Posted on 06/16/2004 10:18:55 AM PDT by pctech
On Monday, Vice President Cheney went to Florida, where he reasserted there were "long established ties" between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.
Yesterday, during a Rose Garden news conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, a reporter invited President Bush to dissociate himself from this crime against conventional wisdom. "As you know, this is disputed within the U.S. intelligence community," the reporter said. "Would you add any qualifiers? What do you think is the best evidence of it?"
An annoyed look came over the President's face. It was boiling in the midday Washington sun. Poor bald Karzai was standing there without his lambskin hat, sweating. Bush was hot, too, and hungry; He had already mentioned lunch.
"Zarqawi," he snapped at the questioner. "He's the one who's still killing."
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the current jihad commander in Iraq, lived in Baghdad before Saddam's overthrow. No foreigners - certainly no notorious international Islamic terrorist foreigners - lived in the Iraqi capital without connections to Saddam and his regime.
Bush would like the country to take this as prima facie evidence of the Saddam-Osama Bin Laden relationship. But it won't. The President hasn't made the case.
Partly, this is the press corps' fault. As a recent Pew study revealed, journalists who work for elite national organizations are almost entirely liberal or moderate. Most won't vote for Bush. Many want to see him lose.
The idea that Bush invaded Iraq under false pretenses - and that Saddam had nothing to do with Bin Laden - is an integral part of the case against the President. Nothing less than a videotape of Saddam being inducted into Al Qaeda would constitute the sort of proof the press is now demanding.
But Bush has mostly himself to blame for the public's skepticism. He earned it by not telling the truth about why the U.S. went after Saddam. This is what he should have said after 9/11: "The Arab world has declared war on us. For decades, a great anti-American front has been building from North Africa to the Persian Gulf. The Saudi royal family and its Wahhabi missionaries belong to this front. So do the ayatollahs of Iran and their Lebanese surrogates, Islamic and Palestinian terrorist groups and Baathist dictators like the Assads of Syria - and Saddam Hussein.
"Some of these enemies are Shiite; some Sunni. Some secular, some Wahhabi. These are meaningless distinctions. The anti-American forces in the Mideast know one another and cooperate in shifting alliances.
"Our job now is to end this jihad by knocking the wind out of it. We could start in a lot of places, but Iraq -the heart of the Arab world - seems most effective. Everyone in the Middle East knows that this is war and that Saddam is engaged in it. Knocking him off will demonstrate the danger of being on the wrong side."
This is the real reason that Bush went into Iraq. But he didn't say so. It would have sounded too harsh in America's politically correct climate. Worse, such frankness would have offended the Saudis. Bush chose a different approach. He declared war on terrorism. He was being intentionally ambiguous - and now his political rivals have turned that ambiguity against him.
The President would like to intone "Zarqawi" and close the case on Saddam. But it won't work. Before this election is over, he'll to have to name the real enemy -Islamic fascism - or wind up looking like a man who went to war by mistake.
Yeah I am sorry but I have to agree with you. I honestly was hoping the war was for control of the oil fields.
I'd buy that for a dollar.
Did not read all of it - gathered it contained the same ol Bush lied rhetoric. The leftish media will not accept that we are in a war against those that will kill us, will not read the facts that have been put before them - why should I honor them by reading their ignorance?
We know why Bush went into Iraq - WMD. Whether we found them or not does not mean they were not there. If Bush had done nothing and ignored as all others did, we would have been in severe risk of an attack. We elected him to protect this country and that is what he is doing.
The whole time he said that the danger was gathering (not imminent as the ignorant press always states) and that it must be met. The whole danger was that Saddam in his hatred of all America would join with the increasing terrorist assaults and provide chemical/biological/nuclear capability to terrorists to deliver to the U.S. for him.
Now those that do not see this as a big danger - do not have my safety or the safety of my grandkids at heart. They care only about getting the White House back for their socialistic agenda to make America weak and an easy target.
Getting through the elite media is always a challenge to Republicans.
This year is the worst I can remember.
It seems they declared "war" on the Bush Administration.
