Mar 26 2008
Saddam Targeted America Using Terrorist
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 to “Saddam Targeted America Using Terrorist”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Great post AJ. Spells out what we have all known for years. And yes, even the democrats. But they can’t bring themselves to speak the truth about this because it gives a republican President too much dignity and power for the legacy.
And frankly, I believe that many in the global socialist movement within and without are anti-America and were in bed with the terrorists. Oil for food just one example. And they wanted to see America fall. How many in this country like Mr. Wright are there?
One thing that always surprised me is that people think Saddam would and did try to kill a president, but dealing with terrorists was too risky. Puhleaze.
It is also interesting that two countries who supposedly did not want us to go to war, Germany and Russia, gave us some of the intel that actually pushed the US to go after Saddam. Germany had the infamous Curveball source and Putin told Bush that they had information that Saddam was planning attacks against American interests. Go figure.
This is kind of off topic, but Terrance Group has polls out that show surprising support for Bush. You should check it out. The first part is the usual approval rating stuff, but the next part is personal favorability and support for policies, etc…Bush is in the majority on all of them. Makes you wonder.
AJ,
Apparently Saddam was using our own against us also if this article from freepress.com is accurate. Of course it just so happens that the U.S. Congressmen who went on that trip (per Google search) were 3 Democrats - Jim McDermott, David Bonier and Mike Thompson. Do you find this at all suspicious? Or isit just me?
“Former worker for Muslim charity in Southfield accused of being Hussein spy
By NIRAJ WARIKOO • FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER • March 26, 2008
Recommend (13)Print this page E-mail this article
Share this article: Del.icio.us Facebook Digg Reddit Newsvine What’s this?
An Iraqi-American from Michigan who worked for a Southfield charity has been accused of working as a spy for the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein, according to a federal indictment unsealed today in U.S. District Court in Detroit.
Muthanna Al-Hanooti was charged with several counts, including conspiracy to work on behalf of a foreign government and making false statements to the FBI. Al-Hanooti used to work for Life for Relief and Development, a Muslim charity based in Southfield that works in Iraq and other countries. That charity was raided by federal agents in Sept. 2006.
According to the indictment, Al-Hanooti would travel to Iraq and meet with conspirators of the Iraqi Intelligence Service. The indictment says that Al-Hanooti was rewarded with 2 million barrels of oil for his work.
The indictment also alleges that Iraqi intelligence officials used an intermediary in Michigan to help fund a trip to Iraq taken by U.S. members of Congress in 2002.
Al-Hanooti was active in other local groups. He was former head of the Michigan branch of the Council on American Islamic Relations and the president of Focus on American and Arab Interests and Relations.”
Contact NIRAJ WARIKOO at warikoo@freepress.com.
I”m surprised no America haters have chimed in yet to say how horrible it was for America to take care of a threat in the world.
A threat which Condi Rice and Colin Powell assured was “contained in a box” several times in press interviews in 2001-until 9/11 ultimately turned them into liars, one way or the other. Then again, the insolence of those who brazenly advocate (a lost, unless you have Iranian interests at heart)) a pre-emptive war, based on what might happen years later, speaks volumes as to why America’s standing in the world is so unfavorable now compared to 9/12/2001.
Truth:
Huh??
Truthbetold….are you saying that Rice and Powell KNEW the threat was not contained but said it was? Are you saying that the intel that they were given said one thing but they told the American public another?
ONE OTHER THING TRUTH……which countries don’t like us. In this world I’d rather be feared then be treated with sympathy.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/03/26/rose-hearing-from-iraqis-about-the-invasion-of-iraq-5th-year/
Many Iraqis do not agree with Strata’s assesment of the value of America’s invasion.
Kathie
if you watch Frontline’s “Bush’s War” you will find the Rice/Powell assessment before 9/11/2001 was much nearer the truth.
Truth,
Can you give us your definition of a “lost” war? Have the “goalposts” been moved since we removed Saddam and facilitated self government there?
Depending on “standing in the world” for affirmation shows lack of character. I presume you would curry favor with those countries that were complicit in the “Oil For Food” scandal?
Truth,
I watched the PBS “special.” I also read the interview with Mr. Kirk the producer and it confirms every allegation about PBS leaning hard to the left.
Every single thing in that show could have been true. That’s not the problem. It’s the selection of what to show and what not to show (why are we basically told that leaving Saddam in power had no cost?) from a producer who thinks Bush should be impeached and swallows whole the “Bushlied” myth of the left. I watched it and instead of feeling informed I feel like I got a smug, one sided, hyperpartisan presentation of everything the left hates about the war.
Forgive me if I don’t find it definitive, and I am not even someone so sure we should have invaded. I am only sure that the antiwar folks (who DO make a lot of solid points) continue being unserious in their refusal to discuss the costs of leaving a terror sponsoring, WMD aspiring Saddam in power.
truth is so stupid as to think an opinion poll has any merits when it comes to war.
crooksandliars? Kind of says it all doesn’t it?
Vince is so stupid as to believe a guerrilla war can be won without the support of the occupied population.
I don’t find the PBS special “definitive” either. It exonerated too many culprits and was too easy on others it didn’t.
Yes, Macker the goalposts have been moved and Bush & Co. had to move them. The original goal was to swiftly replace Saddam with a pro-American functioning government which was to have been stable in a matter of months, and on good terms with Israel. Chalabi was the prime choice, but he had little support from his own people and besides, was double-dealing for Iran. And as Pat Lang over on
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2008/03/who-are-the-ira.html
put it today, Strata’s definition of “democracy” is farcical.
Lang:
The US has been treasuring the idea that the apparatus of the Iraqi state is other than a congeries of militia factions and parties.
Once again the untruth of that is exposed.
LOL the expert of 20/20 hindsight speaks.
TBT is just another brain washed liberal who finds reality in the idiot box in the corner….
Wrong.
http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html
I put this out far and wide before the war for America’s real conservatives and those who wanted to find out the truth.
You wouldn’t know what a conservative unblemished by the Zionist Lobby and the oiligarchs was, Strata.
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.
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…..
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.
AJ,
You’re a Neocon now? How did you keep it a secret from us for so long? Shame on you!
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.
AJ,
A Neocon with a sense of humor. Who would have thought?
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.
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.
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.
So, Libya and Saddam’s Iraq with nukes, that is a won war? A good outcome?
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.
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/
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.”