A Gathering of Courage and Will
by Tina Grazier
Its difficult to sustain a strong will when doubt enters the picture. Doubt will cause the heart to grow faint and the mind to play tricks. Our enemy knows this and uses the appropriate rhetoric to encourage distrust of our leaders and uncertainty about the mission. It is unfortunate that we have among us certain politicians and citizens who, either unwittingly or knowingly for self-interest, model, mirror or inspire this rhetoric.
Meagan asked: Did the President and his team defraud the country?
We will attempt to answer Meagans question, and more, with reason and evidence. Information will provide a welcome tonic against the ravages of doubt. It will aid in the development of a solid grounding, a grounding that’s necessary if we wish to accomplish this difficult endeavor. We seek the power of certainty. So, let us begin this courage developing journey with just a little taste…a few pertinent quotes from another administration in another time:
“Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.” – Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (2/18/98)
“Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers.” – AP story in the Washington Post (2/14/99)
“The liberation of Iraq is inevitable. When that day comes, and the whole truth about Saddam Hussein’s regime spills out, we will be proud of the stand we took. And if our post-overthrow support of Iraq aids a transition to democracy, our pride should double. For democracies do not wage war against one another. Democracies do not allow their people to starve.” – Sen. Bob Kerrey (9/29/99)
The removal of Saddam Hussein was one of several options and plans considered by both the Clinton and Bush administrations. We will see that nothing was secretly planned in a clandestine manner by the Bush administration and that, indeed, that plan was already in existence. All presidents necessarily engage in multiple alternative plans, many of which contain top secret informationfor the sake of our nations security.
The recent debate on Post Scripts sent me scurrying across the web in search of appropriate material. I needed confirmation that my view had been formed on sound information; information that provided a broader world view of the war. Meagans postings failed to present an accurate or complete picture of the reasons (including WMD) for removing Saddam Hussein from power. They failed to accurately assess the motivations of our leaders (past and present) or the connection between Saddam Hussein and terrorists, specifically Osama bin Laden.
It is imperative that we make this assessment accurately, especially as we look toward the upcoming election. We must arm ourselves with as much information as possible so as to make wise decisions. To that end I have compiled a group of significant quotes, links, and references that I hope you will find interesting, informative and useful as you try to decide which party accurately represents the true nature of this war and which candidates will most likely be best to lead our nation. This post is long but, I hope, worthy of your attention. In difficult times we must find a way to sustain the will to face the enemy.
I will begin with a few reminders of Meagans assertions:
Prior to January of 2001 Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld each demonstrated a predisposition to employ U.S. military force to invade the Middle East, including, specifically, to forcibly remove Saddam Hussein
In January of 1998 Rumsfeld and seven other future Bush-Cheney administration appointees signed a letter sent by a conservative policy institute named Project for a New American Century (PNAC) to then President Clinton, which called for U.S. military action to forcibly remove Saddam Hussein from power.
Shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks, United States intelligence agencies determined that 9/11 was the work of the terrorist organization al Qaeda, spearheaded by Osama Bin Laden. Fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, two from Yemen, and two from Lebanon. This information, along with the conclusion that no evidence linked the attacks to Saddam Hussein, or al Qaeda was immediately communicated to Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell, and others
Bush-Cheney administration members began discussing an invasion of Iraq immediately after 9/11. Bush, Rumsfeld and others also assigned various subordinates, including former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, CIA Director George Tenet, and General Richard Meyers to look for intelligence that could justify attacking Saddam Husseins regime
In September of 2002, Bush staged a photo opportunity with a bipartisan group of congressional leaders, after which he announced that Iraq posed a serious threat to the safety of the United States and the world, while concealing from Congress and the American people the material facts that he has no reasonable basis for this accusation, he had never extensively reviewed existing intelligence regarding any possible threat from Iraq, he had not requested an update intelligence assessment on Iraq and the United States intelligence assessment then in effect stated that Iraq had neither nuclear weapons nor a nuclear weapons program, and the IC had consistently reported that Iraq had no involvement in 9/11 and no relationship with al Qaeda. (Note: Underlining was added for emphasis. This ends the Meagan segment)
Long before there was Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, Libby et al…there was Clinton, Gore, Berger, Albright, Tenet et al. I will demonstrate that the proof we seek falls from the lips of those who served prior to Bush and Cheney”like fruits from a jar. I do hope you enjoy this ride:
“The United States has actively and consistently opposed Saddam because he has demonstrated the intent to threaten the stability of a region vital to our interests. A stable Middle East means we can better protect the free flow of oil, fight terrorism and build support for a comprehensive Middle East peace. There is no greater challenge to the region’s stability — and to America’s security in that region — than Saddam’s reckless pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. As President Clinton has said, the spread of these weapons to outlaw states, and from them to terrorists and international criminals, is one of the most dangerous security threats our people will face over the next generation. Other countries have weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam Hussein, there is one big difference: he has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Not only against combatants, but against civilians. Not only against a foreign adversary, but against his own people. And I have no doubt he will use them again if his capacity to rebuild his arsenal is left unchecked.” – National Security Advisor Sandy Berger (2/13/98)
“Saddam Hussein’s Iraq reminds us of what we learned in the 20th century and warns us of what we must know about the 21st. In this century, we learned through harsh experience that the only answer to aggression and illegal behavior is firmness, determination, and when necessary action. In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program.” – President Bill Clinton (2/17/98)
“Now, the alternatives some have suggested that we should basically turn away; we should close our eyes to this effort to create a safe haven for weapons of mass destruction. But imagine the consequences if Saddam fails to comply and we fail to act. Saddam will be emboldened, believing the international community has lost its will. He will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. And some day, some way, I am certain, he will use that arsenal again, as he has ten times since 1983.” * “There is no question that the Iraqi people and the world would be better off without Saddam. And we would gladly work with a successor regime that is ready to live in peace with its neighbors and resume its place in the family of nations. We have worked with Iraqi opposition groups in the past and we will continue to do so in the future.” – National Security Advisor Sandy Berger (2/18/98)
“The U.S. had been suspicious for months, partly because of Osama bin Laden’s financial ties, but also because of strong connections to Iraq. Sources say the U.S. had intercepted phone calls from the plant to a man in Iraq who runs that country’s chemical weapons program.” – John McWethy, ABC News correspondent, after the al Shifa plant in Sudan was largely destroyed by six Tomahawk missiles (8/25/98)
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” – Letter to President Clinton, Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry and others (10/9/98)
“In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.” – U.S. Grand Jury Indictment against Osama bin Laden (11/5/98)
“Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. “And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.” – President Bill Clinton (12/16/98)
“Here’s what is known so far: Saddam Hussein, who has a long record of supporting terrorism, is trying to rebuild his intelligence network overseas–assets that would allow him to establish a terrorism network. U.S. sources say he is reaching out to Islamic terrorists, including some who may be linked to Osama bin Laden, the wealthy Saudi exile accused of masterminding the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa last summer. U.S. intelligence has had reports of contacts between low-level agents. Saddam and bin Laden have interests–and enemies–in common. Both men want U.S. military forces out of Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden has been calling for all-out war on Americans, using as his main pretext Washington’s role in bombing and boycotting Iraq.” – “Saddam + Bin Laden,” Newsweek (1/11/99)