Fortunately we have Rush(on now at my house), other talk radio, Fox News, and the internet. These are at least helpful.
Thanks for the suggestion, Zev. We both know it's Islamo-Zealotism, but if fascism works as the buzzword, fine. BTW, who was Barrabas?
Sorry, but to the smart ones who have paid attention, Bush HAS made his case. It's more than Bush, anyway. This stuff has been going on for years. It's America's case now.
Those that haven't caught on...they're either happily or unhappily ignorant or they're liars or enemies.
Saddam can dress up in an al-Q uniform, sing at their graduation ceremonies, and be caught on tape opening a joint bank account with Osama, and the ignorant masses wouldn't believe any of it.
Seriously Though the Bush Administration and Bush himself have been terrible with Communication with the American Public. This is where Bush and Reagan differ greatly. Reagan in his time didnt have Cable Television or Internet sites like this, so he used the Bully Pulpit. Bush should drop the compassion and use his Bully Pulpit because you can bet JFKerry will use it.
"For decades, a great anti-American front has been building from North Africa to the Persian Gulf. The Saudi royal family and its Wahhabi missionaries belong to this front. "
This fictional line made no sense. Bush would never speak the truth about the Saudis.
We know Saddam worked with the PLO and other terrorists, he funded them. He at LEAST knew that 9/11 was coming.
Less than two months before 9/11/01, the state-controlled Iraqi newspaper “Al-Nasiriya” carried a column headlined, “American, an Obsession called Osama Bin Ladin.” (July 21, 2001)
In the piece, Baath Party writer Naeem Abd Muhalhal predicted that bin Laden would attack the US “with the seriousness of the Bedouin of the desert about the way he will try to bomb the Pentagon after he destroys the White House.”
The same state-approved column also insisted that bin Laden “will strike America on the arm that is already hurting,” and that the US “will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs” – an apparent reference to the Sinatra classic, “New York, New York”.
(Link below)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1106657/posts?page=1
List of newspaper article in the 90's which mention the world's concern regarding the growing relationship between OBL and Saddam: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/946809/posts?page=1
Son of Saddam coordinates OBL activities:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/951911/posts
The AQ connection (excellent):http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/944617/posts?page=2
Western Nightmare: http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,798270,00.html
Saddam's link to OBL: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/866105/posts
NYT: Iraq and AQ agree to cooperate: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/985906/posts
Document linking them: http://tennessean.com/nation-world/archives/03/06/34908297.shtml?Element_ID=34908297
Iraq and terrorism - no doubt about it: http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins091903.asp
A federal judge rules there are links:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/986293/posts
Wall Street Journal on Iraq and AQ:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/987129/posts
Iraq and Iran contact OBL: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/981055/posts
More evidence: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F04%2F27%2Fwalq27.xml
Saddam's AQ connection: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/969032/posts
Further connections: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1007969/posts
What a court of law said about the connections:
http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/98110402.htm
Some miscellaneous stuff on connections:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/989201/posts
Saddam's Ambassador to Al Qaeda: (February 2004, Weekly Standard)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1083778/posts
Yes - it's NewsMax but loaded with interesting bullet points.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/1097521/posts?page=1
Saddam's Fingerprints on NY Bombing (Wall Street Journal, June 1993)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1115387/posts
Colin Powell: Iraq and AQ Partners for Years (CNN, February 2003)
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.alqaeda.links/
The Iraq-Al Qaeda Connections (September 2003, Richard Miniter)
http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html
Oil for Food Scandal Ties Iraq and Al Qaeda (June 2003)
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1125899/posts
Saddam and OBL Make a Pact (The New Yorker, February 2003):
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030210fa_fact
Al Qaeda's Poison Gas (Wall Street Journal, April 2004):
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005016
Wolfowitz Says Saddam behind 9/11 Attacks:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/921398/posts
Saddam behind first WTC attack - PBS, Laurie Mylroie:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/mylroie.html
Growing Evidence of Saddam and Al Qaeda Link, The Weekly Standard, July 2003:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/946997/posts
Qusay Hussein Coordinated Iraq special operations with Bin Laden Terrorist Activities, Yossef Bodansky, National Press Club
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/951911/posts
