On Terrorist Pool Parties
In response I can only assume to the portion of our Iraq war rant, Biggus Rickus sent us a detailed piece from National Review about connections between the regime of Saddam Hussein and terror. Now the connection between Hussein’s government and al-Qaeda was only one facet of a myriad group of falsehoods perpetuated about the Iraq war. Yet let’s be clear. The evidence exists of connections of disparate groups associated with terror. Groups that are not, or only have a franchise-esqe relationship with al-Qaeda such as paying the families of suicide bombers in the West Bank or in Israel. Heinous as they may be, they are not al-Qaeda. The relationship was not portrayed as a grand game of terror six degrees of Kevin Bacon, but as a chummy relationship where Osama and Saddam where breaking bread. Never mind that Osama called for the overthrow of all secular leaders in the middle east, and that Hussein ran the most secular in the middle east.
This argument is the same as the “we didn’t exactly say that they where an imminent threat, just that you may be blown up with a nuke in your backyard in Omaha tomorrow.” We were told al-Qaeda, not Egyptian Islamic Jihad. The argument becomes a political shell game and the debate goes off the tracks. Al-Qaeda was the argument, not groups al-Qaeda might have met at a pool party.
Related posts:
- On Terrorist Sympathizers
- On Attorneygate vs. Travelgate, and the other side of the pool
- Gaining strength, but on the run, but not strong, but stronger by the day.
- A Long Iraq War Rant
- The Time For Muckrakers And Parties On The Verge Of Friday
Loading ...
The EIJ is a large part of al Qaeda. They began working together at least as early as 1993. Both Usama bin Laden and Aymen al Zawahiri claimed that they worked together to train the men who attacked our forces in Somalia. They claimed it themselves, in a TV interview.
Now we see Saddam was working with the EIJ to do just that.
Can we put 2 and 2 together here? We know that Saddam worked with the EIJ to attack Americans in Somalia. The EIJ claims it was working with Usama bin Laden in Somalia. Therefore, Saddam worked with al Qaeda in Somalia as well to kill US troops.
Wow, reasoning abilities are cooooolllll!!
Well regarded al Qaeda expert Richard Miniter interviewed the studies lead author and found that the “no ties” line was added by someone in DC and leaked to spin the story.(PJ media) In fact the study found plenty of evidence and the authors state in the report that Saddam was working with al Qaeda and associated movemnts.
My book Both In One Trench: Saddam’s Secret Terror Documents examines many of these same documents in detail (and more) in greater historical context. It is quite clear that Saddam was deeply involved in Islamic terrorism and had many connections to al Qaeda core leadership. There is even evidence that he directly influenced al Qaeda and the Taliban and at the very least funded those groups.
http://www.bothinonetrench.com
If it is so clear as you state, then why all the confusion in the intelligence community. Also, why did Bush himself eventually state that there was no connection. I don’t buy the intelligence being a slam dunk, then all of the sudden there’s some kind of cabal against the Administration standing in the way. Bush: “”We’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th.”
Thank you for contributing though.
“Also, why did Bush himself eventually state that there was no connection.”
Not true, he said there is no direct evidence of Saddam involvment with 9/11, not a direct tie to al Qaeda. The Bush administration has maintained they were tied throughout this ordeal in Iraq.
From the Washington Post September 9th 2006: “In a classified January 2003 report, for instance, the CIA concluded that Hussein “viewed Islamic extremists operating inside Iraq as a threat.” The rest of your supposition seems to be based on the enemy of his enemy must have been his friend. Even if everything you say is true, it still pales in comparison to the lack of weapons, and the insurgency in the place of flowers and candy.
The documents cited in the article indicate that Islamic extermists operating in Iraq were used by Saddam and that he was ratcheting up his terrorism program. It was not “six degrees of Kevin Bacon” but an organized attempt by Saddam to coopt or support terrorists willing to attack American interests.
“From the Washington Post September 9th 2006: “In a classified January 2003 report, for instance, the CIA concluded that Hussein “viewed Islamic extremists operating inside Iraq as a threat.” The rest of your supposition seems to be based on the enemy of his enemy must have been his friend. Even if everything you say is true, it still pales in comparison to the lack of weapons, and the insurgency in the place of flowers and candy.”
Of course Saddam would consider them operating inside Iraq as a threat. Which is why he used them to attack his enemies OUTSIDE of Iraq. This is a common security strategy. The Saudis sponsored Usama bin Laden in Afghanistan to keep him the hell out of Saudi Arabia, though they cut ties during the Gulf War when UBL began to challenge House of Saud right to control SA. Hell, we do not allow our own military to use weapons in public in our own country unless in an extreme situation (like Katrina).
To the rest of your platitudes, in fact a majority of Iraqis did welcome us with flowers. (there are plenty of first hand accounts of this from back in 2003 reported by the media) Only the Sunni-Arabs making up about 35% of the population opposed us and a few rogue Shiites like Sadr.
Let’s examine the WMD issue. What would it matter if Saddam had WMD yet no way to use them on us or our allies? WHat if he had rockets, artillery shells, and missiles filed with WMD, but none of it had the range to reach the US or our people? Then it would be meaningless. The WMD case only has meaning if he has delivery means. That delivery means was terrorism. From the begininng, WMD has been the key issue despite revisionism from the left. The congressional authorization for the Iraqi invasion mentions terrorism more than it does WMD. This has always been chiefly about Saddam’s support for terrorim and this report proves Saddam was a focal point for terrorism.
Sorry meant “WMD has not been the key”