwait was our ally.
The reasons we went to war with Iraq were numerous and have been discussed in detail on this blog. Frankly, the US did the U.N.'s job by enforcing the countless broken resolutions.
Not to mention the humanitarian crisis that existed in Iraq.
Not to mention that Saddam tried to shoot down US planes over the No Fly Zone for 12 years.
Not to mention that he tried to assassinate George Bush Sr. when he was just out of office and visiting Kuwait.
Etc.
Etc.
Etc...
Actually, its you left wingers hell-bent on arguing an issue that no one else is. No one said "Saddam got us on 9/11." They said Saddam is a terrorist and supports terrorism, which is a fact.
"Now Silke, you're a bit less confrontational than I am on this site, but believe me, I have tried and tried to show the nefarious nature of the Bush agenda here, but they refuse to see"
Translation: Cobra can't prove his/her/its ridiculous claims, and is going on pure liberal spin.
"Cobra, I'm shocked you would suggest blaming OJ for anything."
That's what I was thinking. If we could connect O.J. to anything, these morons would just call us racist and the guy would get off...again.
Let Silke do the dissenting Cobra. Its not that Silke is just more polite, but apparently more informed.
Also, were you able to find the Senate Select Committee’s report from September 8, 2006?
Tim writes:
>>>"Translation: Cobra can't prove his/her/its ridiculous claims, and is going on pure liberal spin."
Nonsense.
>>>"WASHINGTON (AP) — There's no evidence Saddam Hussein had ties with al-Qaeda, according to a Senate report on prewar intelligence that Democrats say undercuts President Bush's justification for invading Iraq.
Bush administration officials have insisted on a link between the Iraqi regime and terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Intelligence agencies, however, concluded there was none.
Republicans countered that there was little new in the report and Democrats were trying to score election-year points with it.
The declassified document released Friday by the intelligence committee also explores the role that inaccurate information supplied by the anti-Saddam exile group the Iraqi National Congress had in the march to war.
It concludes that postwar findings do not support a 2002 intelligence community report that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program, possessed biological weapons or ever developed mobile facilities for producing biological warfare agents.
The 400-page report comes at a time when Bush is emphasizing the need to prevail in Iraq to win the war on terrorism while Democrats are seeking to make that policy an issue in the midterm elections.
It discloses for the first time an October 2005 CIA assessment that prior to the war Saddam's government "did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates."
Bush and other administration officials have said that the presence of Zarqawi in Iraq before the war was evidence of a connection between Saddam's government and al-Qaeda. Zarqawi was killed by a U.S. airstrike in June this year."
http://rssfeeds.usatoday.com/~r/usatoday-NewsTopStories/~3/20437176/2006-09-08-iraq-report_x.htm
And what did the BUSH ADMINISTRATION say BEFORE?
>>>"There's overwhelming evidence there was a connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government. I am very confident that there was an established relationship there." - Vice President Cheney, 1/22/04
>>>"The regime of Saddam Hussein cultivated ties to terror while it built weapons of mass destruction."
--President George W. Bush 9/23/03
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98060,00.html
>>>"You can't distinguish between al-Qaida and Saddam.” – President Bush, 9/25/02
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020925-1.html
>>> "There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties.” – President Bush, 9/17/03
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030917-7.html
>>>"“There was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda.” – Vice President Cheney, 9/14/03
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/
And the beat goes on.
Maybe we will find the link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda in the same place O.J. finds the real killer.
--Cobra
Oh, my god...is this your way of saying he's innocent? Please! You brought it up.
Help is available, Cobra.
If you DO understand the term, then, your points are useless and fall waaay short.
Amy gave you the one FMSO doc link. I'll dig up the others, but not at 00:51 ... sheesh. You people need to go read before you blast out your points ... why am I RESPONSIBLE for your knowledge?!
That's what is so very wrong with this country. No one gets off their LAZY ASS and do the work themselves. I've poured hours of work into reading, just to gain my own knowledge and everyone else gets a free ride?!
Wow. No wonder there's no pride left, everyone is so ready to pull a Clinton/Carter ... yikes.
Hey Cobra or Silke, do any of your posts get distrubuted by US Army's Stand-To! Daily Briefings to the command structure? Mine do ... I prefer to work with them, as they are in this for the long haul ... and they do not question what it is we are doing. I'll take them any day, and give them all I've got.
And, if you call them mind numbed robots, all hope is lost!
HOOAH!
I've laid out documenation (or you can go to the Leavenworth site yourself and browse through the documents yourself, most of which have been tranlasted into English).
http://www.foxnews.com/column_archive/0,2976,146,00.html
I have not made it to the Senate report yet but I will try to find the link later.
