Repeat after me
There were no terrorists operating in Iraq; errr that there is no relationship between terrorists and Iraq; Err, I mean, uhm no, there is no relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda; err that no significant operational relationship existed between Al Qaeda and Saddam:
Actually, there were many connections, as Stephen Hayes, writing in the current issue of the Weekly Standard, spells out under the headline “The Mother of All Connections.” Since the fall of Saddam, the U.S. has had extraordinary access to documents of the former Baathist regime, and is still sifting through millions of them. Mr. Hayes takes some of what is already available, combined with other reports, documentation and details, some from before the overthrow of Saddam, some after. For page after page, he lists connections–with names, dates and details such as the longstanding relationship between Osama bin Laden’s top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and Saddam’s regime.
Mr. Hayes raises, with good reason, the question of why Saddam gave haven to Abdul Rahman Yasin, one of the men who in 1993 helped make the bomb that ripped through the parking garage of the World Trade Center. He details a contact between Iraqi intelligence and several of the Sept. 11 hijackers in Malaysia, the year before al Qaeda destroyed the twin towers. He recounts the intersection of Iraqi and al Qaeda business interests in Sudan, via, among other things, an Oil for Food contract negotiated by Saddam’s regime with the al-Shifa facility that President Clinton targeted for a missile attack following the African embassy bombings because of its apparent connection to al Qaeda. And there is plenty more.
July 14th, 2005 at 9:55 am
Comments from the usual suspects in 4…3…2…
July 14th, 2005 at 5:27 pm
If “there was no relationship between terrorists and Iraq” is your reference point, you can certainly win that argument. If you’re interested in a more meaningful exercise, though, you could try to explain how the War on Terror went from Afghanistan, a major player, to Iraq, bypassing Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and about a dozen other countries with far more involvement in terrorism than Iraq.
The 1999 National Commission on Terrorism doesn’t mention Iraq, and take a look at the Table of Contents of the 1997 State Department “Patterns of Global Terrorism” report. It mentions 10 Middle Eastern countries, but not Iraq.
Or you could just pick some stupid statement you know you can rebut and pretend you’ve done something worthwhile…
July 14th, 2005 at 6:13 pm
Hellbent: The best place to invade Iran from is Iraq. The best way to invade Syria would be to hit it from the Mediterranean and from Iraq. Attacking Saudi Arabia or Pakistan would send the message that cooperating with the Americans would just get you invaded and make doing anything in the Middle East ten times as hard. And what would we do after we occupied any of these countries? If we tried to establish a democracy and leave, it’s likely that Bin Laden or someone like him would win the popular vote. If we picked a new dictator – well, that has certainly worked out badly for us in the past, right?
Iraq was vulnerable. We already had military forces positioned against it, and an Arab country (Kuwait) that was quite happy to be used as a launching point. Iraq was hardly unique in being run by a mad mass-murderer, but it was the only one that had been in violation of a UN-brokered peace settlement for ten years. It’s one of only a half-dozen or so nations that have extensively used poison gas since 1918. And finally, Iraq’s population is better educated, more aware of how democracy can work, and less religiously fanatical than most Arab countries. It’s where we have the best chance of leaving the first working democratic republic anywhere in the Arab nations.
July 14th, 2005 at 8:01 pm
The best place to invade Iran from is Iraq.
based on what? Why couldn’t we invade from Afghanistan? Plus we would’ve had more troops available since they wouldn’t be occupying Iraq.
Attacking Saudi Arabia or Pakistan would send the message that cooperating with the Americans would just get you invaded and make doing anything in the Middle East ten times as hard.
Co-operating suddenly means selling nukes to our enemies and fostering an environment that created 15 of the 9/11 terrorists? We’ve already invaded countries in the Middle East that co-operated with us. Please see Gulf War I.
And what would we do after we occupied any of these countries? If we tried to establish a democracy and leave, it’s likely that Bin Laden or someone like him would win the popular vote.
And this is different from Iraq how?
the only one that had been in violation of a UN-brokered peace settlement for ten years. It’s one of only a half-dozen or so nations that have extensively used poison gas since 1918.
both red-herrings as apparently the UN is useless and what does poison gas have to do with anything?
And finally, Iraq’s population is … less religiously fanatical than most Arab countries
What are you basing this on? On the contrary, it was Saddam that was less of a religious fanatic than most other leaders. In fact, women’s rights have been diminished by the current regime as compared to Saddam. (And before you answer the obvious, learn to read..I’m not defending the guy).
It’s where we have the best chance of leaving the first working democratic republic anywhere in the Arab nations.
Well, except that Turkey is a democracy that seems to work well. And Lebanon has been a democracy for over 10 years. And Iran isn’t doing too badly though it is Persian rather than Arab, the influence of the clerics notwithstanding. And our friends the Pakistani’s were doing decently (though not Arab) until our good friend Musharaff overthrew the democratically-elected government.
July 14th, 2005 at 11:17 pm
Defending Iraq after-the-fact using different criteria than were used to defend justify the invasion is as intellectually lazy and dishonest as rebutting an extreme, polarized version of the opposition.
Invent all the hindsight rationalizations you want, but we spent $200 billion taxpayer dollars and the lives and limbs of thousands of Americans because Iraq was an imminent threat to the U.S. and a major player in the 9/11 attacks, both of which are lies. We didn’t invade them to gain a crucial strategic base in our fight against the mighty Syrians.
July 15th, 2005 at 8:16 am
Relax, hellbent, it gets back to an old debate. You can start at whichever you like.