Mounting Evidence by Andrew Criado

War against Terrorism

Mounting Evidence Proves Iraq's
Connection to Al Qaeda

Andrew Criado

Before the war in Iraq, proven liar-under-oath and former President Bill Clinton spoke out against the war saying, "Saddam Hussein didn't kill 3,100 people on Sept. 11, Osama bin Laden did." Such an astute remark by the former Rhodes Scholar demonstrated one of the left's favorite, and false, arguments against freeing the Iraqi people: Iraq had absolutely no connection with al Qaeda.

The obvious fact that Iraq and Al Qaeda wished our total destruction was not enough for liberals to see their connection - Frontline photo

The painfully obvious fact that Iraq and al Qaeda had a shared hatred for America and wished our total destruction was not enough for liberals to see the connection or support the war. It also wasn't enough for liberals that Saddam tortured and killed his own people, possessed weapons of mass destruction, funded Palestinian suicide bombers, and defied a decade of United Nations resolutions. Liberals were so dead set against the war that it would have taken evidence of Saddam renouncing Earth Day to convince them of his evil.They said Iraq was not an imminent threat.

As George W. Bush put it in his State of the Union Address in January, "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?" Just so they could oppose President Bush, liberals remained oblivious to the fact that defeating Saddam would further debilitate the al Qaeda terror network that had grown weaker from a relentless pursuit by U.S. forces.

Democrats made every connection possible between the president and Enron, but couldn't see such an evil link between Saddam and bin Laden. Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean said on CNN's Paula Zahn Now, "The president told everybody that al Qaeda was in Iraq and they were in cahoots. That was not true." Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colorado, said on CNN's Inside Politics, "Well, one of the rationales given for attacking was this supposed link between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. I didn't see it at the time. None of us saw it at the time. And that is of great concern. Why exactly did we go into Iraq? We need to clarify that."

Two terrorists qho entereted Iraq in 2002

Zarqawi, an Al Qaeda terrorist who entered Iraq in May 2002 to organize terror plots - CNN photo

After Democrats spent the past year claiming there was no link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, it should come as no surprise that a mountain of evidence has emerged detailing the relationship between Iraq and the terrorist group. The Weekly Standard reported last week that according to an Oct. 27 U.S. government memo they obtained,

"Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda."

The memo goes on to detail numerous interactions between Iraq and al Qaeda throughout the '90's. The intelligence gathered is a result of collaboration between the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency. The Weekly Standard says, "Much of the evidence is detailed, conclusive, and corroborated by multiple sources."

The memo contains information about meetings in Prague between an Iraqi intelligence official and head Sept. 11 hijacker Mohammed Atta. Ever since rumors of these meetings had surfaced, Democrats did everything they could discredit them. According to the Weekly Standard, "The reporting on those links suggests not one meeting, but as many as four. What's more, the memo reveals potential financing of Atta's activities by Iraqi intelligence."

With all the evidence piling up against their anti-war positions, it looks as though liberals protested the war just so they could pay homage to the flag-burning hippies that came before them. This memo does more than prove liberals were wrong about the Iraq-al Qaeda link; it reveals how their agenda is in contra-distinction to the well being of America. Listening to the United Nations and French President Jacques Chirac (who Saddam called his "friend") would have meant leaving Saddam in power. Fox News foreign affairs expert Mansoor Ijaz said it best when he wrote before the war, "Rooting out Saddam's weapons of mass destruction so they never make their way into the hands of people like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed [Sept. 11 mastermind] is not a separate task or detour along the way in fighting terror. It is the next most important step."

Peace protesters are blind to the reality of Islamic violence

Peaceniks call for withdrawal from Iraq and apologies
National Review, October 13, 2003

Liberals will have an even tougher time proving that they aren't anti-American now that they are on record as opposing a war against a murdering, raping, mass-grave-filling, weapons-of-mass-destruction-producing regime that also had an extensive relationship with the terrorist organization responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks. As convincing as this link is, liberals will still oppose the war in Iraq. Liberals think that we should completely withdraw our troops from overseas because we're making the terrorists angry. Liberals want America to apologize to our enemies; they think it's our fault we were attacked. They're more concerned with terrorists' opinion of the United States than stopping terrorists from killing Americans.

Retired Gen. Wesley Clark articulated the Democratic party's true alliance when he said, "You are dead wrong if you think that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are the only ones on the earth who'd love to get rid of Bush." Finally, someone has admitted how sorry liberals have become. They have stooped so low as to align their opinions with those of murdering terrorists.

Perhaps unknowingly, Clark shed light on the fact that Saddam and bin Laden would love it if a Democrat were president. A Democratic president would pull troops out of the Middle East for fear of committing hate crimes against Muslims or making France angry. Terrorists would roam freely and plot more attacks on America if a Democrat had the White House -- just as al Qaeda planned Sept. 11 while Clinton refused offers by the Sudan to hand over bin Laden. A Democrat in the White House is exactly what terrorists want. Clark doesn't know that Saddam and bin Laden wanting to get rid of Bush is a good thing. It is a good indicator of how well the president is doing that liberals and terrorists hate him so much. President Bush is terrorism's worst nightmare.

Liberals can no longer say that they were against the war in Iraq, but for the war in Afghanistan. Both campaigns were predicated on the goal of eliminating terrorism. Saddam's Iraq gave aid and comfort to al Qaeda and keeping Saddam in power would have strengthened the terrorists. If liberals had their way, Saddam's Iraq would still be funding terrorists and providing weapons, training camps and a safe haven for al Qaeda. Liberals should just be honest; admit they don't know what they're talking about, or that they are standing in the enemy's cheering section.

Posted November 28, 2003

Andrew Criado is a senior majoring in Advertising at Penn State.
This article was first published in
The Digital Collegian Independent Student Newspaper,
Thursday, November 20, 2003

Share

Follow us

Related Article of Interest

Secret Intelligence Memo Links Saddam, Bin Laden