June 30, 2005
No Iraq/9-11 Connection? Dems Need to Think Again
One thing that Democrats apparently cannot stand is when facts get in the way of their ideological narrative:
"The president's frequent references to the terrorist attacks of September 11 show the weakness of his arguments," House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said. "He is willing to exploit the sacred ground of 9/11, knowing that there is no connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq."
I hope Congresswoman Pelosi will be sure to relate that point to the thousands of dead Iraqi men, women, and children and coalition soldiers who have died at the hands of al Qaeda in Iraq. I want to be there when Congresswoman Pelosi tells the families of dead American soldiers that their loss was not in a war against al Qaeda's Islamic terrorists. I want to be there when she explains that the al Qaeda terrorists who killed innocent civilians in New York, Washington, and Shanksville, PA, are not allied with and commanded by the same al Qaeda terrorists currently killing innocent civilians and soldiers alike in Iraq. I want to be there.
Pelosi is symptomatic of the myopic view of a Democratic leadership that cannot see the larger picture. To them, Osama bin Laden is the be all and end all of the War on Terror.
"The president's numerous references to September 11 did not provide a way forward in Iraq," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid said. "They only served to remind the American people that our most dangerous enemy, namely Osama bin Laden, is still on the loose and al-Qaida remains capable of doing this nation great harm nearly four years after it attacked America."
Democrats would portray the capture or death of Osama bin Laden as the end to the War on Terror. This is decidedly not the case. Islamic terrorism did not start with Osama bin Laden, nor will it end with his capture or death. He is but one terrorist, in but one terrorist group, one of many terrorist groups fueled by poverty and oppression. Only by changing the cultures that spawn terrorism can terrorism be eliminated. George Bush and Tony Blair understand that, and seek to bring democracy in as a tool to help end poverty and oppression by creating conditions favorable for economic development and the free expression of ideas by peaceful means.
Democrats would have you believe that with the capture death of Osama bin Laden that the world would return to September 10, 2001. That world, that age of innocence, will never exist again. The Democratic leadership is in engaged in fantasy, not reality.
Iraq was an elective war, but a necessary war all the same.
We looked at Saddam Hussein's history of invading neighboring countries not just once, but twice. We looked at the fact that Iraq under Saddam Hussein was not home to just one terrorist group, but four, and that Saddam paid other terrorists bounties to perform suicide bombings against our allies. We looked at the fact of his harboring of the 1993 World Trade Center bomber Abdul Rahman Yasin, and terrorist leaders Abu Nidal, and Abu Abbas.
We looked at the fact that he plotted to assassinate a United States President. We looked at his use of chemical weapons, which he not only used illegally in warfare against Iran, but in the genocide of his own people. We looked at the fact that he never fully accounted for the WMDs he declared in 1991, and that he kept the technology and expertise on hand to create such weapons in mass quantities on short notice again if he so desired. We looked at the fact that for more than a decade he thumbed his nose at sixteen U.N. Security Council resolutions, and that he continuously engaged in low-intensity warfare against the United States and other peace-keeping nations in the "no-fly" zones established after the 1991Gulf War.
After September 11, we decided that we had had enough. Saddam was not a direct threat to the United States, but he posed a threat as an enemy agent that actively supported Islamofascist terrorism. He allowed terrorist raining camps within his borders, and openly supported terrorism in other countries. He had the expertise and technology to supply al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations with chemical and biological weapons. He would not attack America directly, but was sympathetic to the cause of and capable of arming those who would.
These are the reasons we went to war with Saddam Hussein.
That Iraq could become a democracy and thus give 25 million people a say in how their own lives were run was a side benefit, but it was not the reason we invaded Iraq. It has however, become the reason we've stayed.
There is something inherent in the character of Americans that makes us want to fight for and nurture the freedom of others.
There is something inherently wrong with a Democratic Party that fought against this fine trait of American character in forcing our withdrawal from Southeast Asia thirty years ago, leading to the deaths of millions and the oppression of tens of millions that still exists to this day.
It is a wrong only worsened by teh Democratic insistance on seeking to impose this same genocidal mistake on the people of Southwest Asia.
The point that liberals are trying to make (and I'm not sure how well Congresswoman Pelosi made this point, but it remains) is that Iraq was not involved in the terrorist attacks of 9/11.
Yes, now there is an "al Qaeda in Iraq" terrorist group. Why is it there? How has it sprung up and grown so quickly and so well? Could it be because of the "infidel" presense in Iraq?
The use of 9/11 and terrorists as a pretense for war in Iraq is seen on the left as absurd. There was no Iraqi involvement in 9/11. Our invasion has done nothing but spur the growth of terrorism in the middle East.