“Clarke did provide new information in defense of Clinton’s decision to fire Tomahawk cruise missiles at the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan, in retaliation for bin Laden’s role in the Aug. 7 embassy bombings. While U.S. intelligence officials disclosed shortly after the missile attack that they had obtained a soil sample from the El Shifa site that contained a precursor of VX nerve gas, Clarke said that the U.S. government is ‘sure’ that Iraqi nerve gas experts actually produced a powdered VX-like substance at the plant that, when mixed with bleach and water, would have become fully active VX nerve gas. “Clarke said U.S. intelligence does not know how much of the substance was produced at El Shifa or what happened to it. But he said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to El Shifa’s current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts and the National Islamic Front in Sudan. “Given the evidence presented to the White House before the airstrike, Clarke said, the president ‘would have been derelict in his duties if he didn’t blow up the facility.'” – Washington Post (1/23/99)
“U.S. intelligence officials are worried that a burgeoning alliance between terrorist leader Osama bin Laden and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could make the fugitive Saudi’s loose-knit organization much more dangerous … In addition, the officials said, Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal is now in Iraq, as is a renowned Palestinian bomb designer, and both could make their expertise available to bin Laden.” – San Jose Mercury News (2/14/99)
“Iraq’s contacts with bin Laden go back some years, to at least 1994, when, according to one U.S. government source, Hijazi met him when bin Laden lived in Sudan. According to Cannistraro, Iraq invited bin Laden to live in Baghdad to be nearer to potential targets of terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. There is a wide gap between bin Laden’s fundamentalism and Saddam Hussein’s secular dictatorship. But some experts believe bin Laden might be tempted to live in Iraq because of his reported desire to obtain chemical or biological weapons. CIA Director George Tenet referred to that in recent testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee when he said bin Laden was lanning attacks on American targets.” – NPR reporter Mike Shuster (2/18/99)
“A major worry is that Iraqi reconstruction of WMD-capable facilities damaged during Operation Desert Fox and continued work on delivery systems shows the priority Saddam continues to attach to preserving a WMD infrastructure.” – Director of Central Intelligence George J. Tenet (2/2/00)
“Iraq under Saddam Hussein remains dangerous, unreconstructed and defiant. Saddam’s record makes clear that he will remain a threat to regional peace and security as long as he remains in power. He will not relinquish what remains of his WMD arsenal. He will not live in peace with his neighbors. He will not cease the repression of the Iraqi people. The regime of Saddam Hussein cannot be rehabilitated or reintegrated as a responsible member of the community of nations. Experience makes this conclusion manifest. That is why the United States is committed to containing Saddam Hussein as long as he remains in power. But at the same time, we are also committed to working to alleviate the suffering of the Iraqi people who are forced to live under a regime they did not choose and do not want, and to supporting Iraqis who seek a new government and a better future for Iraq.” – Edward S. Walker, Jr., assistant secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs (3/22/00)
“The Vice President reaffirmed the Administration’s strong commitment to the objective of removing Saddam Hussein from power, and to bringing him and his inner circle to justice for their war crimes and crimes against humanity. Saddam’s removal is the key to the positive transformation of Iraq’s relationship with the international community and with the United States, in particular.” – Joint statement from Vice President Al Gore and the Iraqi National Congress (6/26/00)
“Saddam’s actions over the past decade lead us to conclude that his regime will never comply with the obligations contained in the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. For this reason, we actively support those who seek to bring a new democratic government to power in Baghdad. We recognize that this may be a slow and difficult process, but we believe it is the only solution to the problem of Saddam’s regime.” -The White House, “A National Security Strategy for a Global Age” (12/00)
“We were convinced money from Iraq was going to bin Laden, who was then sending it places Iraq wanted it to go. There certainly is no doubt that Saddam Hussein had pretty strong ties to bin Laden while he was in Sudan, whether it was directly or through intermediaries.” – Dr. Stanley Bedlington, former CIA senior counterterrorism analyst, USA Today (12/3/01)
“Certainly there’s a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda.” – Gen. Wesley Clark (10/02)
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” – Sen. Hillary Clinton (10/10/02)
“But Saddam Hussein, for 12 years, has defied the will of the United Nations and we contained him effectively, but I think it’s fair to say that after what happened on September the 11th the will of the international community has stiffened, as represented by this last U.N. resolution which said, clearly, that the penalty for noncompliance is no longer sanctions. It can be your removal from office.”– Bill Clinton, Larry King Live (2/9/03)
“Let me tell you what I know. When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn’t know. So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say you got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don’t cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions.” – Bill Clinton, Larry King Live (7/22/03)
“I want to be real clear about the connection with terrorists. I’ve seen a lot of evidence on this. There are extensive contacts between Saddam Hussein’s government and al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. I never could reach the conclusion that [Saddam] was part of September 11. Don’t get me wrong about that. But there was so much smoke there that it made me worry. And you know, some people say with a great facility, al Qaeda and Saddam could never get together. He is secular and they’re theological. But there’s something that tied them together. It’s their hatred of us.” – Sen. Joe Lieberman, MSNBC’s “Hardball with Chris Matthews” (12/03) (Tina’s Note: This man, at least, has not changed his rhetoric!)