None of the links Amy provided go to the FSMO site. Three of them (which are all the same document) lead to the West Point Combating Terrorism Center’s site which posted some of the recently de-classified documents from the Defense Department’s Harmony Database. However this is a collection of al-Qa’ida documents unrelated to the Operation Iraqi Freedom Documents captured in Iraq.
Furthermore, when you go to the FSMO site it specifically states: “The US Government has made no determination regarding the authenticity of the documents, validity or factual accuracy of the information contained therein, or the quality of any translations, when available."
http://70.168.46.200/
As a former MI officer for six years, I understand the intelligence process (collection, analysis, dissemination etc.) and I’m familiar with document exploitation. I know that credibility of the source and putting the document in context is a significant part of analyzing captured documents. Given the government’s disclaimer on the FSMO website and the fact that these documents were taken into account by the Senate Select Committee I don’t see how that changes anything I’ve stated.
Amy said: “I hate to tell you but the Senate report is wrong. I'd be interested to see who exactly was on that Senate committee and read the entire report.”
How do you know the report is wrong if you haven’t read it?
And once again Cobra displays his lack of objectivity and honesty in one single post. I'll give him/her/it a chance to post what the DNC also said regarding Saddam pre-war.
Yeah, right. Clintonians rewriting history ... you know as well as I that if we trust the House or Senate to do any form of intelligence, we get trouble.
Silke, since I now know you know the process, let us both agree that your including a paragraph with the word "exploitation", other readers NOT informed will misinterpret what is truly going on. And _that_ is what I am worried about with other readers of these comments.
I am sorry if it looked aimed at you. I was frustrated, it was late, and I am no one else's personal analyst. If anyone thinks that a Senate report and the NYT or Reuters are clear and credible, again, we have a big problem. And no one else is reading ALL THE DOCUMENTATION regarding this issue. I am NOT trying to tie Saddam to 9/11. It is VERY OBVIOUS that he supported all forms of terrorism to meet his ends. He is a dictator and can care less about the means.
And THAT is what is so dang frustrating. And all the other, supposed/purported news sources (like Coz and Slate), using these text bites to promulgate their "case" is just wrong!
It requires a firm hand and clear premise for other readers to truly take in the information.
And, the Coz is in NO WAY being fair. I, however, prefer the truth, so I read it all, myself, with a "careful" eye to the agenda(s) from all participants.
http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf
1. Amy said: “Abu Musab al-Zarqawi received medical attention in Baghdad in 2001 after he was injured in Afghanistan during the initial phase of the war on terror.”
“Intelligence Community assessments stated that Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi, identified as an al-Qa’ida affiliate, arrived in Baghdad under an assumed identity in late May 2002, possibly seeking medical treatment…Captured regime documents and debriefings indicate that the IIS received notice in Spring 2002 of Zarqawi’s presence in Iraq from a foreign intelligence service, that he was not known to the IIS until it received that notice, and that the Iraqi regime wanted to capture al-Zarqawi. The IIS formed a special committee and actively attempted to locate and capture al-Zarqawi without success, contradicting prewar assessments that the IIS almost certainly possessed the capability to track him. Postwar information from an al-Qa’ida detainee indicated that Saddam’s regime “considered al-Zarqawi an outlaw” and blamed his network, operating in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq for two bombings in Baghdad. The Intelligence Community assesses that al-Zarqawi left Baghdad in late November 2002 and traveled to Iran and northeastern Iraq. He did not return to Baghdad until June 2002, after the fall of the Saddam Hussein regime.” (p. 109)
2. Amy said: “Saddam offered Osama asylum in Iraq.”
“Postwar findings indicate that bin Ladin attempted to exploit the former Iraqi regime by making requests for operation and material assistance, while Saddam Hussein refused all such requests. Saddam thought al-Qa’ida was an effective organization and reportedly expressed some willingness to broadcast anti-Saudi speeches at the request of al-Qa’ida, but there is no evidence he did. Debriefings also indicate that Saddam issued a general order that Iraq should not deal with al-Qa’ida. No postwar information suggests that the Iraqi regime attempted to facilitate a relationship with bin Ladin.” (p. 105)
3. Amy said: “How-to manuals for Arab operatives working throughout Afghanistan before 9/11, and provided military assistance to the Taliban and Al Qaeda.”
The Fox News story does not identify which Arab regime supplied these manuals. It only speculates that it could have been Iraq.
Silke, the manuals were found IN BAGHDAD. I guess one COULD speculate.