Finally, Osama bin Laden is not the "be-all and end-all of the war on terror", but shouldn't the war on terror have focused on terrorists? Sadly, this war began as a diversion from the war on terror, and is now its main front.
This is all too tiring.
OK, we all understand that there was no DIRECT involvement between Saddam and the specific events of 9/11, however if you closely listen to Bush's speech he doesn't make that assertion. He simply states that 9/11 was the beginning of the war on terror and now we are fighting the war on terror in Iraq. He probably should have mentioned we are also fighting it in Afghanistan and a lot of other places too.
The Congressional Resolution on Iraq (passed by the House and Senate in Oct 2004) specifically cites that al Queda members were in Iraq -- that would be before the war started. So, the Left's contention that al Queda has just sprung up there is ludicrous. Of course, one of the traits of the Left is that every day is a new day and there is no such thing as history -- except in the case of forged documents and inaccurate memos.
And just in case the Left missed this -- Public Law 105-338, passed in 1998 -- that would be during the Clinton Presidency -- made it the "policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
It is truly sad that those on the left, who roundly criticized the Intelligence Community for failure to connect the dots on 9/11, cannot connect the dots on terrorism in general.
CORRECTION: The Congressional Resolution on Iraq was passed in October 2002, not 2004.
Iraq may not have been involved in the terrorist attacks on 9/11, but it certainly sympathized with the perpetuators. Whether there was direct aid may or may not come out in the future.
The larger picture of the war against the Taliban and Osama is still not the tell-all on the war on terror.
In many ways we(both Democrats and Republicans) have ficilitated the jihadists by supporting them, both economically and militarily. A case can probably be made that we had a hand in allowing this cancer to reappear.
A healthy induction of Saudi oil wealth, military help from Reagan and Clinton, and the militant jihad was on the march.
It was only a matter of time before we were going to have to face them. I suppose Iraq is about as good a place as any. That is why we cannot afford to cut and run in Iraq. It is that important!
Posted by: jihad in the West at June 30, 2005 11:35 AMI'd like to suggest an exit strategy for Iraq.
GO THROUGH IRAN
It's a dog eat dog world, so eat or be eaten.
Posted by: at June 30, 2005 12:29 PMI like what Mill says.
While there may not have been any WMD's it does not matter. I always thought that was a weak reason to go to war anyway. The better reason was to depose a cruel dictator. Nevermind that we helped make him, or that we ignore other dictatorships as politically convenient. We're guilty in that respect. But at least here and now, we're doing the right thing.
Marshall Neal
Bakersfield, CA
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature, and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
--John Stuart Mill
jihad in the West wrote:
"In many ways we(both Democrats and Republicans) have ficilitated the jihadists by supporting them, both economically and militarily. A case can probably be made that we had a hand in allowing this cancer to reappear."
"A healthy induction of Saudi oil wealth, military help from Reagan and Clinton, and the militant jihad was on the march."
First, I think it's important to point out that it was President Carter that let the Islamofascists get a foothold in the Middle East when he abandoned the Shah of Iran. Khomeni took charge and grabbed the hostages, putting Iran at odds with the United States. That left Reagan with little choice in who to back in the Iran-Iraq War. Reagan also didn't have much of a choice but to back the mujhadeen in Afghanistan either -- given that he was dead set on toppling the "evil empire." So, yes, the U.S. aid to Iraq and the mujhadeen under Reagan came back to haunt us.
I honestly can't remember anything Clinton did in terms of helping the jihadists operationally. However, Clinton certainly emboldened them by not responding to terrorist acts like the bombings in Nairobi, the Khobar Towers and of the USS Cole and by turning tail and running out of Somalia.
Finally, this is not a case of a cancer reappearing. The cancer was spreading ever since the overthrow of Iran, and -- with few exceptions -- we chose to ignore it.
About Carter letting Islamofacists "get a foothold" in the mideast.
To stop it, Carter would have had to provide overwhelming support to the Shah of Iran against his own people.
Carter couldn't,we didn't have the power, nor should he have, it would have been a disaster.
Where Carter, along with Nixon, Ford, Reagan, H. Bush, and Clinton failed was by not authorizing attacks against terrorist groups, especially after they murdered Americans.
The most famous is that of Arafat ordering the murder of two American diplomats in Kenya.
That act demanded that the Prez. defend this country by ordering his assisination and the use of military force to destroy it and sanctions, with threats of force, against any country supporting them.
The response was nada, nothing.
And so, we repead what we have sown.
Even now, George W. doesn't seem to be doing enough by letting Syria and Saudi Arabia get away with sponsoring terrorists.
