February 11, 2005

Clinton's indictment of Osama proves Iraqi connection

I find it interesting that anti-war folks keep saying "Iraq was not linked to al Qaeda. They were enemies of each other." Funny, that is not what Richard Clarke said in the Washington Post in 1999 when he justified the bombing of the Sudanese al Shifa aspirin factory/chemical weapons plant. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37704 Also, President Clinton's 1998 indictment said that al Qaeda had forged alliances with Iran, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad, and had agreed to work with Iraq on weapons development. You can read the indictment here http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/indict1.pdf An article in National Review by Deroy Murdock discusses some of the other statements by Richard Clarke and others. For instance, Clarke told the 911 Commission "The Iraqi government," Clarke continued, "didn't cooperate in turning [one of the 93 WTC bombers] over and gave him sanctuary, as it did give sanctuary to other terrorists." http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200403260858.asp So, if even Clarke admits Iraq harbored terrorists who had attacked America, why the rewrite of history? Why do liberals still claim that Iraq had "no connection" to al Qaeda? Why do they say this even when the 911 Commission Report says that there was a connection? I like how Deroy Murdock answers this in his NR piece: "Critics of Operation Iraqi Freedom ignore these and many more ties among Saddam Hussein, al Qaeda, Palestinian zealots, and other Islamofascist mass murderers. Why? Acknowledging these contacts would concede a major casus belli behind Coalition efforts. The fact that Mohamed Atta did not charge his plane ticket to Hussein's Platinum Visa card does not render the Butcher of Baghdad a virgin among militant Muslims. In fact, Saddam Hussein loyally supported global terrorists, including al Qaeda. If Richard Clarke and others who oppose Bush's Iraq policy still do not see this, they are either blind to Nexis and similar news databases or paralyzed in a state of deep, pathological denial." Here is a good place to see a more complete picture of Saddam's support for Islamist terrorists www.husseinandterror.com

2 comments:

aaron said...

I agree with your concern over statements like "Iraq was not linked to al Qaeda." Broad oversimplifications do not help the discourse when discussing preventing terrorism.

But in order to really put Iraq in its proper place in the terror scheme, we must first define who are terrorists.

In 1987 the UN came up with a definition, but giving an exception and stating, "nothing in the present resolution could in any way prejudice the right to self-determination, freedom and independence, as derived from the Charter of the UN, of people forcibly deprived of that right..."

(of course you can guess which two countries voted against this passage of the definition of terrorism-US and Israel)

So, groups like Hamas who are fighting within their own country and trying to gain Independence are not terrorists. If you say they are, then our own founding fathers were terrorists too! American revolutionaries did fun stuff like tar and feather and quarter with horses!
Even the Boston Tea Party was an act of terror!

Even with the Palestinian groups being considered terrorist, the support of Islamic terroris stem overwhelming from Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Why didn't we invade them? I guess Iran is next, but will we ever invade SA, doubtful. I don't support massive invasions, they are very destructive, counterproductive and can be accomplish through non-violent means. Ask India and Gandhi.

Boston has supported the IRA, does that give England justification to bomb Boston?

Terrorism is nasty, but so is dropping bombs and destroying cities(falujah).

Akil said...

In response to your argument that the definition of terrorists is shady, consider this.

Our founding fathers broke away from a tyrannical government who taxed them without adequate representation. And they did not murder innocent parties in the process. How many people did Washington, Jefferson or Henry kill that were not British soldiers?

As for Hamas, if they only attacked Israeli military targets, I would not consider them terrorists as much as paramilitary resistance. The attack on the Pentagon is less terrorism than a military attack. The attack on the WTC though, killed thousands of innocent civilians and is therefore terrorism. Terrorism is defined by targets and methods. Targets must be military, and methods must be war-like. Cutting off individual's heads to scare populations is terrorism. Shooting a rocket from Gaza into Israel is warfare.

I do not buy the moral equivalency argument that al Qaeda, Hamas or Hezbollah are freedom fighters in the same vein as Solidarity, Our Founders or the Iranian democratic student movement. There is a marked difference between legitimate resistance and murder for political purposes.

Hope this helps to clear up my views.