HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
July 10, 2005 Throughout all the recent hubbub over the battle of Iraq in the war against terrorism there has been one resounding theme that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. That somehow Saddam Hussein was exempt from the war because he did nothing to America directly as far as the attack in New York was concerned. Well, the 9/11 commission report did establish that as fact. Saddam did not collude with Al Qaeda to destroy the twin towers. But as this excerpt from a transcript shows, it wasn’t for the lack of trying that Osama and Saddam didn’t become buddy-buddy in the war against American interests. “We make two points in the staff statements. Number one, there were contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq going back clear to the early 1990s when Osama bin Laden was in Sudan, then when he was in Afghanistan. I don't think there's any dispute about that. The second claim we make in the staff statement is that there was no collaborative relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein with regard to the 9/11 attacks. Our whole report, as the governor mentioned a moment ago, is on 9/11. Our mandate does not run to the Iraqi war. So, far as I know, I've looked at these statements quite carefully from the administration. They are not claiming there was a collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda with regard to the attacks on the United States. Now, all of us understand that when you begin to use words like relationship and ties and connections and contacts, everybody has a little different view of what those words mean. But if you look at the core statements that we made in the staff statement, I don't think there is a difference of opinion with regard to those statements. If they, if they, if there is -it has to be spelled out to me.” (ABC “This Week” September 19th 2004, Lee Hamilton, Vice-Chair 9/11 Commission) So Al Qaeda and Iraq did not “collaborate” on the murderous act of aggression on 9/11; but there was collaboration of some sort going on. Could they have been collaborating on color schemes for the next Hussein Palace perhaps? Could Saddam have been asking Osama about his Horoscope? The point is that media tends to completely ignore that any contact was made between Al Qaeda and Iraq prior to 9/11/2001, when there most certainly was a bit more than the ZERO being reported. Here is what was posted to the official 9/11 Commission report: “With al Qaeda as its foundation, Bin Ladin sought to build a broader Islamic army that also included terrorist groups from Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Saudi Arabia and Oman, Tunisia, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Morocco, Somalia, and Eritrea. Not all groups from these states agreed to join, but at least one from each did. With a multinational council intended to promote common goals, coordinate targeting, and authorize asset sharing for terrorist operations, this Islamic force represented a new level of collaboration among diverse terrorist groups.” (9/11 Commission Staff Statement #15, Page 3) Then this: “Bin Ladin also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein’s secular regime. Bin Ladin had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded Bin Ladin to cease this support and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting Bin Ladin in 1994. Bin Ladin is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded. There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Ladin had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior Bin Ladin associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States. Whether Bin Ladin and his organization had roles in the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center and the thwarted Manila plot to blow up a dozen U.S. commercial aircraft in 1995 remains a matter of substantial uncertainty.” (9/11 Commission Staff Statement #15, Page 5) Remember: The President never suggested, nor was it part of the report from the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, that Iraq had anything to do directly with the 9/11 attack. But the 9/11 Commission Vice Chair’s own comment leaves “no dispute” about the fact that Saddam’s Iraq was in discussions with Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations about something. Perhaps Saddam was giving these terror groups tidbits on proper methods of rape and torture? Another very interesting piece of information came to light in a “Wall Street Journal” report September 22, 2003 quote: “One of the more interesting pieces of postwar evidence was uncovered in Baghdad by reporters for the “Toronto Star” and London’s “Daily Telegraph”. The February 19, 1998 memo from Iraqi intelligence, in which bin Laden’s name was covered over with liquid paper, reported planned meetings with an Al Qaeda representative visiting Baghdad. Days later, Al Qaeda issued a fatwa alleging U.S. crimes against Iraq. At about the same time, a U.S. government source tells Stephen Hayes of “The Weekly Standard”, Iraq paid bin Laden deputy Ayman al Zawahiri $300,000.” So there were meetings, and monetary exchanges, and tea parties between Osama’s crew and Saddam’s thugs long before 9/11. AH! If only Willie Jeff had done his job, instead of having his job done! Which brings me to the pre-9/11 assessment of WMD’s in Iraq and the forceful way America put words to paper to try to appease a dictator and prevent disaster. "We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry ( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998 And we did have “No Fly Zones” up and we were being repeatedly shot at without regular and forceful retaliation, and there had been some 15 United Nations resolutions by this time and Saddam was laughing all the way to the “Oil-for-Food” bank. "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 I believe that forceful statement brought about another UN resolution. "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 I think this statement got us another very forceful UN resolution. Then Willie Jeff got tired of discussing it. He’d said enough, so he turned the worthless rhetoric over to his chief supporters. He had more important matters (like impeachment) to attend to. "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998 "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 So Saddam had the weapons. Everyone agreed. Sandy Berger noted his use of those weapons at least “10 times” and the Clinton administration hemmed and hawed and let Saddam talk and have tea with terrorist organizations and then he left office and ended up crying in his beer that 9/11 happened AFTER he left office. His already sugar-shot legacy had lost all chance of recovery! I believe the war against terrorism will eventually become truly global in scope. The more desperate the terrorists become the more things will begin to explode. We saw it when Afghanistan began their election process. We saw it again when Iraq began theirs. The more we succeed in bringing democratic principle and law to the nations of the Middle East the more outrageous the attacks against freedom and democracy will become. We saw what all the pre-9/11 appeasement got us. It got us 9/11 and everything since. We have taken the war to the murderers and we had better not stop our assaults against their Islam-induced radicalism until every last one of those sons of Satan is pushing up sand pebbles. The 9/11 commission, among other sources proved the link between Iraq and world terror. Our President challenged the nations that supported terror right up front. You are either with the cause of freedom, or you side with the terrorists and are therefore an enemy of freedom. The Taliban and the Baathists found out the hard way. Perhaps the same lesson is needed for the Syrians and the Iranians. We’ll see. ------------ About the Author: Michael John McCrae has contributed over 300 articles to Useless-Knowledge.com. Email: macswordV@hotmail.com Tell a friend about this site! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com and are not allowed to be posted on other websites. ARTICLE THIEVES WILL BE PROSECUTED! |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
