If you’re reading this before the end of the day on Sunday, September 11, 2005 I hope you made the effort to fly the American Flag in front of your house or on display somewhere else prominently.
The flying of Old Glory on this day of infamy is the symbolism of our nation united in the face of a terrorist threat.
Our troops stand in harm’s way in Afghanistan and Iraq, and some voices in this country are sounding a cry for retreat and seemingly attempting to play revisionist games with recent events.
It would be great if people all around this nation were reminded of some of the key points below. And perhaps they will be with your help – by sending a link to this post to friends, family members, co-workers and colleagues. And finally, I hope when you read this, you’ll realize why we need your participation in the rallies we will hold across the nation the week after next, culminating in the giant “Support The Troops And Their Mission” Weekend in Washington, D.C. Keep watching the Move America Forward Website for more information.
——————————————————————————–
President Bush Thanks Our Troops Serving in Iraq
The War in Iraq is Central
to the War on Terrorism
Some people in this nation have come to the incorrect conclusion that Operation Iraqi Freedom has nothing to do with the attacks against the United States on 9/11.
These people either are ill informed, or they deliberately are trying to mislead the American people in the hopes of turning them against our military, our commander in chief and the mission our men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces are serving in Iraq. In many cases they represent a radical, far-left agenda that most Americans would promptly denounce. One of the strongest advocates for the anti-war effort is the Socialist Worker which is now promoting the anti-war tours of Cindy Sheehan and British socialist politico, George Galloway.
This anti-military constituency ignores the fact that what made Afghanistan such a threat to this nation was that it served as a state-sponsored breeding ground and training ground for terrorism. Al Qaeda operatives were free to gain access to weapons, bomb-making materials and train terrorists in Afghanistan because the government of that nation was sympathetic to the extremist Islamic agenda that was very much anti-American and anti-Israel.
The same situation has existed in Iraq. Saddam Hussein provided a safe-harbor for terrorists to base their operations, gain access to forged papers to travel around the world, and to acquire the materials and weapons to slaughter Americans and other innocents of the West.
As Andrew McCarthy explains in National Review:
“Saddam Hussein’s regime was a crucial part of that response because it was a safety net for al Qaeda. A place where terror attacks against the United States and the West were planned. A place where Saddam’s intelligence service aided and abetted al Qaeda terrorists planning operations. A place where terrorists could hide safely between attacks. A place where terrorists could lick their wounds. A place where committed terrorists could receive vital training in weapons construction and paramilitary tactics. In short, a platform of precisely the type without which an international terror network cannot succeed.”
If you don’t want to believe us, maybe you’ll believe the Iraqi General who served under Saddam Hussein and witnessed the training of more than 4,000 terrorists at Saddam’s orders.
If you’re still confused that the terrorist elements under Saddam Hussein’s regime were part of the Islamic terrorist coalition (that includes Al Qaeda) maybe we can make it even more straightforward for you.
The individual who leads the terrorists in Iraq right now (who have injured or killed U.S. Troops, Coalition Forces, and Iraqi civilians) is a man named Abu Musab al Zarqawi. He is the head of Al Qaeda in Iraq.
Abu Musab al Zarqawi – Al Qaeda in Iraq
You would think given the fact that the organization shooting at the men and women of our Armed Forces in Iraq was named Al Qaeda in Iraq that it would occur to the anti-war/anti-military/anti-troop crowd that perhaps these were Osama Bin Laden’s allies in Iraq.
But, again, they turn a deaf ear towards these facts because the facts undermine their anti-war/anti-military and anti-Bush jihad.
When you read in the newspapers or see on TV someone who says ‘maybe we should pull out of Iraq’ realize this very important fact: These individuals are saying we should surrender to Al Qaeda… that we should cut and run and admit defeat to the people who have savagely attacked our nation for more than the past decade (including the horrific attacks of 9/11, the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, the bombings of U.S. Embassies around the world, the original bombing of the World Trade Centers in 1993, etc…).
Lest you think that the idea that the terrorists in Iraq are led by Al Qaeda is a right-wing falsehood, then perhaps you’ll accept it when CNN (the most pro-Saddam television network during the two Gulf Wars) says it.
And if you or someone you know still doesn’t get the role Iraq plays in the fight against terrorism and the ties to Al Qaeda, maybe hearing from one of the journalists who has been on the scene – in the thick of the battle with these terrorists – will provide a clearer understanding.
Michael Yon recently lamented about the fact that the mainstream news media had failed to realize that they were sitting on one of the most important stories from the fight in Iraq: that the Al Qaeda backed terrorist network in the Mosul area had been badly beaten back by Coalition Forces led by the United States. This would serve as a major victory for the war effort in Iraq, yet most journalists are so out-of-touch with the events in Iraq (and so biased against the military’s mission there) that they didn’t even realize the scoop beneath their noses:
“...the top Al-Qaeda leader in Mosul writes to the second most wanted man in the world, and describes in amazing detail the weaknesses and impending collapse of the terrorist network in Mosul and surrounds.“
——————————————————————————–
Secretary of State Condi Rice Greets U.S. Troops in Afghanistan
The “Bring Them Home Now” Crowd
Want to Surrender in Afghanistan Too
Those who have been taking to the streets (and to the ditches of Crawford, Texas) to argue for U.S. Troops to withdraw from Iraq, have insisted that they support the broader fight against terrorism.
However, these are false words made in a defensive posture, said out of necessity. Many of the same voices who advocate surrendering to the terrorists in Iraq were vocal opponents to a military response against Al Qaeda following the 9/11 attacks on the United States.
Let’s take the example of one of the better known anti-Iraq war voices in this country right now, Cindy Sheehan.
Ms. Sheehan told MSNBC’s Chris Matthews that she is opposed to the war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan as well, because she believes, “that Afghanistan is almost the same thing,” as Iraq.
“We reject the dishonest claims of the Bush administration that this is a war for justice and the security of the American people against terrorism.”
