Why Iraq? Why Now?

WorldNetDaily ^ | September 23, 2002 | Joseph Farah

[Paul Ross]

This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29028

Monday, September 23, 2002

---

---

Why Iraq? Why now?

---

Posted: September 23, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Joseph Farah

---

© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com

I keep hearing the administration talking about the reasons we're about to invade Iraq.

President Bush told the United Nations Baghdad is developing weapons of mass destruction. True.

He told the hapless international body that Iraq has violated countless U.N. resolutions. True.

He told the U.N. Iraq has attempted to assassinate world leaders – including his father. True.

He said Iraq possesses dangerous weapons that threaten its neighbors. True.

He said Saddam Hussein has diverted oil revenues permitted under sanctions to feed its people to the cause of rearmament. True.

He talked about the refusal of Iraq to allow weapons inspectors the cooperation they need to determine the state of Baghdad's military capabilities. True.

He mentioned that Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator and mean to his own people. True.

These are all good reasons for us to be concerned about Iraq – maybe even to consider an invasion.

But there is one more important reason Bush did not mention in his address to the U.N. – the fact that Iraq is hosting al-Qaida terrorists, giving them support, providing them with a base of operations, offering them aid and comfort.

Does anyone remember why we invaded Afghanistan after Sept. 11? Does anyone recall the one condition we gave the Taliban? Does anyone recollect what provoked our invasion of that land?

Afghanistan didn't have any weapons of mass destruction. Afghanistan hadn't tried to kill foreign leaders. Afghanistan hadn't violated any U.N. resolutions. Afghanistan didn't threaten its neighbors. Afghanistan didn't have any missiles, nor was it arming itself in any significant way. Afghanistan didn't prevent weapons inspectors from entering the country.

No. Afghanistan did one thing that prompted that invasion – it hosted al-Qaida terrorists and refused to turn them over to the U.S. following the worst terrorist attack in the history of the world. That was it. That was enough. Hardly anyone questioned our actions – not Russia, not the U.N., not even the Arab leaders.

Vice President Dick Cheney has mentioned the presence of al-Qaida in Iraq. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has mentioned the presence of al-Qaida in Iraq. Others have mentioned it. But they don't cite it as a primary reason for an invasion.

Of course, only an invasion and a toppling of the regime in Baghdad can address the fact that al-Qaida terrorists are based in Iraq today. Weapons inspections can't deliver them to us. U.N. resolutions can't deliver them to us.

That's why I don't understand why the administration doesn't emphasize the presence of al-Qaida is a primary reason for our imminent action in Iraq. We would not likely be contemplating this invasion if the World Trade Center and Pentagon had not been attacked by terrorists Sept. 11, 2001. It might still be the right thing to do, but I doubt it would be a front-burner issue.

Let's face it. This is about terrorism. This is about Iraq's defiance of Bush's edict that the nations of the world need to decide whether they are with us or with the terrorists. Iraq decided long ago it is with the terrorists.

When most nations of the world were flying their flags at half-staff in remembrance of the tragedy of Sept. 11, Iraq was holding celebrations. When U.S. and allied forces chased al-Qaida terrorists from Afghanistan, some fled to Iraq where they were welcomed with open arms by the tyrant Hussein. While the whole world is fixated on whether Iraq does or doesn't have weapons of mass destruction, they are forgetting the most important detail of all – that al-Qaida has a home there.

Now, I don't expect the United Nations to get it right. But I can't figure out why the U.S. is not stating clearly that the Iraq campaign is a continuation of the war on terrorism. Whether or not Iraq has nuclear weapons or soon will is, when you get right down to it, irrelevant.

It's time to exterminate the terrorists responsible for attacking the United States of America. The French weren't attacked. Germany wasn't attacked. The U.N. wasn't attacked. We were – right here in the United States. And it's time for justice.

---

Joseph Farah's nationally syndicated column originates at WorldNetDaily, where he serves as editor and chief executive officer. If you would like to see the column in your local newspaper, contact your local editor. Tell your paper the column is available through Creators Syndicate.

