THE TRUTH BE KNOWN

A recent MSNBC news story titled 'Hussein loyalists fade as factor in violence' (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4557892) states that foreign and Iraqi Islamic extremists (terrorists) are the dominant forces responsible for attacks on civilians and security forces in Iraq. Upon reading this story I found myself asking the following question. Why are so many people convinced that the Iraq War is not a part of the war on terrorism?

All year long I have been hearing leftists in both the U.S. and abroad reiterating that claim, yet the current situation in Iraq contradicts their assertion. Indeed, so does the March 11th bombings in Madrid Spain, which were reportedly carried out as a warning to the people of that country to stop supporting the United States' efforts in Iraq. Even the staunchly anti-Iraq War presidential candidate Howard Dean, after sighting a video-taped statement by Al-Qaeda-connected terrorists that they bombed those four commuter trains for the above mentioned reason, has said that "The president was the one who dragged our troops to Iraq, which apparently has been a factor in the death of 200 Spaniards over the weekend."

While that may well be so, what Dr. Dean fails to relate is why he thinks Al-Qaeda and associated terrorist organizations would want to involve themselves in the Iraq conflict or attack the countries fighting in it, if that nation's fate has so little to do with their war against us. The short answer is that they wouldn't. Islamic terrorists like Al-Qaeda haven't gone around blowing people up in most other embattled nations for the sole purpose of driving out infidels, even when the United States was involved in those conflicts. So why would they decide to jump into the Iraq War? It's not like most citizens of Iraq are their supporters or even ideologically similar to them. Nor is it the case that Islamic terrorist are prone to participating in regional wars which happen to involve Muslims, just because Americans are fighting in them.

No, the simple reason is that Saddam Hussein was an ally to Al-Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations for years, and his downfall deals a harsh blow to them. Their aim is to force free people everywhere to embrace their way of thinking and destroy anyone who does not capitulate, and dictators such as Saddam lend them the support they need to accomplish their goal. In fact, evidence of the willingness of Osama Bin Laden to ally himself with Saddam Hussein out of mutual interest, has been found in an audio-taped message by the terrorist mastermind released in February, 2003. One of the statements on the tape relates "there is nothing wrong in Muslim interests converging with those of the socialists (Ba'athists) in the battle against the Crusaders (United States and Israel), even if we believe and declare that the socialists are apostates."

Let us not forget that Saddam Hussein, although having modeled his government after Joseph Stalin's Soviet regime, is still a Sunni Muslim, which is what most Al-Qaeda terrorists are. His regime oppressed and murdered the Shi'ite Muslims in that country for decades, and Al-Qaeda extremists like Bin Laden consider the Shi'ite majority there to be an ideological enemy. They would not have hesitated to side with the Ba'athists in their war against infidels merely because Saddam has killed thousands of what they consider to be lesser Muslims. And even though the Hussein regime was at ideological odds with Al-Qaeda as well, the Americans and their allies were, and still are, the primary enemies of Osama and his followers.

Of course, most liberals contend that just because there are terrorists in Iraq now doesn't mean they were there before the war, but this is a provably false assertion. Hussein's regime was as aggressively supportive of terrorism as any of the world's dictatorships, and harbored individuals in Iraq who were directly connected to Al-Qaeda. For instance, we know that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, an Al-Qaeda-tied terrorist from Jordan, and the man currently believed to be leading the terrorist campaign against coalition forces and the indigenous population in Iraq, was there prior to the war.

Zarqawi had lost a leg during a major offensive by U.S. forces in Afghanistan in 2002, and escaped to Baghdad where he sought medical attention for his injuries. A member of both Al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Islam, Zarqawi is considered one of the world's most dangerous terrorists, and the U.S. government has placed a $25 million bounty on his head. He and his followers are reported to have established a terrorist training camp in northern Iraq before the war commenced, specializing in poisons and explosives, and he is also believed to have planned major terrorist attacks in his home country.

Furthermore, according to a report produced by the Hudson Institute entitled "Saddam Hussein's Philanthropy of Terror", (http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/murdocksaddamarticle.pdf) groups such as Hamas, the Palestinian Liberation Front, Ansar al-Islam and the Arab Liberation Front have been directly tied to Saddam. The report also lists various terror suspects connected to his regime, including Khala Khadar al Salahat (captured in Baghdad in April of 2003), Abu Nidal (who committed suicide in Baghdad in 2002), Ramzi Yousef (planner of the first WTC bombing of 1993), Abdul Rahman Yasin (conspirator in the first WTC bombing), Abu Abbas (captured just outside Baghdad in April of 2003) and, of course, Abu Musab al Zarqawi. All of these individuals have been in Iraq at one time or another, some even having lived there for years.

Not only does the report detail the links between these terrorists and Hussein's regime, it also remarks upon his "habitual support for terrorists" as well as payments made by his regime of up to $25,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. It goes on to describe how one of Hussein's diplomats at Iraq's Manila embassy was expelled from the Philippines for communicating via telephone with Abu Madja and Hamsiraji Sali, leaders of the Al-Qaeda-affiliated Abu Sayyaf terrorist group.

Beyond that, documents found in Iraq's intelligence service headquarters in April of 2002 show that an Al-Qaeda envoy was invited to Baghdad in 1998 for the purpose of establishing an alliance between Hussein and Bin Laden based on their mutual hatred for the United States and Israel. The documents also reveal that an Al-Qaeda envoy had previously traveled to Iraq in late 1997 from Bin Laden's former base in the Sudan. The mention of these events, and Osama Bin Laden's name in particular, had been whited out at the time of their discovery, but the correction fluid used was later removed, exposing the connection previously denied by both Al-Qaeda and Iraq.