These are now the same phony excuses used by the likes of Jane Fonda, Michael Moore and other leading anti-war critics when they speak out about the fight against terrorism in Iraq.
One of the most common refrains from those opposed to military action in Afghanistan was that we should instead “bomb them with bread” – as if bread and butter were what Osama bin Laden and his compatriots were interested in. They ignore the fact that the agenda of the radical Islamic extremists is to crush the Judeo-Christian world. Their number one targets are Israel and the United States because of who we are, what our values our, and the freedoms we grant to individuals.
But the “bomb them with bread” crowd refuses to accept this reality. And thus, their storyline hasn’t changed from Afghanistan to Iraq… they continue on with their “Blame America First” mentality.
- They see America at fault in Iraq – and want to bring home U.S. Troops NOW!
- They saw America at fault in Afghanistan – and felt the U.S. should not take military action against Osama bin Laden.
- And these same misguided voices didn’t advocate a U.S. response to any of the dozens of terrorist attacks against the United States in the two decades before 9/11/2001.
So why on earth should we listen to these people now when it comes to how best deal with the terrorist forces in Iraq?
The director of MoveOn.org, Eli Pariser, was one of those in the ‘Blame America First’ crowd that felt that the blame for the 9/11 attacks rested with the United States, and not the actual terrorists who attacked us.
In fact, Pariser started a 9/11 Peace petition that urged the White House not to take military action against the terrorists.
The petition was housed at the website http://www.911peace.org – but Pariser has had the petition removed to provide cover for MoveOn.org – as it is not a particularly popular position to advocate surrender to the forces of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan following 9/11.
Here are the links to where the petition used to be found – before Pariser had it taken down:
http://www.911peace.org/petition.php3
http://www.9-11peace.org.cijavahosting.com/action.php3
Eli Pariser, MoveOn, and others are peddling the same ’surrender to terrorism’ approach that they advocated after 9/11 in Afghanistan. They were wrong then and they are wrong again today about Iraq.
——————————————————————————–
We Can’t Cut & Run Now…
We Can’t Allow the Anti-Military Crowd
to Undermine the Mission Our Troops
Are Serving in Iraq & Afghanistan
I encourage you to accept Move America’s invitation you to join them as I have, as we rally together Americans to show our support for our troops and their brave fight against terrorism in Iraq & Afghanistan.
The men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces risk not only life and limb each day, but they must contend with seeing news reports of radical, anti-military extremists taking to the streets denouncing the work our troops do each day. This is demoralizing!
The anti-military crowd is mobilizing for one of the largest anti-war rallies to date – including a cross-country bus caravan and rally.
They’re organizing under the “Bring Them Home Now Tour” as you can see here:
http://www.bringthemhomenowtour.org/
But we at Move America Forward believe in giving voice to those Americans who are sick of seeing news media coverage dedicated largely to the dark voices who work to undermine our troops and their mission.
And every time one of these anti-military groups takes to the streets to rally for surrender, we believe patriotic Americans must stand up and prevent another “Vietnamization” from taking place in this nation.
Our country cannot lose the resolve and the will to prevail in the struggle with the terrorists about what kind of world our children inherit.
Please go to the website to find out how you can join in the “We Support The Troops And Their Mission” national bus tour and rally.
http://www.MoveAmericaForward.org
You can also provide financial support for the tour and the rallies here:
Excelent job Cao, as usual. Thanks for all you do,and God bless you.
Sorry but no, you can try and say something enough times until people believe it, but you’re mixing and matching issues to suit your argument. Which I’m sure the other side too. Al Qaeda in iraq? Not when Saddam was there, which is one of the reasons he was left in charge, he didn’t get on with Bin Laden. He didn’t believe in his kind of rule. Al Qaeda in Iraq have appeared since Saddam was ousted.
You’re right about the bringing the troops home issue, there is now an increased terrorist threat in Iraq and further afield, the war in Iraq has encouraged terrorists to flourish.
When has Bin Laden ever said it’s his aim to destroy the western world? Just curious because he said if that was the case why wasn’t he attacking Sweden?
So I don’t buy the idea of the War in Iraq being linked to Al Qaeda when it started, it is now and to bring the troops home would be folly. The war in Afghanistan clearly was linked to Al Qaeda and very few people were opposed to that.
There is also the issue that it is perfectly feasible to support the troops and oppose the policy, the troops are there under orders and I think most right thinking people want them to avoid harm.
You know, people who have sense in their heads can see this rather plainly. Exactly how am I ‘mixing and matching issues’? Each separate issue is clearly depicted and the facts are there that back up why the issues are not being played out fairly in the media and why we must combat this malicious anti-war movement that would have us surrender to Al Qaeda the way we did to the communists in Vietnam. These were the people who were lamenting the fall of Saddam Hussein and overlook the atrocities he committed against his own people. Funny, a socialist totalitarian dictator that puts people feet first into plastic shredding machines is ok, but an American capitalist president sends his VOLUNTEER military to Iraq after we were attacked on our own soil by muslim extremists–some of whom were trained in Iraq–and America is the bad guy.
Doesn’t make sense.
This enemy is far more dangerous than the communists in Vietnam–they attacked us on our soil. They’ve been attacking us since 1968. Over 5,000 people have died at their hands. They’re not going to stop attacking us if we withdraw, it will just embolden them to commit another 9/11. As for now, their support structure has been taken away–Saddam, who supported and trained them in Iraq, and Afghanistan–are both changed. But without staying the course, the lives that have been lost will have been for naught and we’ll have to worry about more attacks on our soil.
Funny, Al Qaeda in Iraq issues virulent manifesto. That link is to a CNN article dated August of 2005. Al Qaeda in Iraq seems to think they exist…they’re the foreign fighters who are there and Zarqawi is leading them.
But you know better than they do, I guess.
