Mar 26 2008

Saddam Targeted America Using Terrorist

Published by at 1:56 pm under All General Discussions,Iraq

Just a year after 9-11 and the nation looks around the world to see where the next ones will be coming from. We had taken the save haven in Afghanistan away from al-Qaeda and the Taliban, but that was not enough to end the threat (only liberals are naive enough to buy that fantasy). As we looked at all the potential future allies of Bin Laden, a few stood out – and one supposedly had the WMDs that would make suicide bombers the equivalent of a B-52 or Nuclear ICBM submarine.

Think about that – the world’s greatest military power possibly neutralized by suicidal and destitute Muslims in cars or trucks driving to meet Allah.

While NK had the nukes, they were not part of the radical Islam circle. And while Syria and Iran were definitely worrisome Islamic nations, they did not have the WMDs. Only one person had the mix of hate of America, connections to terrorists and WMD knowhow to threaten America. And no liberal who moans about Iraq is willing to say they could guarantee – on their loved one’s lives – Saddam would not combine the three and try to let terrorists do his dirty work for him (and keep his fingerprints out of the crime scene).

We now know he did not have stockpiles of WMDs – but he definitely had the know how for chemical and biological weapons and had only suspended his nuclear weapons ambitions (the plans were discovered under a rose bush in one of the chief scientist’s gardens). In fact, the know how is the most dangerous. And how many do you need to wreck havoc? A handful at most.

A recent DoD study clearly shows Saddam’s ties to terrorist organizations, including one headed by AQ’s number 2 Ayman al-Zawahiri that was integrated into the al-Qaeda that attacked us on 9-11. So here we have a good sent of ingredients for possible future 9-11s.

Mark Eichenlaub sent me an email about his new article for National Review where he fills in more of the picture regarding the threat of Saddam to America. Clearly Saddam was using terrorist organizations to target America:

The files continued to detail orders for “operatives (being) sent into countries around Iraq to attack American installations.” In these examples we have direct orders from Saddam to Iraqis and non-Iraqis to target and kill Americans.

The former regime’s documents also discuss a 1999/2001 plan called “Operation Basra Revenge” that would have used missiles, rockets, and later suicide attacks with speedboats to “destroy American and British naval vessels.” (This document was pointed out by the writer Scott Malensek.)

The report details the regime’s production of suicide vests, IEDs, and car bombs for plots that included targets in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. Saddam’s embassies in these countries were warehouses for missile launchers, plastic explosives, TNT, Kalashnikovs, booby-trapped suitcases, and grenades. These tools were all available to a regime that had internal orders to attack American civilians, military members, bases, embassies, and ships.

All this capability would be meaningless, of course, if there were no intention of using it. The authors make clear that Saddam was willing to conduct anti-American terrorism, saying: “Evidence that was uncovered and analyzed attests to the existence of a terrorist capability and a willingness to use it until the day Saddam was forced to flee Baghdad by Coalition forces.”

al-Qaeda made a name for itself on 9-11. Saddam knew he could not get caught allying with AQ, but he had spent over a decade developing clandestine ways to use terrorists to his own goals. And since he was funding, training, supplying and ordering terrorists to kill Americans already, what kind of suicidal foolishness does it take to assume – with thousands of American lives in the balance – that Saddam would not contact is buddy Ayman al-Zawahiri and discuss how impressed he was with 9-11?

We don’t need proof he was guilty of being a threat. In war civil liberties go out the window and people need to chose sides. Saddam (and his enablers on the left) and to demonstrate Saddam would never be a threat, never reach out to AQ, never arm them with WMDs. And yes, I know it is impossible to prove that, which is why Iraq has been transformed into a democracy with leaders we can put at least some trust in. More than we could ever put on Saddam’s respect for humanity! This was our choice in 2002-2003. Trust Saddam to behave and use his WMD know how safely, or remove him from power.

We made the right choice. Especially since the fight for Iraq exposed the true nature of al-Qaeda to the Muslim community and the Muslim street finally did rise up – and start attacking and destroying al-Qaeda. AQ is no longer the generally accepted future of Islam it was after 9-11, it is now known by more than half the Muslim community as the enemy of Islam. Yes, Iraq was definitely worth the fight.

38 responses so far

38 Responses to “Saddam Targeted America Using Terrorist”

  1. truthbetold says:

    You wouldn’t know what a conservative unblemished by the Zionist Lobby and the oiligarchs was, Strata.

  2. truthbetold says:

    And by the war, AJ, you have suggested a little dust-up with Iran recently.

    http://www.antiwar.com/lind/?articleid=12583

    Let another real conservative teach you something of what might happen if the neocons are so foolish.

  3. Saddam’s Iraq Paid For Democrats Trip To Iraq…

    I am not surprised at this one bit. As a result of an indictment unsealed today against yet another member of CAIR, it was revealed that three leading Democrats were involved in a fact-finding mission to Iraq paid for by the Iraqi intelligence agenci…..

  4. The Macker says:

    Truth,
    Instead of telling us what you mean by a “lost” war, you give us an incorrect and incomplete definition of a Bush victory, so that you can move the goalposts.