As for Osama Bin Laden. HE IS DEAD.
Isn't it obvious!(?)
Where is the proof he is alive? As for the tape before the election, THAT IS PROOF HE IS DEAD.
Look at it and its obvious its a fake.
Intel Officer is, of course, right about the cancer reappearing with the removal of the Shah by Islamic militants. The problem was that it was not confined in Iran at that time and was allowed to spread.
Reagan helped the jihadis with the support he gave them in Afghanistan. The victory over the Soviet Union certainly gave them the credibility they desired, and bolstered their confidence.
Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia was pouring billions of dollars into teaching the Salafist brand of Islam all over the Muslim world. Suddenly, we find that peace-loving Muslims had in many cases become militant.
The Serbs handed the Muslims another plum when they invaded Bosnia. The jihadis poured into the area to help, and along with American airpower and troops, the Serbs were routed. Did the Muslims appreciate US help? Hardly! And they learned that the Europeans wouldn't fight. This was the Clinton contribution, among others.
With the routing of the Russians and the Serbs, and the observation that the Europeans wouldn't fight, the US had to be tested.
Osama was the man to do it. He was from Saudi Arabia and he wanted the US out. The attacks began and continue to this day. The Saudi's continue to pour money into mosques that preach violent jihad, and the US is kinda fighting them in Iraq.
Believe me when I say that the jihadis know what is at stake in Iraq. They know that if they can run the US out of Iraq that they will have taken a major step in their dream to restore the Caliphate, and reinstitute sharia law. That is what they all want. Why they want it so bad needs to be the subject of another post.
Posted by: jihad in the West at June 30, 2005 05:06 PMIntel Officer wrote:
OK, we all understand that there was no DIRECT involvement between Saddam and the specific events of 9/11, however if you closely listen to Bush's speech he doesn't make that assertion. He simply states that 9/11 was the beginning of the war on terror and now we are fighting the war on terror in Iraq. He probably should have mentioned we are also fighting it in Afghanistan and a lot of other places too.
See, this is what drives people like me nuts. It's a "War On Terror" so let's go fight a dictator. I believe that were this administration truly interested in combating terror (and state sponsors of terrorism), they wouldn't have invaded Iraq.
So, the Left's contention that al Queda has just sprung up there is ludicrous.
I'm sorry, I was busy listening to the administration telling me that the insurgency consists of "foriegn fighters" afraid of democracy. The point is, we're giving the terrorists what they formerly had in Afghanistan under the soviets: a training ground for jihadists from all over. Was this so hard to foresee? Speaking of ludicrous -- are you trying to say that al Qaeda in Iraq is not stronger and more supported than it was pre-invasion?
It is truly sad that those on the left, who roundly criticized the Intelligence Community for failure to connect the dots on 9/11, cannot connect the dots on terrorism in general.
Whatever. I assumed it was clear to people, even here, that terrorism in Iraq is much much worse because of the US invasion. And when I say "terrorism in Iraq" I mean the numbers of and popular support for terrorists. Read Paul Krugman in today's NY Times for someone saying it better.
Asking Paul Krugman (former advisor for Enron) for advice on Iraq is like teaching a pig to sing.
Posted by: former marxist at July 1, 2005 11:56 AMAsking Paul Krugman (former advisor for Enron) for advice on Iraq is like teaching a pig to sing.
Um, frustrating because, regardless of what you think, the pig knows it's smarter than you?
I'm done here -- I've had enough. Arguing with people on the internet is like, well, you can imagine. Good luck with your war and your singing pigs.
Posted by: Just some liberal at July 1, 2005 12:58 PMWell, JSL, you were the one that brought up Paul Krugman, one of the many Socialist/Marxists that brought down Enron in the first place.
BTW, just where did Mr Krugman get his degree in Economics from, Patrice Lumumba University?
When you get your head clear, give me a call.
Why are the terrorists in Iraq?
Because some sort of consensual government allowing Shias and Sunnis to work together with a mimimum of violence and more progress than the various Islamic, Dynastic, or Military tyrannies in the region is a threat. It is a threat because it shows the Western Model can be imported and used in Muslim countries; things like consensual government and tolerance, compromise, and secularism.
Ideologically, Jihadists cannot allow such an abomination. They must crush any thoughts of liberty and modernity in the cradle before it grows into Hercules.
Overall, we are engaged sadly in a confrontation between jihadist Islam and modernity; see Thailand (1,000 dead); Western China; Russia; India; Israel; Philippines, anywhere Islam butts against non-Islamic cultures. If this were 1920 we could just ignore them and retreat, modern technology and the jet age puts them and us side by side.
