Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Osama bin Laden is enlisting his top operative in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, to plan potential attacks on the United States, U.S. intelligence indicates. ------Associated Press
Well, well, well....it seems we've found our Weapon of Mass Destruction after all! If this isn't a good enough reason for us to have been in Iraq, then I don't know if there is ever going to be a good enough reason! Whether or not they ever find the dreaded Weapons of Mass Destruction, one need only to look to al-Zarqawi and Hussein to see the true destructive force behind all of the problems. Whether or not the hardware is actually there, I am resting better at night knowing that our great President is fighting to rid the world of people like Hussein and al-Zarqawi.
If you'll take the time to read the article above, you'll see that Bin Laden and al-Zarqawi have been in contact with each other planning future attacks on the U.S. The media had better be careful! People might actually start realizing that there is a link between what happened on 9/11 and Iraq! What would happen then? GO GET 'EM W!!!
posted by Mike at 3/01/2005 08:45:00 AM
11 Comments:
Mike, read the story again.
The story talks about how al-Zarqawi and Osama have been talking, at most, only over the past year. 9/11 happened 3 1/2 years ago. The article also notes that al-Zarqawi's "efforts are considered somewhat distinct from central al-Qaida operations".
There never was, and never will be, a strong link between Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq and the Osama bin Laden-led attacks on the World Trade Cenber. The conservatives' grasping at straws to find a reason why Iraq was invaded is getting embarrassing.
And Osama is STILL out there. I'm not resting better at night until he (and al-Zarqawi) is found and brought to justice...which is obviously not a priority of this administration.
Well, here are the facts.....al-Zarqawi resides in Iraq. Bin Laden and al-Zarqawi communicate with each other. Are you saying that there are no ties between Iraq and al Qaeda? Are you saying there are no links between Hussein and Bin Laden? No links between Hussein and terror? There is no grasping at straws here...this was an AP report. So, in your world, the fact that we are in Iraq and hunting down al-Zarqawi says to you that it is not a priority of this administration? Are you also saying that this administration is not looking for Osama Bin Laden? All nonsense........you belong with these folks
Also, the report lists al-Zarqawi as "Bin Laden's top operative in Iraq." Hmmmmmmm. No links at all between Iraq and terror.....or Iraq and al-Qaeda or Iraq and 9/11....LOL
When you say "ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda" are you talking about Iraq the government, or the people who live inside it? If it's the latter, then al-Qaeda has connections with just about every country in the world, since they have operatives who are in just about every country in the world. That argument is like saying Saddam has ties to America because Donald Rumsfeld met with him in 1983...or because we helped him in the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980's. Same thing with Osama, who we helped in Afghanistan at about the same time.
Yep, I'm gonna stick with my guns and say that deploying thousands of troops to Iraq to depose a dictator who has NO links to the attacks of September 11 instead of going after the guy who does means that finding Osama isn't a priority. Bush even said so himself.
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
The report listed the al-Zarqawi-bin Laden link because of things that have happened over the past two months to a year...not things that happened before 09/11/01. I'm not denying there is a connection now, I'm saying that there wasn't one before 9/11, which you claim.
So just all-of-a-sudden, over the past couple of months al-Zarqawi is al-Qaeda? Wow, I figured it was more difficult than that to get in....You're saying that "Bin-Laden's top operative in Iraq" had no dealings with Bin Laden previous to a couple of months ago? Ridiculous....Let me ask you this...would catching Bin Laden end terror? That is the point of the quote you cite and what the liberal mind seems to miss...the war on terror is never-ending...it is a new philosophy that says "we are not going to allow you to operate and affect the world as you have for far too long." The fact that Iraq has served as a "safe harbor" for terrorists over the years, and that all the intelligence pointed to Iraq having WMDs and the fact that they are now being liberated from tyrannical rule should all be important points to someone without an agenda....oops, oh, well, then, there you have it.....
Mike, from the article:
"Bin Laden was in contact with al-Zarqawi within the past two months in an effort to enlist him in attacks,"
"Al-Zarqawi is blamed for scores of attacks in Iraq and pledged allegiance to bin Laden and the al-Qaida network last year. Yet he has had differences with bin Laden, and his efforts are considered somewhat distinct from central al-Qaida operations."