[Paul Ross]

The case for linkage has been there for anyone to see, and I am as surprised by the Administration's coyness on these links, particularly the sheltering conduct, as the author. It causes me to wonder why the silence? Are they afraid that the culprits will get flushed back into the thicket of Western Pakistan?

[DoughtyOne]

While I agree with this article, there is another important factor here. Saddam Hussein also supports terrorists in their efforts against Israel. He has offered cash to the families of terrorist bombers. He's also made it abundantly clear that his forces would attack Israel again when the time was right.

It's time to put Saddam Hussein out of "our" misery.

[Huck]

I have been hearing that the AlQuaida operatives are in the Kurdish north, that Saddam doesn't control that region.

[11B3]

They were just waiting for Gore to finish his political suicide for the world to see first in the hope that he'd take the rest of the Rats with him.

[js1138]

The case for linkage has been there for anyone to see, and I am as surprised by the Administration's coyness on these links, particularly the sheltering conduct, as the author. It causes me to wonder why the silence? Are they afraid that the culprits will get flushed back into the thicket of Western Pakistan?

Bush has a good sense of timing. If he showed all his cards now, the short-term memory crowd would forget by next month.

Better to find stuff than to reveal it beforehand.

[The Great Satan]

Much of the "letter" information is considered criminal investigation evidence, and has not been released by the FBI to the public or to public health investigators.

To understand, imagine yourself as George W. Bush, and say out loud:

"My fellow Americans, I can tell you tonight that we now know that Saddam Hussein wrought a terrible vengeance on the United States for his Gulf War defeat last September 11. Saddam's terrorist proxies rearranged America's skyline, murdered 3,000 of our citizens in front of the watching eyes of the world, and caused $100 billion of economic damage to New York City alone. As you can imagine, we earnestly wish to respond to this grevious injury. Unfortunately, Saddam has backed up his surprise attack with a terrible blackmail: if we attempt to kill him or remove him from power, more sleeper agents will attack America, armed this time not with box cutters but with weaponized anthrax. In this eventuality, the dead could number in the millions, and our greatest cities would be turned into unusable waste land. Thus, for the time being, I have decided to we cannot afford to retaliate. I hope you will all understand the difficulty of the situation, and bear with me during this difficult period. God bless America. Thank you and good night.

[RightWhale]

the Administration's coyness

Coming after the Clinton Administration, which talked about every possible thing at every possible opportunity, this Administration's quiet on matters still under consideration might seem like reticence. This is how they have been operating. They don't put all the options out for public viewing and take opinion polls. Instead, they gather information and make a decision. When the decision is made, they lay out all the arguments pro and con, all the evidence; not before.

[Common Tator]

In Afghanistan there was no doubt that Osama was there. Osama went on TV several times to prove he was in Afghanistan. There is no open admission that Al Qaida are in Iraq although we know they are. We would have to prove it. They Taliban refused to give the AlQaida up. They did not deny the Al Qaida was in Afghanistan. Saddam denies it. Wheeee what else is new!!!!!

If we claimed Saddam was harboring Al Qaida the UN would proceed to investigate. Propose inspectors... etc. Saddam would stall and deny that any Al Quaida (that he knew about) were hiding in Iraq. The UN and most of Congress would demand we prove the al Qaida were in Iraq or wait on inspectors reports. Bush would have to reveal our sources.

Bush would be forced to reveal who informed us the Al Qaida were hiding in Iraq and the proof they offered the Bush administration. If Bush didn't the Democrats in Congress would say it was made it up by Bush to win the November elections for the Republicans. When we offered proof Saddam would have a very good idea of who the informants were.

He would pick up all possible informants and kill them. Then he would hide the Al Quaida even deeper in Iraq and claim they were no longer there. He would claim no one could prove the terrorists had ever been in Iraq. While showing the world the Al Qaida were not where we said they were, Saddam would claim our so called informants do not even exist. Which by that time, they would not. Bush would have a hard time getting informants whose last name was not FARAH. That assumes the inabliity to think of consequences runs in the FARAH family.

It should be apparent that Bush has to use reasons that won't cause the Al Quaida, Saddam, the UN, the Media and the Democrats to know our intellegence sources. Bush has to use reasons that are self evident and not subject to Bush's word against Saddams. The media, the democrats and the UN will always believe Saddam. Al Quaida are not walking around Iraq with wearing signs.