The Western Nightmare: Saddam and Bin Laden vs. the Rest of the World, The Guardian Unlimited:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,798270,00.html
Saddam Link to Bin Laden, Julian Borger, The Guardian, February 1999
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/866105/posts
The Al Qaeda Connection, The Weekly Standard, July 2003
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/944617/posts?page=2
Cheney lectures Russert on Iraq/911 Link, September 2003:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/982713/posts
No Question About It, National Review, September 2003
http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins091903.asp
Iraq: A Federal Judges Point of View
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/986293/posts
Mohammed's Account links Iraq to 9/11 and OKC:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/987075/posts
Free Republic Thread that mentions so me books Freepers might be interested in on this topic:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/977221/posts?page=8
The Proof that Saddam Worked with AQ, The Telegraph, April 2003:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F04%2F27%2Fwalq27.xml
Saddam's AQ Connection, The Weekly Standard, September 2003
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/969032/posts
September 11 Victims Sue Iraq:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2237332.stm
Osama's Best Friend: The Further Connections Between Al Qaeda and Saddam, The Weekly Standard, November 2003
Terrorist Behind 9/11 Attacks Trained by Saddam, The Telegraph, December 2003
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1007969/posts
James Woolsey Links Iraq and AQ, CNN Interview, March 2004, Also see Posts #34 and #35
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/1104121/posts
A Geocities Interesting Web Site with maps and connections:
http://www.geocities.com/republican_strategist/Iraq-Bin-Laden.html
Bin Laden indicted in federal court, read down to find information that Bin Laden agreed to not attack Iraq and to work cooperatively with Iraq:
http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/98110402.htm
Case Closed, The Weekly Standard, November 03
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp
CBS - Lawsuit: Iraq involved in 9/11:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/05/september11/main520874.shtml
Exploring Iraq's Involvement in pre-9/11 Acts, The Indianapolis Star:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/746225/posts
The Iraq/AQ Connection: Richard Minister again
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/989201/posts
Militia Defector says Baghdad trained Al Qaeda fighters in chemical weapons, July 2002
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/743892/posts
The Clinton View of Iraq/AQ Ties, The Weekly Standard, December 2003
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp
Saddam Controlled the Camps (Iraq/AQ Ties): The London Observer, November 01
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/741676/posts
Saddam's Terror Ties that Critics Ignore, National Review, October 2003:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1005579/posts
Tape Shows General Wesley Clark linking Iraq and AQ:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1056113/posts
Freeper list of links between AQ and Iraq:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/850346/posts
Salman Pak (Aviation Weekly)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/865435/posts
Another freeper resource - list of links between OBL and Saddam:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/838309/posts
Saddam/911 Link (FrontPage Magazine, Laurie Mylroie, May 2004):
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1133317/posts
Bush says Zarqawi killed Berg, cites Saddam ties (Reuters, May 2004)
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1136076/posts
The Connections (May 2004, The Weekly Standard)
New Information:http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/1144123/posts?page=11
Saddam's role in 9/11. (Freeper book, May 2004)
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/1144699/posts?page=5
Entire link and Post #5 - Clinton mentioned how AQ was developing a relationship with Iraq.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1145787/posts
The House of Representatives read into the congressional record the ties that Saddam had to Osama bin Laden (read down and open links in the record): June 2004
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/B?r108:@FIELD(FLD003+h)+@FIELD(DDATE+20040601)
Exploring the links between 9/11 and Iraq (Richard Miniter, June 2004)
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/1146319/posts?page=1
The Terrorist behind 9/11 was trained by Saddam (The Telegraph, 12/03)
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/1146356/posts?page=1
New Iraqi Chief Links 9/11 to Saddam (June 2004, NewsMax)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1146579/posts?page=1
Increasing evidence of Saddam's ties to 9/11 and AQ (National Review, June 2004)
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1146984/posts
Pre Bush Timeline of Saddam/OBL Ties (Freeper research):
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1152923/posts?page=1
Cheney claims Iraq/AQ connections (June 2004)
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/1153781/posts?page=20
Maybe you should read the article rather than just skim it and then write it off as a liberal filth.