In case speaking in English is too much for you, Al Qaeda in Iraq’s sister group is called Ansar al-Islam. Apparently, they’ve been operating in Iraq since September of 2001 and are closely affiliated with Al Qaeda. They were in charge of harrassing, killing and torturing the kurds. With that out of the way, they’ve turned their attention to the Americans, along with Zarqawi’s help. Think there might be any coincidence here…? hehehe oh, of course not. You guys dismiss all the obvious things!
Ansar first made headlines in September 2001 when it ambushed and killed forty-two Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) fighters. In February 2002, the group assassinated Franso Hariri, a Kurdish Christian politician. That spring, Ansar attempted to murder Barham Salih, a PUK leader; five bodyguards and two attackers were killed in the ensuing gunfight. In June, the group bombed a Kurdish restaurant, injuring scores and killing a child. In July, the group killed nine PUK fighters, and destroyed several Sufi shrines — a move reminiscent of the Taliban. In September, Dutch authorities arrested the group’s leader, Najmuddin Faraj (a.k.a. Mullah Krekar), for suspected ties to al-Qaeda. In December, Ansar launched a surprise attack after the PUK sent 1,500 soldiers home to celebrate the end of Ramadan. According to the group’s website, they killed 103 PUK fighters and wounded 117.
That same month, Jordan’s prime minister announced that al-Qaeda operative Fazel Inzal al-Khalayleh (a.k.a. Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi) had sought refuge with Ansar.
That is the connection. Ansar al-Islam and Al Qaeda have fused. And Zarqawi is always very quick to remind people that Al Qaeda in Iraq exists…it’s his Arab sense of humility talking there…:smile:
Ansar is linked to Iran and was linked to Saddam Hussein through a man named Abu Wa’il, reportedly an al-Qaeda operative on Saddam’s payroll.
Now if you consider that all this was going on in Iraq in 2001–September–before we went into Iraq…it all is extremely interesting timing, but that just has to be a “coincidence”…either a “coincidence” to you deniers of facts, or “not true”. Because you people have such a difficult time with reality and facts.
BAGHDAD, Sept. 5, 2005 – Fighters loyal to militant leader Abu Musab Zarqawi asserted control over the key Iraqi border town of Qaim on Monday, killing U.S. collaborators and enforcing strict Islamic law, according to tribal members, officials, residents and others in the town and nearby villages.
Residents said the foreign-led fighters controlled by Zarqawi, a Jordanian, apparently had been exerting authority in the town, within two miles of the Syrian border, since at least the start of the weekend. A sign posted at an entrance to the town declared, “Welcome to the Islamic Republic of Qaim.”
We must continue targeting the full range of groups making up the terror web and one by one knock them off — from Jund al-Shams, Beyyiat el-Imam and al-Tawhid to al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Hamas — and go after the states that continue to support them.
September 8, 2005
Hundreds of Terrorists Captured in Iraq, al Qaeda Leader Killed
The Iraqi Interior Ministry is reporting that hundreds of terrorists have been rounded up in the Tal Afar region near the Syrian border. Of the 200 terrorists captured, 150 of them were foreign fighters from Syria, Sudan, Yemen and Jordan.
Centcom is also reporting that between Sept. 4th and 5th combined Iraqi and Coalition teams captured over 50 terrorist suspects in the Baghdad area. One of the captured terrorists was found with a note indicating he was about to become a suicide bomber.
In addition, US forces bombed a known al Qaeda safehouse in near the Syrian border. The target was a known bomb-making cell leader, Abu Mohammad, who has been linked extensively to other al Qaida terrorists and foreign fighters in Husaybah and throughout the Western Euphrates Valley. Additionally, he is known to have worked directly for Abu Islam, the al Qaida ‘Emir’ of Husaybah, who was killed by a Coalition air strike last week.
Wow, this is just what I’ve been able to google up between loads of laundry. I bet there’s a lot more if you actually looked for it.
Are you dumb like this every day? How do you find the bathroom?
So which part of terrorists have been flourishing in Iraq since Saddam was ousted do you have trouble understanding? Now correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think Saddam was in charge in August 2005, but hey, you obviously know best
Colin Powell stated that there were no concrete links between Saddam and Al Qaeda, this was after twelve months of saying the opposite.
Maybe you missed the leaked CIA report that said that the Iraq insurgency was producing better trained and more sophisticated terrorists than ever before. That’s why the troops can’t come home.
I thought you were denying the presence of Al Qaeda in Iraq.
Listen to this ABC 1999 news clip. Apparently nobody had a problem connecting Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein then.
Convenient. I don’t know what you’re talking about as far as Colin Powell denying a connection; I don’t know how he could possibly do that with all the evidence to the contrary…that’s PUBLIC. You must be taking the statement out of context.
I think you missed ABLE Danger and the fact that Sandy Berger slipped some important documents into his pants and shredded them…for partisan politics.
Iraq/9-11 Connections are proven here and see also The Big Lie Campaign and Cindy, the War in Iraq, and Dissent in a Time of War
So you think in your delusional world that Al Qaeda will stop attacking us if we withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan? You think they weren’t sophisticated before? They keep trying, they keep missing and blowing themselves up, but…they are learning from their mistakes.
You sure do have a habit of reading between the lines. When did I say we created this? When did I say Al Qaeda will stop attacking us if we withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan? There’s far more to it than that.
September 11th and Saddam, the links are flimsy to say the least, Saddam and Al Qaeda, the links are flimsy to say the least. Afghanistan and Al Qaeda, the links are concrete, Iraq now and Al Qaeda, the links are concrete. Better trained terrorists in Iraq now than before the war, well according to the CIA that is the case.
Bologna. Saddam was a support for terror. I don’t know if you recall, but Salman Pak was one such training camp. Your comments about Powell, about the CIA are interesting–but you’re going to have to give me links and we can talk. If you have nothing to back up your position, then what you’re saying is…just what you’re saying–nothing more–because you can’t back it up with facts. I’m backing up what I say here with facts.
Look here.
The most notorious of the terror training camps was the base at Salman Pak, about 15 miles southeast of Baghdad. Before the war, numerous Iraqi defectors said the camp featured a passenger jet on which terrorists sharpened their air piracy skills. This satellite photo shows an urban assault training site, a three-car train for railway-attack instruction, and a commercial airliner sitting all by itself in the middle of the desert.