"In October, he made a first-ever pledge of loyalty to bin Laden, by posting a message on a Web site known for carrying militant Islamic content."
"In January 2004, Kurdish forces in Northern Iraq detained one courier, Hassan Ghul, who was carrying a letter written by al-Zarqawi to bin Laden."
It seems like the earliest contact here between al-Zarqawi and bin Laden is January 2004, still over two years after 9/11. The article you cite discusses the differences between al-Zarqawi and bin Laden, making their association in the attacks of 9/11 very unlikely. Just admit it...Saddam had NOTHING to do with 9/11.
No, catching bin Laden wouldn't end terror, but I'm not sure what exactly would. Will installing a new government in Iraq end terror? How about a new one in Iran? Saudi Arabia? Syria? Libya? Cuba? Where will it end?
"Terror" isn't something you can defeat. But terrorists like bin Laden we can find and imprison, removing a skilled terrorist mind. Perhaps we should concentrate on finding him instead of protecting our oil interests and going after easy targets.
I, for one, refuse to live in fear. It's great that Saddam isn't running Iraq any more. But if we're going to start having that low standard for invading a country and deposing its leader, then the line would have started well before Saddam. There is no democracy in Saudi Arabia. Some might call it tyrannical rule. No democracy in China. Nor in Iran. Nor in Cuba. Who's next, Mike?
And what, exactly, is my agenda?
Who's next? I would say anyone who harbors terrorists or commits genocide or the like should be afraid that they are next. Your agenda? I don't know all that your agenda entails, but I do know that making an irresponsible statement and judging Bush's motives as being "protective of our oil-interests" rather than recognizing the great strides that have been made in Iraq sounds like the hateful rhetoric of Anti-Bush cronies. And do I think that installing new governments will help to end terror? Yes, as a matter of fact I do. Spreading freedom and American ideology will go a lot further toward changing the face of terrorism than simply catching one man.
I guess that makes Saudi Arabia next, since they harbor terrorists and have legitimate ties to 9/11. Plus, the people have no freedom. Our troops are already there. Will you join them, Mike?
And what exactly was my irresponsible statement?
My point is that if we're going to start playing democracy cop for the world and start invading and then nation-building, we're going to run out of troops and money and leave our own country open for another terrorist attack. It's misguided to use heavy-handed force in foreign lands to influence change. It only breeds more terrorists. Part of the reason why al-Zarqawi and bin Laden are now working together is because of our involvement in Iraq. The actions of the US, in part, has created the instability in Iraq that is leading to more terror.
Bush can act to end genocide in Sudan whenever he wants. They are taking away freedoms in Nepal as I type this. Where is the US? We picked a country with oil reserves to invade instead. It's not a coincidence.
And since when do we have the right to spread our ideology whereever we see fit? Isn't part of democracy choosing your own ideology?
As for Saddam's ties to terror and, specifically, to al Qaeda, these pieces by Deroy Murdock may be of interest:
Adapted from a September 22, 2004 presentation at the Hoover Institution
Saddam Hussein's Philathropy of TerrorNational Review Online
July 21, 2004
There Is a C-O-N-N-E-C-T-I-O-NIt's not unreasonable to suspect that the WMDs were moved to Syria or elsewhere.
Funny how, a few days ago, Syria suddenly "captured" and turned over Saddam's half brother and 29 other fugitives now that they think we are on the verge of going in.
FrontPage Magazine
May 6, 2004
Iraq WMDs, Now in Syria
Yes, Ryan, part of a Democracy is the freedom to choose...but you are already assuming the "freedom" part. The people of Iraq were not "free to choose." And where would we be today had the United States not intervened in history? We have always stood for those who cannot help themselves (see the Statue of Liberty!) It is what liberty is all about! If you have it and don't share it then what is it worth? Where would countries like France or Canada be today were it not for the United States? It's easy to criticize us, all the while forgetting what we've done throughout history. By the way...we are a Republic, not a Democracy.....
Also, see here for more of my thoughts on "spreading liberty."
Post a Comment
<< Home