The Left in this country rejects the idea of a connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam's Iraq almost as much as it rejects the idea of American citizens being better able to spend their hard earned money rather than the government. They accept the lack of a connection as an article of faith so strong that it would make the faith of a Pentecostal minister pale by comparison. Underlying this faith on their part is the notion that Osama Bin Laden would NEVER work with a secular infidel like Saddam Hussein.
The Bush administration has only spoken of a connection in vague generalities until the past few days. However, this week, both President Bush and Vice President Cheney have trumpeted evidences of a connection between Saddam and Islamist terrorism. Then what happens? STAFFERS on the Bipartisan Commission to Blame Bush and Elect Kerry release a preliminary report that, according to the headlines of the mainstream press, is the definitive word that completely rejects any connection.
Actually, though, the report doesn't say what the media and the gleeful leftists and Bush haters want us to believe it does. First, it acknowledges that in the 1990s Osama Bin Laden made overtures to Saddam Hussein to secure support. Read it again. Osama Bin Laden, the hater of all things secular made overtures to the secular dictator of Iraq for support. Yep, the entire basis for the Left's faith in the absence of a connection was definitively refuted by the report they are trying to embrace. Osama was willing to work with Saddam. The report then goes on to say that meetings take place but the Commission had not turned up evidence of a "collaborative relationship" in attacks against the United States.
The Commission claims they have "no credible evidence" of collaborations. They reject completely the evidence that Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague. The Czech government stands by their original assessment that the meeting took place, but the Commission claims to know better. The Commission ignored the testimony of Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen, who acknowledged that it was Al Qaeda's connection with Iraq that was the justification for that administration's attack on a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory.
However, even if no proof exists of Saddam's hand in the planning and execution of the 9/11 attacks, which the Bush administration has never alleged anyway, the evidence that Saddam supported and assisted Islamic terrorism is overwhelming and provides all the justification necessary, given the fact that this is a GLOBAL war on Islamic terrorism.
Abu Nidal was a notorious terrorist who was responsible for the 1985 hijacking of a Pan Am airliner in Karachi. Saddam provided him with sanctuary and support. Ramzi Yousef, one of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers, has long been suspected of having ties to Iraqi intelligence. The terrorist training camp of Salman Pak is real. The fact that Dan Rather ignores its existence doesn't change that. Al Zaqarwi couldn't have operated in Iraq without Saddam's approval and sanction.
Additionally, Saddam gave money to the families of Palestinian pizza parlor bombers and the Egyptian cousin of Al Qaeda. Of course, all of this only makes sense. Saddam and the Islamic terrorists had common enemies, the United States and Israel. Yes, folks, whether the leftists like it or not, we are tied to Israel in this struggle against Islamofascism. To say that Saddam had no connection to terrorism is akin to saying that Charles Manson had no connection to Sharon Tate's murder.
The Left can click their heels three times and chant "No Connection" to their heart's content. It won't change the facts. Saddam ran a terrorist state. Even St. Billy from Hope had Saddam's Iraq on its list of state sponsors of terrorism. There is nothing definitive in the report from the Commission. They simply try to prove a negative by the absence of a smoking gun. If the rest of their report is just as "definitive", the Commission was a failure.
6 comments:
All I can say is who ever thought the commission was a success? With the person responsible for the inability of the FBI and CIA to compare notes on terrorism as a member of the commission, what other result is possible. We know for sure that she will not admit that her policy failed the US when the connection of various facts was paramount to the security of the country. She will kick and scream that her policy was not responsible, but we all know that it was. She should have been testifying to the commission rather than being a member of the commission. The whole thing was an exercise in Bush hatred and CYA for the Clinton administration.
The so called Bi-Partisan Commission was hardly that..and I believe that I read in the USA Today, that not only was Atta seen in Prague, but was seen in Iraq about 4 months before 9-11..I wish I could remember the edition, but I did read that. I think the fact that Saddam was paying the families of the suicide bombers, made him a terrorist. Why is the whole world trying to get Bush out of office? They just don't want to believe that he knows things that they don't know, and he is far from stupid, like they think.Liberals and Muslims are ruining the whole wide world.
I wont reject the idea that there was a small budding relationship between Al Quada and Iraq.
The problem I have is that the President prioritized the weakest links as the strongest threats.
As another poster said, Hussein publicly announced and followed through with payments to suicide bombers. This in my opinion put him on the chopping block, and should have been pushed as the biggest reason to take him out.
The Bush amdinistration doesnt know how to communicate their successes - or failures -without the same droll, repetative, ad nauseum, phrases. They dnot know how to counter the press's unbalanced coverage of this conflict.
The saddest thing is when a person doesnt lose to an opponent, but beats himself.
The liberal insistence that there was no connection -- echoed by the "mainstream" (read: liberal) media -- includes the idea that anyone who accepts that there was a connection is misinformed or downright ignorant. The truth of the matter is, these liberals and members of the media have missed the REAL story. The real story is that Americans, by and large, do not accept the liberals' version of events. Plain old common horse sense tells us that these people collaborate; they have a common goal, which is the demise of the United States. Perhaps the Democrats are willing to put all their effort into ignoring the obvious, but most Americans are not. They just don't buy what the media are telling us the 9/11 commission concluded, and they don't buy that there was no connection. They trust their own common sense and are not willing to relinquish it simply because a government commission and the media say they should. The majority of Americans do not hate Bush, plain and simple, which is the whole motivation behind the media's attempts to convince us that Muslim terrorists don't consult with one another but operate entirely independently.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html
blind about Hitler, blind about Soviet Communism, blind about terrorism.
Post a Comment