Sabah Khodada, a former Iraqi army captain who once worked at Salman Pak. On October 14, 2001, Khodada granted an interview to PBS television program “Frontline,” stating, “This camp is specialized in exporting terrorism to the whole world.”
He added: “Training includes hijacking and kidnapping of airplanes, trains, public buses, and planting explosives in cities … how to prepare for suicidal operations.”
He continued: “We saw people getting trained to hijack airplanes…They are even trained how to use utensils for food, like forks and knives provided in the plane.”
Sounds like box cutters could fit into that scenario…
Abdul Rahman Yasin, one of the al-Qaeda bombers who hit the World Trade Center in 1993, fled to Iraq after that attack and lived there freely, reportedly with a government salary. That’s one clear link to al-Qaeda.
Ahmad Hikmat Shakir — an Iraqi VIP facilitator who worked at the international airport in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Citing “a foreign government service,” page 340 of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on pre-Iraq-War intelligence indicates that, “Shakir claimed he got this job through Ra’ad al-Mudaris, an Iraqi Embassy employee” in Malaysia. On January 5, 2000, Shakir greeted Khalid al Midhar and Nawaz al Hamzi at Kuala Lampur’s airport. He then escorted them to a local hotel where these September 11 hijackers met with 9/11 conspirators Ramzi bin al Shibh and Tawfiz al Atash. Five days later, according to The Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes, Shakir disappeared.
Shakir, the Iraqi airport greeter, was arrested in Qatar on September 17, 2001. On his person and in his apartment, authorities discovered documents connecting him to the 1993 WTC bomb plot and “Operation Bojinka,” al-Qaeda’s 1995 plan to blow up 12 jets simultaneously over the Pacific. Interestingly enough, as a May 27, 2004 Wall Street Journal editorial reported, Ahmed Hikmat Shakir’s name appears on three different rosters of the late Uday Hussein’s prestigious paramilitary group, the Saddam Fedayeen. A government source told the Journal that the papers identify Shakir as a lieutenant colonel in the Saddam Fedayeen.
So would any or all of these ties between Iraq and terrorism or Iraq and al-Qaeda, in particular, withstand judicial scrutiny? That’s the question the families of two of those murdered at the World Trade Center wondered. The survivors of George Eric Smith, a 38-year-old senior business analyst with SunGard Asset Management Systems and……the family of Timothy Soulas, age 35, a foreign currency specialist with Cantor Fitzgerald, sued Baathist Iraq and the Taliban for damages connected to the murders of their loved ones.
The federal trail judge was Harold Baer, Jr. a Clinton appointee. He took testimony from Clinton-designated CIA director James Woolsey and American Enterprise Institute scholar Laurie Mylroie, an adviser to the 1992 Clinton campaign. Baer learned about the Salman Pak camp, and considered other evidence of Saddam Hussein’s ties to al-Qaeda. To be fair, Baer did not hear Hussein’s side, as the Iraqi dictator did not respond to the suit. Nevertheless, Baer issued his decision.
As Baer stated on May 7, 2003:
But Tony, you forgot to mention oil. Check your fax — it says to always mention that the only reason America ever fights anyone, anywhere, when an evil Republican is president is for oil.
At least you left out the no WMD quote.
Tony, clearly you’re unlearned in the concept of cause and effect with humans. It is extremely difficult to correlate cause and effect. For example, if I look at a bus and see 10 black people, I can conclude that the driver is racist and shoots any white person that attempts to get on the bus. Of course if I actually look at all the facts, I can see that I’m incorrect.
Tony — try looking at ALL the facts, not just one or two that you like, before attempting to state an absolute conclusion.
Tony? Your brain and colon have been switched haven’t they?
You are so full of **** that you must literally have diarrhea pouring from your ignorant mouth.
Show me where Colin Powell said what you claimed, (in full comment, not out of context) and I will take that back.
Simply because you lack the faculties to understand the connection between Iraq and al-qaeda doesn’t mean that you have the right to spout lies.
(note for you tony; we found the man that mixed the chemicals for the 93 WTC attack IN Baghdad…we caught the leader of the achille lauro hijackers there in baghdad as well….and one of the men still being sought for the 93 WTC attack was an iraqi intel officer…and those are just THREE of the connections.
I am done ******* with idiots like you tony….online you are safe, but from now on when I find you guys in public I WILL deal with you as your parents should have dealt with you.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ID/3909150/
Colin Powell link for you guys.
Also check out the 9/11 commission hey and see what they think of the links.
The 9/11 Commission? You have to be kidding me. Have you heard of Able Danger and all the information that was discounted for purely partisan reasons? That report is a joke.
I’m going to have to research the Colin Powell claim. I suspect there’s more to it than you say.
You put the Colin Powell link and then talk about the 9/11 Commission Report in the same breath–that’s pretty hilarious.
Recent revelations about covert “Able Danger” operations are forcing certain people to deal with subjects that they had thought swept under the rug. Despite apparent attempts to conceal the fact, the 9/11 Commission has had to admit it was informed that government agents knew of Mohammed Atta’s affiliation with al-Qaeda two years before 9/11, that Clinton-era policies prevented intelligence officials from sharing that information with the FBI, that the amended time frame would allow Mohammed Atta to have made contacts with Iraqi intelligence, and – most damningly – that it kept all this out of its final report.
Rep. Curt Weldon, R-PA, has done praiseworthy work in drawing attention to the recently released “Able Danger” report. Former CIA operative and terrorism expert Wayne Simmons has described the “Able Danger” operation as “one of our best covert operations” run by the intelligence community. The operation, he continues, was expert at “using open source intelligence,” including data mining techniques, “to locate and identify Islamic terrorists,” specifically al-Qaeda operatives in the United States. This operation identified 9/11 mastermind Mohammed Atta and three of his fellow hijackers as members of an al-Qaeda cell located in New York City (and codenamed “Brooklyn”) in 1999. We can only surmise that a gold mine of information lies yet unrevealed.
