Thursday, June 30, 2005

Left upset over 9/11 remarks in speech

The left and its allies in the MSM continually parrot the lie that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Directly or indirectly, you be the judge. From Andrew McCarthy's column:
On that score, nobody should worry about anything the Times or David Gergen or Senator Reid has to say about all this until they have some straight answers on questions like these. What does the “nothing whatsoever” crowd have to say about:

  • Ahmed Hikmat Shakir — the Iraqi Intelligence operative who facilitated a 9/11 hijacker into Malaysia and was in attendance at the Kuala Lampur meeting with two of the hijackers, and other conspirators, at what is roundly acknowledged to be the initial 9/11 planning session in January 2000? Who was arrested after the 9/11 attacks in possession of contact information for several known terrorists? Who managed to make his way out of Jordanian custody over our objections after the 9/11 attacks because of special pleading by Saddam’s regime?

  • Saddam's intelligence agency's efforts to recruit jihadists to bomb Radio Free Europe in Prague in the late 1990's?

  • Mohammed Atta's unexplained visits to Prague in 2000, and his alleged visit there in April 2001 which — notwithstanding the 9/11 Commission's dismissal of it (based on interviewing exactly zero relevant witnesses) — the Czechs have not retracted?

  • The Clinton Justice Department's allegation in a 1998 indictment (two months before the embassy bombings) against bin Laden, to wit: In addition, 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.

  • Seized Iraq Intelligence Service records indicating that Saddam's henchmen regarded bin Laden as an asset as early as 1992? (Left: "He probably changed his mind!" - ed.)

  • Saddam's hosting of al Qaeda No. 2, Ayman Zawahiri beginning in the early 1990’s, and reports of a large payment of money to Zawahiri in 1998?

  • Saddam’s ten years of harboring of 1993 World Trade Center bomber Abdul Rahman Yasin?

  • Iraqi Intelligence Service operatives being dispatched to meet with bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998 (the year of bin Laden’s fatwa demanding the killing of all Americans, as well as the embassy bombings)?

  • Saddam’s official press lionizing bin Laden as “an Arab and Islamic hero” following the 1998 embassy bombing attacks? (Left: "He probably changed his mind!" - ed.)

  • The continued insistence of high-ranking Clinton administration officials to the 9/11 Commission that the 1998 retaliatory strikes (after the embassy bombings) against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory were justified because the factory was a chemical weapons hub tied to Iraq and bin Laden?

  • Top Clinton administration counterterrorism official Richard Clarke’s assertions, based on intelligence reports in 1999, that Saddam had offered bin Laden asylum after the embassy bombings, and Clarke’s memo to then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, advising him not to fly U-2 missions against bin Laden in Afghanistan because he might be tipped off by Pakistani Intelligence, and “[a]rmed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad”? (See 9/11 Commission Final Report, p. 134 & n.135.)

  • Terror master Abu Musab al Zarqawi's choice to boogie to Baghdad of all places when he needed surgery after fighting American forces in Afghanistan in 2001?

  • Saddam's Intelligence Service running a training camp at Salman Pak, were terrorists were instructed in tactics for assassination, kidnapping and hijacking? (And just WHAT was that airplane fuselage doing there, training al Qaeda on the proper way to signal the stewardess for another package of peanuts? - ed.)

  • Former CIA Director George Tenet’s October 7, 2002 letter to Congress, which asserted:

  • Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank.

  • We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade.

  • Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression.

  • Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad.

  • We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.

  • Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of relationship with Al Qaeda suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action.

    There's more. Stephen Hayes’s book, The Connection, remains required reading. But these are just the questions; the answers — if someone will just investigate the questions rather than pretending there’s “nothing whatsoever” there — will provide more still.
  • Personally, I've always contended that since Iraq is part and parcel of the overall war on global terrorism, and that since it was clear they allowed al Qaeda to train there (see training camp at Salman Pak reference above), Iraq triggered Bush's promise not to differentiate between terrorists and countries that harbor and abet them.

    Some say "Well, then, why not Syria? Or Iran? Or Saudi Arabia? Or Libya?" I agree. Those countries should be next or put on notice they WILL be next if they don't shape up and crack down on terrorists. It looks, though, like Libya doesn't feel like testing us, evidenced by their decision to publicly disarm (think Saddam wishes he had done so now?).

    But Rome wasn't built in a day, and in 2001, we were told by our recently re-elected Commander-in-Chief that this would be a LONG war covering several fronts. The next president, Republican or...Independent (since Dems can't win anymore), will be fighting the war on terrorism, too.