Posted on 07/24/2003 8:52:12 AM PDT by tallhappy
Now that Saddam's sons are dead, there is talk the "resistance" againts US troops should decrease.
This makes sense in that these two brothers most likely oversaw the cash to pay those attacking US troops. And it has killed their liason with al Qaeda, Qusay.
Back in 1999 Yossef Bodansky had this to say:
The other state that is rising up -- and I've elaborated a lot in the book about that -- is Iraq. Bin Laden has been dealing with Iraq intelligence since the early 1990s, where they cooperated in Sudan and in Somalia. This has been a love-hate relationship because of the Iraqi secular policies and Saddam Hussein's disdain for Islamism and even persecution of Iraqi Islamists, including veterans of Afghanistan. But in recent years, Hassan al-Turabi, the spiritual leader of Sudan and bin Laden's patron, if you want, spiritual patron, mediated a deal between Iraq and bin Laden that has since been cemented and became practical.How soon all the "guerilla attacks", as they are more and more being referred to as, continue will be reflected in how much Qusay and his also dead brother oversaw the coordination and payment for the attacks and whether or not they have anyone who was a top aide to them who can or will take over.The important thing of the recent development that should be a cause of tremendous worry is that Saddam Hussein empowered his son, Qusay to deal with the day-to-day relationship with bin Laden and coordinate the Iraqi special operations with bin Laden's terrorist activities. Last week, Qusay Hussein has been elevated into the declared successor and had taken a tremendous amount of new powers, particularly in issues of national security, intelligence operations and the like. And that will of course elevate also the standing of bin Laden and the cooperation that they have been working on. And we should be very worried about that development.
Source is Federal News Service, AUGUST 6, 1999, FRIDAY, HEADLINE: PRESS CONFERENCE NATIONAL PRESS CLUB MORNING NEWSMAKER WITH YOSSEF BODANSKY, AUTHOR SUBJECT: INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM NATIONAL PRESS CLUB WASHINGTON, D.C.
Dems have been loving the "guerilla attacks". Flashbacks of their perceived past glory -- Vietnam -- dance in their heads.
They ignore or downplay any relation or coordination of the Hussein regime with al Qaeda or terrorist groups. They will most likely be disapointed by the decrease in attacks on our troops in the same way the CA legislators were overheard discussing how a crisis in the state would benefit them politically.
Yet it was under the Clinton administration that the info about Iraq and al Qaeda came forth near the end of 1998, early 1999.
It came in wake of the visit of Farouk Hijazi, Iraq's Ambassador to Turkey at the time, to bin Laden in Afghanistan.
For the left history begins when they wake up in the morning.
But only on issues that hurt them, and help the US.
Timely bump.
Great article.
Strangely, the Downing Street memos, which the Left has characterized as the smoking gun, only confirmed my views. After 911 the Administration decided Hussein was too dangerous to leave in power (He was a lightening rod for anti-American beliefs and actions and had a record of brutality and of using any means available to achieve his goals). George Friedman, in "America's Secret War", describes the Administration's shock at finding how little defense was possible against determined terrorism so its decision to pursue an offensive strategy is entirely reasonable.
The propanga used to sell the strategy - exagerating the immediacy of the threat (we had no proof of stockpiles of WMD or functional connections to Al Queda)- is entirely consistent with actions of all past Presidents who wished to justify military actions (Wilson and FDR both said they would not go to war, FDR provoked both the Germans and Japanese, "Remember the Maine" was largely unproved baloney as was Tonkin Bay, Mexico posed no threat to the US in 1845, etc).
We are in a war against a Muslim world view. Why not? Traditionally, the Muslims were not organized as nation states but as a theocracy spanning most of their conquests. The Islamists like bin Ladin seek to restore that organization. The only question is would sacrificing Israel moderate their conflict with us? My answer is no...or not enough to justify such an immoral act.
The same or worse. We wouldn't have had allies or any international legitimacy and we would have gained little time since we were not militarily ready in 2002 and the weather was always a consideration.
What about Bosnia, and other wars the UN was not asked to "bless"?
Maybe because it was not a ground war?
Thanks.
Diffent enemy. My opinion.
It's no Vietnam.
Maybe Lawrence of Arabia?
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.