Weldon noted with exasperation that this information had been delivered to the 9/11 Commission in at least two separate briefings, possibly three, proving the incredible ineptitude of the commission. Weldon says staffers of the 9/11 Commission did not share – and Commissioners did not request – information about these “Able Danger” reports. This would have been indispensable to uncovering how 9/11 happened and what could be done to prevent a repeat performance, allegedly the commision’s task..
Faced with these revelations, commissioners first claimed Rep. Weldon was not telling the truth, that the 9/11 Commission had never been presented with this vital information. Early last week, commission spokesman Al Felzenberg said, “The name ‘Atta’ or a terrorist cell would have gone to the top of the radar screen if it had been mentioned.” Former Congressman and commissioner Lee Hamilton, D-IN, echoed Felzenberg, saying last Monday: “The September 11 commission did not learn of any U.S. government knowledge prior to 9/11 of surveillance of Mohammed Atta or of his cell. Had we learned of it obviously it would’ve been a major focus of our investigation.” The New York Times notes that just a few days later, “Mr. Felzenberg said the uniformed officer who briefed two staff members in July 2004 had indeed mentioned Mr. Atta.” Hamilton, too, quickly “readjusted” his initial comments to admit that, indeed, the commissioners heard of Atta after all. Felzenberg acknowledged the commission had been briefed on this information but rejected the testimony of a uniformed officer on the grounds that his evidence did not match their preconceived timeline; it indicates Atta was active from February-April 2000, whereas the commission believed Atta entered the United States for the first time that June.
There are several factors – none flattering to the Commission – that might explain this appalling lapse. John Podhoretz neatly summaries them: “So was the [9/11 Commission] staff a) protecting the Atta timeline or b) Jamie Gorelick or c) the Clinton administration or d) itself, because it got hold of the information relatively late and the staff was lazy?”
The really upsetting issue is contained in Podhoretz’s first note. It requires a deeper reading because understanding it fully opens the entire mindset of the hard Left toward terrorism and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Podheretz notes that the Commission was “protecting” its interpretation of Mohammad Atta’s international and domestic U.S. travels. Key in this “interpretation” in the minds of Clinton supporters and Bush haters of all stripes is the necessity to deny all ties between Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and al-Qaeda. After all, in the endless cacophony of criticism against the Iraq War, the two steady drumbeats have been the failure to find WMDs, and the assertion that there were no links between Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and the September 11 attacks. Until now the Left has issued a series of deliberate misinterpretations of a series of reports – including that of the 9/11 Commission, and WMD reports by David Kay and Charles Dueffler. However the unimpeachable “Able Danger” report was at first denied by 9/11 spokesman Al Felzenberg, then was reluctantly confirmed to be correct. Felzenberg said that “the information that [the “Able Danger” briefing officer] provided us did not mesh with other conclusions that we were drawing.” (Emphasis added.)
Naturally, the MSM title of that piece is rather misleading. This is what he said:
“I have not seen smoking gun, concrete evidence about the connection, but I do believe the connections existed,” he said.
So he said there were no concrete links then didn’t he, otherwise he wouldn’t have said that. I rest my case.
You can rest your case but he didn’t say “concrete evidence”. Your argument is so weak it’s laughable. The writer of the piece drew that conclusion. With all the other evidence that we’ve been able to uncover (just on the internet)–the government surely has more than that– so I don’t swallow what you’re saying based on one stretch of someone’s overactive imagination.
In February of 2003 Powell said:
“I cannot tell you everything that we know,” Powell said, with CIA Director George Tenet sitting behind him. “But what I can share with you, when combined with what all of us have learned over the years, is deeply troubling.” (Key points)
Powell asserted that Iraq has had high-level, long-standing contacts with the al Qaeda terrorist network.
He said al Qaeda fugitives from Afghanistan have found safe haven in northern Iraq and al Qaeda associates are operating in Baghdad.
Powell also said an al Qaeda fugitive linked to the October killing of U.S. diplomat Laurence Foley in Jordan has found “safe haven” in Iraq and has plotted attacks in Europe.
Interestingly, at CNN, this article was published in June of 2004. The article you cited was from January of 2004. In the June CNN article, a senior official traveling with the president said:
So actually that proves that what you’re saying is bogus, and what I said above about Zarqawi still holds true.
If that’s all you’ve got–one sentence misconstrued by the media–and you expect me to just look past all this other evidence that I’ve cited with links? You’re crazy. You’re hanging by a flimsy thread…which is a lie. No, that’s not what Powell said. But if it makes you feel better to cling to that stupidity, go right ahead.
The connection between Al Qaeda/Bin Laden/Iraq has already been proven unequivocally in court (as cited above).
You know what guys,
In my personal opinion, the argument about Iraq is a moot point. I believe the following:
Saddam was expendable in order to establish a stepping stone, after Afghanastan, in order to isolate Iran, the real key to winning this war.
Saddam was a bad guy, literally and figuratively. He compensated families who had kids who acted as mass murderers.
He had used WMD’s in the past and could not account for the remainder,
He had, many times over, stated his wish that the United States be defeated.
He was expendable, period.
Frankly, I don’t give a rats *** what the reasons given the public for taking Iraq, the President is CIC and has a war to run.
It’s not up to us to dictate how he should do it.
So, Tony, if you can do better, run for office. Otherwise, get with the program or sit down and STFU!
Good point, Marv. I’m not sure why Tony is hanging onto one little sentence like that, oblivious to everything else that’s been introduced as evidence. I like to look at facts. Your comment, though, is quick, to the point, and makes perfect sense. I’m still going to bury the guy with facts about the Al Qaeda/Bin Laden/Iraq connection. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that there is/was one…and Saddam should stay gone, the Baathists should remain defeated, and we should take great pains to win the war before we pull out, not before, end of story.
