Quick Links to Posts By Category

,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, November 25, 2005

Liberals Do Best…Part 2: Iraq Deceptions

G-Man’s Rule #1 of American Politics:
Liberals do best that which they claim others do.
Learn it. Know it. Remember it.
It is incredible how anti-war liberals in congress and in the media have been attempting to re-write history. For example, how often have you heard the charge that President Bush argued for military action by claiming that Iraq was involved in 9/11?

This charge is a lie.

During the months preceding the war, the President never used – or even suggested – that Iraq was involved in 9/11. If you dispute this, please show me the text. Transcripts for all of the President’s speeches and his press conferences are available on www.whitehouse.gov (be sure to include the “.gov”).

Many on the deceptive left insist that there was no connection between Saddam and al Qaeda -- evidenced simply by the claim that Iraq was not involved in 9/11. Huh! Talk about loony lefty logic! That’s like saying the New York Yankees have no connection to baseball because they were not in last year’s World Series.

Much to my surprise (not really) there are some who don’t understand how the lessons of 9/11 are related to the War on Terrorism that is currently being waged in Iraq. Let’s review:

Throughout the 90’s, al Qaeda and its allies have been attacking the United States including, but not limited to:
  • World Trade Center bombing in 1993
  • Ambush of U.S. troops in Mogadishu
  • Attack on U.S. troops in the Khobar Towers, Saudi Arabia
  • Attacks on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania
  • Bombing the U.S.S. Cole in 2000

On September 11, 2001, when 19 al Qaeda agents killed more U.S. civilians than the Japanese did in Pearl Harbor, the lessons of our past mistakes became painfully clear. Previous attacks were not criminal acts, but acts of war. As we learned from the previous administration, inaction, retreat, and appeasement only makes us bigger targets.

But, Iraq had no connections to terrorism – so they say.

To the contrary:

  • The Clinton administration’s 1998 indictment of bin Laden concluded “al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq".
  • The Clinton administration cited an al Qaeda/Iraq connection when justifying the bombing of that aspirin factory in Sudan. They believed that al Qaeda agents had learned how make nerve gas weapons in Baghdad. This, incidentally, is the precise concern that President Bush cited during the 2003 State of the Union Speech when he said "Secretly, and without fingerprints, he [Saddam] could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own."
  • Saddam built a terrorist training facility called Salmon Pak. This camp included a grounded 707 where trainees were taught how to hijack a passenger jet. They were taught to work in teams of 4-6 terrorists and to use small knives as weapons. (Sound familier?) Click here for a first hand account from former Iraqi army captain Sabah Khodada.
  • Saddam was paying $25,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers who attacked Israel.
  • The smoking gun of all connections to terrorism – specifically to al Qaeda -- is Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi, the terrorist behind the post-war attacks on Iraqi citizens and U.S. troops. He is considered the heir-apparent to bin Laden’s "empire". Zarqawi is an al Qaeda operative whose base of operations was in Iraq long before our invasion in 2003.

The above is only a partial list of known connections to terrorism. Lest we not forget, this connection was only one of the reasons for the need to overthrow Saddam’s regime.

So why do battles in Iraq continue?

Previously, al Qaeda saw Iraq as allies of convenience for they shared a common enemy. Al Qaeda and its allied terrorists needed a safe haven and help getting weapons, particularly the nasty stuff.

Today, these terrorists see Iraq as a future home. Having lost their control of Afghanistan, Iraq is prime territory. Its people are accustomed to being ruled by terror. Zarqawi presumes it would be easy for his allies to replace Saddam. Further, Iraq is centrally located in the Middle East, rich with oil, and close to terrorist friendly states.

To abandon Iraq now is to gift-wrap the country to terrorists. It would likely lead to another Taliban-like government that would not only endanger Iraqi citizens, but also those in neighboring countries.

Further, it would weaken our fight against terrorism. Should the United States pull out of Iraq prematurely, we would be sending a signal to terrorists world-wide that we don’t have the will to fight them. Moreover, we would be letting are allies know that we could abandon them when things get too politically uncomfortable at home.

[Updated 12-2-2005, Saddam was paying $25,000, not $5,000. HT: RRD, Right Hook]

2 Comments:

Anonymous rrd said...

Nice summary. I could be wrong but I think Sadam gave $25,000 to terrorist's families not $5000 - but I can't verify that.

11/26/2005 10:54 AM  
Blogger Right Hook said...

As of 2002 the going rate was $25K as reported by Fox News.

12/01/2005 7:20 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

 

MOB Logo

Powered by Blogger