    Your paleocon, “hate Israel” sources are not persuasive. Thoughtful conservatives reject ignorant blaming of Israel and mindless excusing of Palestinian terrorism.

  5. Whippet1 says:

    AJ,
    You’re a Neocon now? How did you keep it a secret from us for so long? Shame on you!

  6. AJStrata says:

    Whippet1,

    It was so secret even I did not know (or I would have to kill myself).

    Well to be a neocon is better than being surrendercrat, since that path leads to neo-extinct.

  7. Whippet1 says:

    AJ,
    A Neocon with a sense of humor. Who would have thought?

  8. BarbaraS says:

    I see Ken is back with yet another name. Same old garbage. Same style. Same old anti-American gibberish, same old anti-semitic rants and same old turning facts around to fit his agenda. Every time I see the word zionist I see a terrorist sympathiser. Without fail. Rude, crude and abrasive.

  9. dave m says:

    On the nuclear program, Debka ran several articles in
    which they charged that Saddam’s nuclear program had
    been outsourced to Libya where Hans Blix wasn’t looking.
    (In much the same way as Iran’s nuclear warhead program
    has been outsourced to Syria).
    The secret location was allegedly at Al-Kufra oasis in
    Libya and employed several hundred Iraqi scientists
    and engineers and also North Koreans.
    Saddam provided all the funding for the effort.
    The program ended after Qaddafi saw the invasion of
    Iraq rapidly succeed and gave it up.
    It is entirely reasonable to conclude that by now Saddam
    would have had some workable bombs.
    It is also reasonable to conclude that unless we do something
    pretty soon, Iran will too.
    And we know that once that happens, those bombs will be used.
    Iran’s do-lolly president has told us that is true.
    OK, ya now can all say I’m a scaremongering neocon.
    But I’m not.

  10. Terrye says:

    Ahh PBS, that explains it. Your tax dollars at work.

    I do not watch PBS for a reason. I think it is propaganda.

    As for a lost war, well, if we had just walked away and let Saddam get away with bloody murder that would certainly have been a lost war.

  11. Terrye says:

    So, Libya and Saddam’s Iraq with nukes, that is a won war? A good outcome?

  12. dave m says:

    Huh?
    Libya and Iraq failed to get their nukes,
    only because President Bush had the courage to order
    the invasion.
    All this no weapons were found stuff is a load of nonsense.
    An entire nuke program was found and wrapped up.
    It was in Libya.
    If we hadn’t invaded, then Iraq would have those nukes.
    So yes, this is a good outcome.

  13. missy1 says:

    Jules Crittendon reviews the Frontline propaganda leaving me with the impression that I didn’t miss an honest protrayal of events.

    IOW, not much truth was told.

    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/bushs_war/

  14. truthhard2take says:

    Well, Terrye, perhaps the best thing you should be hit with again and again is, most Iraqis believe America has both committed and allowed plenty of “bloody murder” in the botched invasion.

  15. truthhard2take says:

    Missy’s link doesn’t work, but I reviewed Crittenden today whom I never read, on the Shia internecine warfare. He seems at least more realistic than Strata, as for example when he calls Maliki “sleazy.”
    This begs the question of why he supports the boondoggle of a war yet, if after five years our best friend in what passes for an Iraqi government is “sleazy.”

  16. truthhard2take says:

    Macker, the “goalposts” are conspicuous and your team is losing badly in the middle of the fourth quarter.If you don’t recognize the fact that installing a pro-American, pro-Israel, anti-Iranian stable Iraqi government is the obviously failed Iraq War goal, you probably still don’t recognize that installing an anti-communist, pro-American government was the failed Vietnam War goal. Virtually no expert says the US could have found enough popular and able pro-American allies in South Vietnam to have done so then no matter how long we might have stayed and no matter how many Viet Cong we killed.

    The analogy in this regard is direct.

  17. The Macker says:

    Truth2,
    - Re Iraq: Is consentual government a failure? Is removal of WMD Programs a failure? Is Saddam’s removal a failure? Is Libia’s cooperation a failure? ” Is the exposing of the Kahn nuclear network a failure” Is the exposing of the “Oil for food” program a failure?

    - Re Vietnam: Read “Triumph Forsaken” by Mark Moyar for a history based on now available documents. Very different from your version.

  18. truthhard2take says:

    There were no WMDS, a fact Bush even admitted after the Kay report was released. Terrible when your own heroes undermine you, isn’t it?

    The current Shia al Sadr versus Badr Corp violence make a mockery of your “consensual government” farce–together with the substantial, perhaps majority Sunni essential non-participation.
    Finally, polls showing the majority of Iraqis quickly lost trust
    in the “consensus” government.

    Moyar is as much a revisionist as the WW2/”holocaust” revisionists, which doesn’t automatically make him wrong, but even he says so many “mistakes” were made early on, that I suppose his failure is excusable, that is,to even project how long it would take to have installed , finally,by way of correction, a stable South Vietnamese government had we stayed.

    “Oil for food?” Not as scandalous as America’s decade-long embargo
    which helped kill multitudes of Iraqis, which Albright said “was worth it.”