Those who try to whitewash Saddam’s record don’t dispute this evidence; they just ignore it. So let’s review the evidence, all of it on the public record for months or years:
* Abdul Rahman Yasin was the only member of the al Qaeda cell that detonated the 1993 World Trade Center bomb to remain at large in the Clinton years. He fled to Iraq. U.S. forces recently discovered a cache of documents in Tikrit, Saddam’s hometown, that show that Iraq gave Mr. Yasin both a house and monthly salary.
* Bin Laden met at least eight times with officers of Iraq’s Special Security Organization, a secret police agency run by Saddam’s son Qusay, and met with officials from Saddam’s mukhabarat, its external intelligence service, according to intelligence made public by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was speaking before the United Nations Security Council on February 6, 2003.
* Sudanese intelligence officials’ agents had observed meetings between Iraqi intelligence agents and bin Laden starting in 1994, when bin Laden lived in Khartoum.
* Bin Laden met the director of the Iraqi mukhabarat in 1996 in Khartoum, according to Mr. Powell.
* An al Qaeda operative now held by the U.S. confessed that in the mid-1990s, bin Laden had forged an agreement with Saddam’s men to cease all terrorist activities against the Iraqi dictator, Mr. Powell told the United Nations.
* In 1999 the Guardian, a British newspaper, reported that Farouk Hijazi, a senior officer in Iraq’s mukhabarat, had journeyed deep into the icy mountains near Kandahar, Afghanistan, in December 1998 to meet with al Qaeda men. Mr. Hijazi is “thought to have offered bin Laden asylum in Iraq,” the Guardian reported.
* In October 2000, another Iraqi intelligence operative, Salah Suleiman, was arrested near the Afghan border by Pakistani authorities, according to Jane’s Foreign Report, a respected international newsletter. Jane’s reported that Suleiman was shuttling between Iraqi intelligence and Ayman al Zawahiri, now al Qaeda’s No. 2 man.
(Why are all of those meetings significant? The London Observer reports that FBI investigators cite a captured al Qaeda field manual in Afghanistan, which “emphasizes the value of conducting discussions about pending terrorist attacks face to face, rather than by electronic means.”)
* As recently as 2001, Iraq’s embassy in Pakistan was used as a “liaison” between the Iraqi dictator and al Qaeda, Mr. Powell told the United Nations.
* Spanish investigators have uncovered documents seized from Yusuf Galan — who is charged by a Spanish court with being “directly involved with the preparation and planning” of the Sept. 11 attacks — that show the terrorist was invited to a party at the Iraqi embassy in Madrid. The invitation used his “al Qaeda nom de guerre,” London’s Independent reports.
* An Iraqi defector to Turkey, known by his cover name as “Abu Mohammed,” told Gwynne Roberts of the Sunday Times of London that he saw bin Laden’s fighters in camps in Iraq in 1997. At the time, Mohammed was a colonel in Saddam’s Fedayeen. He described an encounter at Salman Pak, the training facility southeast of Baghdad. At that vast compound run by Iraqi intelligence, Muslim militants trained to hijack planes with knives — on a full-size Boeing 707. Col. Mohammed recalls his first visit to Salman Pak this way: “We were met by Colonel Jamil Kamil, the camp manager, and Major Ali Hawas. I noticed that a lot of people were queuing for food. (The major) said to me: ‘You’ll have nothing to do with these people. They are Osama bin Laden’s group and the PKK and Mojahedin-e Khalq.’”
* In 1998, Abbas al-Janabi, a longtime aide to Saddam’s son Uday, defected to the West. At the time, he repeatedly told reporters that there was a direct connection between Iraq and al Qaeda.
*The Sunday Times found a Saddam loyalist in a Kurdish prison who claims to have been Dr. Zawahiri’s bodyguard during his 1992 visit with Saddam in Baghdad. Dr. Zawahiri was a close associate of bin Laden at the time and was present at the founding of al Qaeda in 1989.
* Following the defeat of the Taliban, almost two dozen bin Laden associates “converged on Baghdad and established a base of operations there,” Mr. Powell told the United Nations in February 2003. From their Baghdad base, the secretary said, they supervised the movement of men, materiel and money for al Qaeda’s global network.
* In 2001, an al Qaeda member “bragged that the situation in Iraq was ‘good,’” according to intelligence made public by Mr. Powell.
* That same year, Saudi Arabian border guards arrested two al Qaeda members entering the kingdom from Iraq.
* Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi oversaw an al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan, Mr. Powell told the United Nations. His specialty was poisons. Wounded in fighting with U.S. forces, he sought medical treatment in Baghdad in May 2002. When Zarqawi recovered, he restarted a training camp in northern Iraq. Zarqawi’s Iraq cell was later tied to the October 2002 murder of Lawrence Foley, an official of the U.S. Agency for International Development, in Amman, Jordan. The captured assassin confessed that he received orders and funds from Zarqawi’s cell in Iraq, Mr. Powell said. His accomplice escaped to Iraq.
*Zarqawi met with military chief of al Qaeda, Mohammed Ibrahim Makwai (aka Saif al-Adel) in Iran in February 2003, according to intelligence sources cited by the Washington Post.
* Mohammad Atef, the head of al Qaeda’s military wing until the U.S. killed him in Afghanistan in November 2001, told a senior al Qaeda member now in U.S. custody that the terror network needed labs outside of Afghanistan to manufacture chemical weapons, Mr. Powell said. “Where did they go, where did they look?” said the secretary. “They went to Iraq.”
* Abu Abdullah al-Iraqi was sent to Iraq by bin Laden to purchase poison gases several times between 1997 and 2000. He called his relationship with Saddam’s regime “successful,” Mr. Powell told the United Nations.
* Mohamed Mansour Shahab, a smuggler hired by Iraq to transport weapons to bin Laden in Afghanistan, was arrested by anti-Hussein Kurdish forces in May, 2000. He later told his story to American intelligence and a reporter for the New Yorker magazine.