I agree. I've dug up a bunch of articles which point to the connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda, but pulling together the evidence hasn't been easy. The media ignores the obvious connections, and the White House still hasn't made a strong case, or even given high profile to the reports and evidence that I've found from various news sources over the past year. Karen Hughes needs to give this top priority.
No, I have to make a stand sometime.
A part of me wonders, though, if he's waiting to really pound his message home until after the convention. That way, I would assume, he gets the message out when it does the most good, at least in his eyes. Could be wrong in this assumption?
The reason Bush hasn't been heard is he hasn't said what needs and needed to be said.
But then again, as this article points out, it may offend the Saudi's.
Now those that do not see this as a big danger - do not have my safety or the safety of my grandkids at heart. They care only about getting the White House back for their socialistic agenda to make America weak and an easy target.
Very well put.
...but a target for who ?
"Did not read all of it - gathered it contained the same ol Bush lied rhetoric. The leftish media will not accept that we are in a war against those that will kill us, will not read the facts that have been put before them - why should I honor them by reading their ignorance?"
It's always nice to see an open minded person explain why anyone should pay attention to what he says. You have already closed all lines of communication, don't expect too many people that want to discuss issues with you on a serious level. 2 out of 3 monkeys is pretty good, hear no evil and see no evil.
Cripes. You know if you read the speeches of Bush, and Chenney, Rice and Powell during the build-up to the war, you'll discover that they laid out several reasons for the war and it wasn't just WMD's. Don't focus on the soundbites. Read Bush's speech in November of 2002 or his SOTU address. Read the complete transcript of Chenney's interview with Tim Russert on MTP. All of the reasons are there.
The problem is that the press can't handle a mulitple-point argument. If they ask the President why should we go to war in Iraq, and he says, "There's point a, b, c, d, e ... etc." they'll say "yeah, yeah, but what's the real (one) reason. It's all soundbites with the press, not substance.
I gave a speech in West Virginia at a memorial event on the first anniversery of 9-11. The central theme was the fact that Islamo-fascists are the enemy in this war.
Last year, in the runup to the war in Iraq, I gave another speech to a couple thousand people on the steps of the Iowa State Capitol. Again, my main theme was the Islamo-fascist threat.
The President and his strategists made a decision long ago that it was best that he not confront this reality directly and personally.
I will not debate the wisdom of that decision here today. Whether I agree with them or not, I understand why they made this choice.
There are times when discretion IS the better part of valor, and there are times when an effective and smart leader uses surrogates to deliver the message.
It seems to me that Bush HAS made the case, and so has his administration. The fact that this is even an issue that is discussed here on the Freeper boards indicates that there is a large number of people who are aware of the connections. The situation is that the lamestream media will never disseminate this news, as it undercuts their attempt to defeat Bush in the next election. Yet even this, too, is well documented and well known by the community at large.
Let's face it; the dumbass Democrat half of the people in this country simply DON'T CARE about the evidence that proves the Saddam/Al Qaeda connection. These people would likely vote for Joseph Stalin if he ran on the Democrat ticket. They've already elected Caligula! What do we expect?
Watching how the American people have reacted since 911, I've concluded that if a nuclear bomb was detonated in NYC the dumbass Democrats would not be shaken out of their abject idiocy. I STILL can't fathom why this thing is as close as it is. Our only hope is to elect Bush EVEN THOUGH these lamebrains exist among us. And that means getting the miniscule minority that are the uncommitted 5 percenters to vote our way.
At this point, you have to figure that anybody who hasn't already made up their minds don't have much of one to begin with. This airheaded segment can best be swayed at a point in time closer to the actual election. As long as Bush can keep it close 'till then, he has a good chance of prevailing. It is THEN that he must cut loose with everything he has in order to be effective.
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.