If politics makes for strange bedfellows, then surely something as extreme as terrorism will create even stranger ones. Does anyone seriously believe that people who have committed themselves to mass murder and the domination of their fellow human beings would even hesitate to associate and conspire with one another in an effort to destroy a common enemy?

Not likely, and that is why a Washington post article (http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/inring.htm) published on March 19th of this year is anything but shocking. It concerns a 1993 Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) document obtained by the Iraqi National Congress (INC) and labeled "top secret". The document lists IIS "collaborators", and among the names therein appears "the Saudi Osama bin Laden." The document describes Bin Laden as being "in charge of the Saudi opposition in Afghanistan." and was first released to CBS by Ahmed Chalabi, the leader or the INC.

Even federal Judge Harold Baer of Manhattan found "by evidence satisfactory to the court, that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al Qaeda." and has ordered that Saddam Hussein, as well as Osama Bin Laden and other individuals, pay $104 million in damages to the families of the victims of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. I don't know about you, but I consider that to be a fairly substantial validation of the links between Hussein and Bin Laden.

Also consider this, aside from Osama, what other human being on the planet had a stronger motive for attacking the United States of America? The answer is obviously Saddam Hussein, who was humiliated by the father of our current president during the Gulf War. Is there a sane person alive who can honestly state that this maniac just decided to live and let live after his defeat in 1991? Of course not, and that understanding makes even more significant the fact that Hussein had ties to Islamic terrorist groups of practically every description over the course of the past decade and more.

Certainly Bin Laden would have been, and still is, concerned that the United States is trying to bring about a democratic state in a country who's dictator has been so helpfull to people like him for so many years. It would also concern him that 60 percent of the citizens of that country are Shi'ites instead of Sunnis like himself. While it is true that he's attempted to unite all Muslims in his war against infidels, his willingness to accept non-Sunni fundamentalist Muslims into his fold is only a temporary exception to his otherwise hard and fast rules, born of necessity rather than desire.

Thus is also true of his inclination to put aside his differences with leaders like Saddam Hussein, if doing so assists him in his quest to rid the world of "the Great Satan". The means justify the ends in the minds of radical Islamists like Bin Laden, at least in the short term. There will always be time later on to bring the socialists and wrong-thinking Muslims in line once the Christians and Jews have been dealt with.

Still, the far-left wing of the Democratic party, now championed by Senator John F. Kerry, insists that the Iraq War was ill-conceived, often stating that it has distracted us from the "real threat" we face and even hindered us in our efforts to fight the war on terrorism. The liberals among us behave as if the two things are not one and the same, even though it is clear beyond any reasonable doubt that they are. Why they have failed to accept the evidence right in front of their eyes is unknown to me, but I suspect the answer lies within the following quote by Saul Bellow. "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

Hussein was a hero to Muslim militants. Iraq was a safe haven for all manner of Islamic terrorists. Saddam tried to kill former President Bush. That alone justifies removing him from power. In the end, the lies of the Left will be defeated. Truth will reign supreme.

Thanks for putting it in black and white again right in front of their noses.

I can clearly remember the warnings we received before the Gulf War. They said that we would very likely be the target of terrorism. And if I recall correctly, they said it would most likely occur over the next five years.

You are most welcome Joe... and yes, I as well recall having read such statements in the past from certain individuals within the former Iraqi regime.

To them and everyone like them I exclaim "Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war!"

Dems are forced to say that, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Hussein had no ties to terrorism. Since they are excoriating Bush for not pursuing Al-Qaeda enough, they have to pretend that Hussein had no ties to it. Admitting that the fighting in Iraq is related to the anti-terrorist war would be to admit that Bush is right, which he obviously is, and take the legs out from underneath the demonstrably false Dem position. So they have to keep their blinders on and lie to the American public. As Christopher Hitchens has stated, the dumbest thing he's heard yet is the Dem claim that we should be fighting Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and not Iraq.

"So they have to keep their blinders on..."

And yet they don't HAVE to, they simply CHOOSE to.

How does one combat blind ignorance? In my opinion, one combats it in much the same way one combats blind hatred... with truth and big brass balls!

I think this is a very interesting article, though most of the points you've raised are very speculative in nature.

Using a $104 million civil court judgement -- especially by a judge with a reputation for judicial idiocy like Harold Baer -- as a "fairly substantial validation of the links between Hussein and Bin Laden" makes no sense at all.

Interestingly, I have become more convinced over time that there was a connection between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. What bothers the hell out of me, though, is that this connection will never be admitted by the U.S. government because it would effectively expose the last three administrations (Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II) in this country as the most disgraceful period in our nation's history.

Good piece!

"No, the simple reason is that Saddam Hussein was an ally to Al-Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations for years, and his downfall deals a harsh blow to them. Their aim is to force free people everywhere to embrace their way of thinking and destroy anyone who does not capitulate, and dictators such as Saddam lend them the support they need to accomplish their goal. In fact, evidence of the willingness of Osama Bin Laden to ally himself with Saddam Hussein out of mutual interest, has been found in an audio-taped message by the terrorist mastermind released in February, 2003. One of the statements on the tape relates "there is nothing wrong in Muslim interests converging with those of the socialists (Ba'athists) in the battle against the Crusaders (United States and Israel), even if we believe and declare that the socialists are apostates."

To me this sums it up. they would kill us all each and evry one of us. so we must kill them back and hit them hard if we even think they might bring harm to us. good article.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.