* Documents found among the debris of the Iraqi Intelligence Center show that Baghdad funded the Allied Democratic Forces, a Ugandan terror group led by an Islamist cleric linked to bin Laden. According to a London’s Daily Telegraph, the organization offered to recruit “youth to train for the jihad” at a “headquarters for international holy warrior network” to be established in Baghdad.
* Mullah Melan Krekar, ran a terror group (the Ansar al-Islam) linked to both bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Mr. Krekar admitted to a Kurdish newspaper that he met bin Laden in Afghanistan and other senior al Qaeda officials. His acknowledged meetings with bin Laden go back to 1988. When he organized Ansar al Islam in 2001 to conduct suicide attacks on Americans, “three bin Laden operatives showed up with a gift of $300,000 ‘to undertake jihad,’” Newsday reported. Mr. Krekar is now in custody in the Netherlands. His group operated in portion of northern Iraq loyal to Saddam Hussein — and attacked independent Kurdish groups hostile to Saddam. A spokesman for the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan told a United Press International correspondent that Mr. Krekar’s group was funded by “Saddam Hussein’s regime in Baghdad.”
* After October 2001, hundreds of al Qaeda fighters are believed to have holed up in the Ansar al-Islam’s strongholds inside northern Iraq.
Some skeptics dismiss the emerging evidence of a longstanding link between Iraq and al Qaeda by contending that Saddam ran a secular dictatorship hated by Islamists like bin Laden.
In fact, there are plenty of “Stalin-Roosevelt” partnerships between international terrorists and Muslim dictators. Saddam and bin Laden had common enemies, common purposes and interlocking needs. They shared a powerful hate for America and the Saudi royal family. They both saw the Gulf War as a turning point. Saddam suffered a crushing defeat which he had repeatedly vowed to avenge. Bin Laden regards the U.S. as guilty of war crimes against Iraqis and believes that non-Muslims shouldn’t have military bases on the holy sands of Arabia. Al Qaeda’s avowed goal for the past ten years has been the removal of American forces from Saudi Arabia, where they stood in harm’s way solely to contain Saddam.
The most compelling reason for bin Laden to work with Saddam is money. Al Qaeda operatives have testified in federal courts that the terror network was always desperate for cash. Senior employees fought bitterly about the $100 difference in pay between Egyptian and Saudis (the Egyptians made more). One al Qaeda member, who was connected to the 1998 embassy bombings, told a U.S. federal court how bitter he was that bin Laden could not pay for his pregnant wife to see a doctor.
Bin Laden’s personal wealth alone simply is not enough to support a profligate global organization. Besides, bin Laden’s fortune is probably not as large as some imagine. Informed estimates put bin Laden’s pre-Sept. 11, 2001 wealth at perhaps $30 million. $30 million is the budget of a small school district, not a global terror conglomerate. Meanwhile, Forbes estimated Saddam’s personal fortune at $2 billion.
So a common enemy, a shared goal and powerful need for cash seem to have forged an alliance between Saddam and bin Laden. CIA Director George Tenet recently told the Senate Intelligence Committee: “Iraq has in the past provided training in document forgery and bomb making to al Qaeda. It also provided training in poisons and gasses to two al Qaeda associates; one of these [al Qaeda] associates characterized the relationship as successful. Mr. Chairman, this information is based on a solid foundation of intelligence. It comes to us from credible and reliable sources. Much of it is corroborated by multiple sources.”
The Iraqis, who had the Third World’s largest poison-gas operations prior to the Gulf War I, have perfected the technique of making hydrogen-cyanide gas, which the Nazis called Zyklon-B. In the hands of al Qaeda, this would be a fearsome weapon in an enclosed space — like a suburban mall or subway station.
Tony, your argument is typical of leftists and weak.
One small comment from Colin Powell in 2004 simply means proof that we point out had not happened yet.
We caught the leader of the Achille Lauro hijacking in 2005!!!.
This book discusses a document discovered by Iraq’s interim government detailing a summer 2001 meeting in the Iraqi capitol between September 11 ringleader Mohammed Atta and notorious Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal.
The list goes on moonbat.
The truth has beaten you down. Leave with that small shred of dignity you have left.
PS….
Tony, did you ever stop to think that if Iraq wasn’t somehow important to the enemy, that they wouldn’t be flocking there to die in the numbers that they are?
Schwing!
Today’s dose of NIF – News, Interesting & Funny … Another Weekend, already in progress
After Dumping on Powell as a talking head for the president, now he is the oracle of Delphi. The difference? They like what he said this time. I was glad when Powell Was picked for SS, but that lasted about two weeks. The evidence of connections between Saddam’s Iraq and Al Q. are irrefutable, and no one is saying that Iraq was behind 9/11, but there may have been training support at Salman Pak
Tony, you said this:
There is also the issue that it is perfectly feasible to support the troops and oppose the policy, the troops are there under orders and I think most right thinking people want them to avoid harm.”
In fact it is NOT feasible to support the troops but not the war. For you to wish them no harm is appreciated. As the father of a Marine, I thank you for that. But your actions nullify that concern.
The left’s continual argument against Iraq only emboldens the enemy in Iraq which probably costs more American lives than would otherwise have been lost. As long as they feel that they have an ally in the country that they fight, they will be energized to fight. We saw that with Vietnam.
I recall a conversation with a friend of my wife ( a liberal) who expressed her hope that my son would not be sent to Iraq. That’s like asking him not to do his job. I expressed to her the fact that he WANTS to go to Iraq because Iraq is a battle in the war that he joined to fight. That is why he enlisted, that is what a Marine does.
She still, to this day does not understand.
When you do not support the reason that the troops are there, you take away the reason for their risks, you take away the reason for their purpose. You make them more vulnerable, less effective You defeat them by your actions. You kill them by your default support of the people that they fight (your vocal disagreement of why why they are there).
Tony, it is your legal right to say anything that you want. But with rights come responsibilities.
Whether you like it or not, we are at war.
Our enemy is technologicaly advanced and they can see the actions of the left in this country. And your words and actions embolden them.
