The Saddam-9/11 Link Confirmed

FrontPageMagazine.com ^ | May 11, 2004 | Laurie Mylroie

[yonif]

Even if there is a link it doesn't matter. Saddam is a terrorist no matter if he is buddies with Osama or not. Proving a link between Saddam and Al Queda is unneeded really to justify the US overthrowing the Saddam regime.

[Susannah]

Those of us that support the war against Iraq do see it as part of the war on terrorism; however, the polls indicate Bush gets high marks on the war on terrorism but low marks on the Iraq war.

The number one issue for the election seems to be focused on what a majority of Americans believe was a war with Iraq that had no justification. The rants from the left and even from the right continue to be based on "no WMD found", Iraq couldn't have harmed us, etc. Proving a link between Saddam and 911 would wake up most of the anti-war movement and those that are whining "Bush lied to get us into an unecessary war"

[RandallFlagg]

Proving a link between Saddam and 911 would wake up most of the anti-war movement and those that are whining "Bush lied to get us into an unecessary war"

I doubt it. The left is so rabid in their hatred that they'd scream fraud if and when terror links to Saddam are found.

I'm waiting for them to claim that we planted the WMDs that we WILL find WHEN we find them.

They're so predictible

[Susannah]

"Iraqi documents discovered by U.S. forces in Baghdad that U.S. officials have not made public"

I wonder why these documents have not been made public? If they wait too long to show them, someone will be claiming they were fabricated.

[larryjohnson]

Author was a clinton advisor!!

[jla]

^

[guitfiddlist]

Proving a link between Saddam and 911 would wake up most of the anti-war movement and those that are whining "Bush lied to get us into an unecessary war"

One would hope so. But the Left today has proved that they have little or no intrinsic interest in any issue, save for its utility in bringing down Bush.

They are rabble-rousers of the worst sort, ranting and raving, stumbling through the crowd, exhorting it to surge in any temporarily useful direction to bring down the edifices of this government, for the sole purpose of placing their own sorry, selfish butts in power. They are beyond disgusting.

[rintense]

How about this for a conspiracy theory: With growing evidence that AQ had ties to Iraq, the US quietly stops all UN inspections in Iraq out of fear of (more)terrorist attacks.

[KingKangaroo]

Following that logic - can we expect to see Westminster MP Martin McGuinness taken out by a Predator? Or what about some leading members of the Israeli Government, who fought a terorist campaign against Britain?

Saddam should have been disposed of after the first Gulf War. Spurious links with Bin laden etc etc just go to show how we missed our chance back then.

[kcvl]

They failed to recognize that starting with the first assault on New York’s World Trade Center, Iraq was working with Islamic militants to attack the United States.

[ovrtaxt]

OKC-911 CONNECTION ALERT. Please let me know by freepmail if you want to be taken off this list. Thanks.

This one's from Laurie Mylroie.

[randita]

Democrats on the 9-11 commission have sure toned down their rhetoric since meeting privately with Bush and Cheney. Wonder if they were told information similar to and supportive of that in this article.

[ovrtaxt]

Yet among the “elite,” there is tremendous opposition to this notion. A simple explanation exists for this dichotomy. The public is not personally vested in this issue, but the elite certainly are.

Many of those who made this professional error cannot bring themselves to acknowledge it; perhaps, they cannot even recognize it. They mock whomever presents information tying Iraq to the 9/11 attacks; discredit that information; and assert there is “no evidence.” What they do not do is discuss in a rational way the significance of the information that is presented.

Iraqi involvement in the 9/11 attacks carries serious implications for judgments about the way that Bush 41 ended the 1991 war. As will be recalled, after 100 hours of a ground war, with Saddam still in power and Republican Guard units escaping across the Euphrates, Bush called for a cease-fire. Colin Powell, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, pushed for that decision, and Scowcroft backed him, although it was totally unnecessary, and many Arab members of the coalition were astounded at the decision.

Now many people will point to the UN resolution that clearly defined the goal of the 1991 war as getting Iraq out of Kuwait, not deposing Saddam. But now we have learned the lesson that what is in the UNs best interest is usually opposed to what's in the USs best interest.

[ovrtaxt]

Yes, she has an interesting history in the Clinton Admin. She was pretty much ignored and painted as a paranoid flake.

The only problem was, she was right.

[ovrtaxt]

Agreed. He was actively paying off Palestinian families who sent their own children off to murder Israeli civilians.

But of course, that line of thinking would require doing away with the double standard.

[wayoverontheright]

Even if there is a link it doesn't matter. Saddam is a terrorist no matter if he is buddies with Osama or not. Proving a link between Saddam and Al Queda is unneeded really to justify the US overthrowing the Saddam regime.

I am in total agreement.

If there is a lesson from 9-11, it is that we could be attacked WITHOUT WMD. To oppose war with Iraq, one must not only fail to grasp this lesson, but conclude that Saddam would be oblivious to it also, a potentially DEADLY conclusion.

[PLMerite]

bump for later

[B4Ranch]

It's frustrating when gov't officials hold back intelligence reports because they are afraid it may reveal the source.

[B4Ranch]

If Bush 41 had continued the attack closer to Baghdad I think he could have done a lot to slow Saddam interests in attacking the US.