McDonalds giving cheap, fast, relatively good, and sanitary food that is the same every time is truly threatening. It shows up close and personally the advantages of Western Culture (which is why it's burned down all the time in third world countries during riots). We are culturally in the face of Islam showing through McDonalds, Tom Cruise movies, rap music, and more that we are the culture of the future, and they are the trash can of the past. In a sense our success and their failure (despite sitting on an ocean of oil) says their God lied to them; hence the rage. It's even worse since we are not colonizing them; we simply offer our products as part of our culture and their people willingly buy them. No wonder they hate us and try to kill us.
It's a lot easier than confronting their own failures of sexual slavery, intolerance, anti-rationalism, superstition, and the chains of religion. Until they change and accept a baseline of modernity (like say the South Koreans or Japanese or Thais or Chinese or Indians) we will have conflict. Simple as that.
Posted by: Jim Rockford at July 2, 2005 01:59 AMWell, JSL, you were the one that brought up Paul Krugman, one of the many Socialist/Marxists that brought down Enron in the first place.
Okay... I did bring up Mr. Krugman. I suggested a particular column of his as a better explanation of the liberal take on Iraq than I could manage. I'm no expert on Enron, but you are certainly the first I've heard blame the fall of Enron on Socialists and Marxists. (And, no, I don't want to know why you think this. Really.) If anyone else cares, they can read what Paul Krugman has to say for himself about his association with Enron.
BTW, just where did Mr Krugman get his degree in Economics from, Patrice Lumumba University?
BA from Yale, PhD from MIT, according to his CV. This took but a moment of googling (as did my search for Patrice Lumumba and Patrice Lumumba University. Where do you get this stuff?).
As for Jim Rockford's post: the usual shallow tripe. Interestingly, remove the international references and replace "jihadists" with "fundamentalist Christians" and you've got my problem with the religious right, although I wouldn't have said "they are the trash can of the past", and I don't think you should say that about Muslims. Seriously: I laugh when I hear conservatives say things like:
It's a lot easier than confronting their own failures of sexual slavery, intolerance, anti-rationalism, superstition, and the chains of religion.How can you say that with a straight face? Have you looked at the current Republican party? Aside from the "sexual slavery", I would be happy to point the finger at the religious right for all other offenses.
Happy Independence Day everyone.
Posted by: Just Some Liberal at July 4, 2005 11:12 AMThe Dimocrats and the MSM both know the facts, but choose to lie about it in the hope that a lot of cult followers in the dimocratic party are too stupid to know the difference. I think they have proven that to be true over the past few years. Even educated (sic) people accept the lies as fact, and you can show them the reports and they will not change their mind, if they have a mind to change.
Posted by: scrapiron at July 4, 2005 11:59 PMI read Paul Krugman's column and it was pretty much the same thing that all the other Libs in the MSM are saying.
I have to admit, the Liberal's view on Iraq is quite fascinating. Right now, we have a group of terrorists who are killing Iraqis -- yet the order of magnitude of their killing is much less than the killing under Saddam Hussein. But I guess that's okay because Saddam was the sovereign ruler and if he wanted to gas 800,000 Kurds that's okay. And if he felt like killing off 400,000 other people that's okay too...they're just Arabs.
The Liberals take on it is that if Bush was smart, he'd be more like Bill Clinton....and let the slaughter of innocents go on, just like Bill did in Rwanda. What's million Tutsi's anyway?
The Dem's motto ought to be:
"When it comes to genocide, we step aside."
Posted by: Intel Officer at July 5, 2005 02:58 PMThis is decidedly not the case. Islamic terrorism did not start with Osama bin Laden, nor will it end with his capture or death. He is but one terrorist, in but one terrorist group, one of many terrorist groups fueled by poverty and oppression. Only by changing the cultures that spawn terrorism can terrorism be eliminated. George Bush and Tony Blair understand that, and seek to bring democracy in as a tool to help end poverty and oppression by creating conditions favorable for economic development and the free expression of ideas by peaceful means.Poverty and oppression are symptoms of a lack of political freedom, not the root cause that Democrats harp upon. But, the terrorists who were involved in 9/11 were all middle class blokes who had comfy jobs before they decided to take jetliners and crash them into skyscrapers. Bin Laden is rich. Dirty stinking rich. Comes from a family that got rich on the construction business in Saudi Arabia.
For them, it wasn't about poverty or oppression though they often used that rhetoric since it was an easy way to get people to join their jihad (not the personal struggle kind but the real - blow'em to bits kind). It was about eliminating the infidels from the midst of their world. And by their world, I mean our world. These guys have a medieval view of the world and think that they can and should impose their reality on the rest of us.
Posted by: lawhawk at July 6, 2005 01:38 PM