Just a couple of weeks ago Saddam had Abu Nedall killed in Bagdad so we could not use him as an excuse.

Farah must think that a guy who can hide huge Scudd missiles couldn't hide some al Qaida so we could not prove they were hiding in Iraq without compromising our sources and getting them killed.

Joseph Farah would make a very nice pet. After all he does appear to have all the great qualities of a dumb animal.

[tallhappy]

I agree.

I don't know, but I think it will be emphasized and perhaps there are issues about compromising intelligence.

[gargoyle]

...Only a dick tator would make a statement about owning another person with an opinion that differs from the owner...

...That logic, sir, is demented...

[VaBthang4]

[Huck]

Que?

[boris]

Gotta start somewhere. I'd prefer we did Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan, or Libya, or Egypt, or Jordan. But our military is hollowed out, so we can only do them one at a time.

IMHO we should have nuked them all on 9/12. Maybe that's why I'm not President, I dunno.

--Boris

[ReadMyMind]

Saddam Hussein also supports terrorists in their efforts against Israel. He has offered cash to the families of terrorist bombers.

So have the Saudi's. Why aren't we attacking Saudi Arabia? 15 of 19 9/11 Terrorists were Saudi's. The money was from the Saudi's. The top dog was a Saudi. #2 was Egyptian, team leader Mohammed Atta, Egyptian.

We should attack Saudi Arabia or Iran or Syria before Iraq. Not that we shouldn't attack Iraq too...

[patriciaruth]

Why now? No, the question is why not earlier.

Answer: Because we didn't have enough smart bombs; we had to manufacture a lot more. And because we didn't have small pox vaccine. Look for the attack when we have 280 million doses finally stockpiled at the end of this year. (We're at 158 million doses now after a year of effort.)

[DoughtyOne]

Did we or did we not issue the perps entry visas? Were or were not some of them on a terrorist watch list? Did or did we not allow them to enter anyway?

Some people want to blame Canada. Some people want to blame Saudi Arabia. Until we get our own act together, I'll place the blame a lot closer to home than that.

Do you think Saudi leadership wanted those folks to attack US interests? I don't. Iraq is a clear and present threat. That's were we need to go next.

[eno_]

In terms of what would be most satisfying, your list is right. In terms of what is most efficient, George and Condi are doing a great job so far.

[Paul Ross]

I'd prefer we did Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan, or Libya, or Egypt, or Jordan

What's with the animus against Jordan? The King of Jordan has been probably the closest thing in the Middle East we have to someone who truly does admire the U.S. and seeks to stay on good terms with us...without getting over-thrown by all the Palestinian refugee radicals in his midst...or his dear Arab 'brother' neighbors Iraq and Syria.

Libya is an interesting choice. Ever since Ronald Reagan bloodied Kaddafy's nose back in the mid-80's, it seems that he has kept a pretty low profile. That doesn't make him our friend. And there has been some intel scuttle-butt about some links to terrorism still...but is it solid enough to go after him? Egypt's state-controlled press is pure poison, and the U.S. subsidies to Egypt...even larger than to Israel...should cease immediately until Hosni Mubarrak turns the editorial policy around 180-degrees. Saudi Arabia clearly is the banker for Terror Intl. and their mega-mosque program around the world is intended, along with their Madrassas in Pakistan, to foment their perverse Wahabbist Islamism...and provide both freshly zealous recruits and plausible-deniability cover for the Jihad. Anybody seen their television ads on CNN and even Fox News trying to convince the sheeple that they are our 'Friends'?

[hchutch]

Before we move on Saudi Arabia, we have to get new basing, and preferably a new supply of oil as well. The Russians help to an extent, and from what I hear, Venezuela's promised that oil will be available (hmmm... maybe Chavez took the hint from that coup a few months back).

Occupied Iraq would solve both of those problems, AND it takes out the weapons of mass destruction threat, too. It makes a lot of sense, IMO.

[Paul Ross]

The Saudi's are loaded for bear with their sizable stash of secretively-acquired Chinese Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles (IRBMs) and this makes the Iraqi SCUDs look like a minimal threat.