Tony, I will tell you this, if the **** from you and the left continue to obstruct what the President is trying to do, with all of its ramifications to the troops and their determination, I will remember you and those on the left and how they undercut every effort to succeed, and I will forever be your enemy.
This is not a political game, it is national survival. You can’t have it both ways….
I agree wholeheartedly, Marv. There was financial support from Saddam toward terrorism, as well. Saddam had much more money than Bin Laden…Bin Laden was certainly willing to partner with him to leverage those dollars. Hell, George Galloway was given $550,000 a year over a 10 year period by Saddam. That’s not pocket change.
We said we would go after terrorists and the nations that support them. We certainly did that with Iraq; there is no doubt that Saddam supported terrorism; he paid the families of suicide bombing murderers $25,000…for people whose standard of living is so poor–so low–that is a lot of money.
I understand from my son that Iraqis will go to work for $5.00 a day and that is a tremendous amount of money for them.
Al Qaeda in Iraq is in dire straits–in a note believed to be written by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi intercepted by Coalition officials in 2004, he exclaimed “By god, this is suffocation!” He whines and complains in this letter, and I think it’s terrific–it shows we are winning.
To rob our boys of their impending victory is stupid and foolish considering the enemy we’re facing –who have vowed to destroy us, no matter what the cost. These are people who are working over generations to end western civilization. They don’t count their dead; they celebrate them as progress toward victory.
We should let our boys finish the job they started. Iraq is well on its way to being self-sufficient. That is what our boys in the field want– That is what my son wants, that is what his brothers at arms want… most importantly, this is what the Iraqi people want. Don’t believe me, check out the Iraqi bloggers like the ones at Iraq the Model. Don’t rob them of their victory and most of all; the victory of the Iraqi people over 35 years of REAL tyranny….murder, torture, human shredders, cutting eyes out, cutting tongues out, relentless beatings, falaqua (Uday’s favorite), beheadings, etc.–and that’s REAL torture…generations of men in Iraqi families were killed at the hands of Saddam, but nobody wants to talk about THAT.
At what point does Tony start believing individuals he might disagreed with at one point and when does he stop believing them?
The answer is simple – when Tony agrees with them.
A Thankful and Resolute Iraq
Perhaps a few people noticed that yesterday, when President Bush took responsibility for the federal response to Katrina, he was being visited by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani. I find it of extreme importance to maintain focus on Iraq and the Globa…
LINKAGE DENIED
It is my assumption, there are few Americans…
“But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.”
The Declaration of Independence – 1776
*****************************************************
Welcome to EARTH – One World, One Future! (many Peoples)
and remember…we have been flying a “War” flag (yes, we actually have another flag – the current one is our WAR Standard: appropriate aye?) for almost 200 years!
Ah but there are millions of Christians who don’t wish to be enslaved by the secular religion of atheists and communists/socialist/fascists who are admirers of Hitler and are Stalinists like Saddam Hussein.
The origin of the working class revolution can be traced back to the 18th century when the world saw the emergence of two competing methods for the reformation of society: Humanism and Revival Christianity. The scenario which best illustrates the nature and outcome of these two opposite ideals is the social fomentation of England and France during that century. One nation experienced a renewal of Christianity; the other experienced a revolution which plunged them into darkness and a series of bloody wars (beheadings via the guillotine come to mind).
Our “revolutionaries” were all about securing religious freedom–not about forcing the religion of atheism on everyone so that government can be peoples’ God.
Noted Soviet dissident, Aleksandr Ogorodnikov, has predicted “the second Christianization of Russia” which could occur if Gorbachev’s policies continue on their present course. Ogorodnikov is presently involved in developing the first Christian Democratic Party in the Soviet Union. “Our first priority,” he says, “is fighting communism, and Christianity is the only force that can do this.”
MORE SENSELESS RANTINGS-LINKAGE DENIED
Without reference of value to any extreme.
The laws of Life establish only compassion.
I digress….
“When in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and assume among the Powers of Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to Separation.”
The Declaration of Independence – July 4 1776
You mean compassion for murdering thugs who behead people who can’t defend themselves–who are bound by their hands and feet.
People like you are compassionate only towards the cowardly terrorists who hide behind women and children to fight and don’t have the balls to stand on their own and face the enemy like men–much like Che Guevara, who ended up putting tape over his victim’s mouths because true courage unnerved him.
American military investigator, Air Force Lt. Gen. Randall M. Schmidt, looked into the interrogation techniques used on al-Qahtani. Here is some of what he found:
Schmidt said that to get him to talk, interrogators told him his mother and sisters were whores, forced him to wear a bra, forced him to wear a thong on his head, told him he was homosexual and said that other prisoners knew it. They also forced him to dance with a male interrogator, Schmidt added, and subjected him to strip searches with no security value, threatened him with dogs, forced him to stand naked in front of women and forced him onto a leash, to act like a dog.
Al-Qahtani’s handlers provided him with food, water and medical care.
Compare that with this:
Then he goes on to describe in detail what this torture consisted of:
Notes
[1] Humberto Fontova, Fidel: Hollywood’s Favorite Tyrant (Washington: Regnery Publishing, Inc. 2005), pp.141-142.
[2] Stuart I. Rochester and Frederick Kiley, Chapter 19, “The Zoo, 1967-1969: The Cuban Program and Other Atrocities,” in, Honor Bound. American Prisoners of War in Southeast Asia 1961-1973 (Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press, 1999), p.400.
[3] Rochester and Kiley, p.404.
Jamie Glazov is Frontpage Magazine’s managing editor. He holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in Soviet Studies. He edited and wrote the introduction to David Horowitz’s new book Left Illusions. He is also the co-editor (with David Horowitz) of the new book The Hate America Left and the author of Canadian Policy Toward Khrushchev’s Soviet Union (McGill-Queens University Press, 2002) and 15 Tips on How to be a Good Leftist. To see his previous symposiums, interviews and articles Click Here.
You’re “compassion” is fake.