Documents found in Baghdad in April 2003 showed that Saddam funded the Allied Democratic Forces, a Ugandan terror group led by an Islamist cleric linked to bin Laden since the 1990s. Saddam openly funded the Iraqi Kurdish Group and its leader, Melan Krekar, admitted that he met bin Laden in Afghanistan. George Tenet testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee that Iraq had provided training in forging documents and making bombs. Farouk Harazi, a senior officer in the Iraqi Mukhabarat reportedly offered bin Laden asylum in Iraq. Salah Suleiman, an Iraqi intelligence operative, was arrested in October 2000 near the Afghan border, apparently returning from a visit to bin Laden. One of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers, Abdul Rahman Yasin, reportedly fled to Baghdad in 1994. Iraq ran an extensive intelligence hub in Khartoum; Sudanese intelligence officers told me about dozens of meeting between Iraqi Intel and bin Laden. Tellingly, reports that Mohamed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence agents in Prague several times in 2000 and 2001 have not been disproved. *** The Clinton administration was in the dark about the full extent of the bin Laden menace because (of) the president’s decision to treat the 1993 World Trade Center bombing as a crime. Once the FBI began a criminal investigation, it could not lawfully share its information with the CIA without also having to share the same data with the accused terrorists. Woolsey told me about his frustration that he had less access to evidence from the World Trade Center bombing the then-largest ever foreign terrorist attack on U.S soil than any junior agent in the FBI’s New York office. Why did Clinton treat the attack as a law-enforcement matter? Several reasons. In the first few days, Clinton refused to believe that the towers had been bombed at all even though the FBI made that determination within hours. He speculated a electrical transformer had exploded or a bank heist went bad. More importantly, treating the bombing as a criminal matter was politically advantageous. A criminal matter is a relatively tidy process. It has the political benefit of insulating Clinton from consequences; after all, he was only following the law. He is not to blame if the terrorists were released on a “technicality” or if foreign nations refuse to honor our extradition requests. -Richard Miniter, author of Losing Bin Laden. (Tina’s Note: What was in those papers in Sandy Bergers pants?)
On November 5, 1998 a Federal grand jury in Manhattan returned a 238-count indictment charging Osama bin Laden in the bombings of two United States Embassies in Africa and with conspiring to commit other acts of terrorism against Americans abroad. The grand jury indictment also charged that Al-Qaeda had reached an arrangement with President Saddam Hussein’s government in Iraq whereby the group said that it would not work against Iraq, and that the two parties agreed to cooperate in the development of weapons.
On January 11, 1999, Newsweek magazine ran the headline “Saddam + Bin Laden?” The subheadline declared, “It would be a marriage made in hell. And America’s two enemies are courting.” The article points out that Saddam has a long history of supporting terrorism. The article also mentions that, in the prior week, several surface-to-air missiles were fired at U.S. and British planes patrolling the no-fly zones and that Saddam is now fighting for his life now that the United States has made his removal from office a national objective.
On January 14, 1999, ABC News reported, “Saddam Hussein has a long history of harboring terrorists. Carlos the Jackal, Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, the most notorious terrorists of their era, all found shelter and support at one time in Baghdad. Intelligence sources say bin Laden’s long relationship with the Iraqis began as he helped Sudan’s fundamentalist government in their efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction.”
On February 13, 1999, CNN reported, “Osama bin Laden, the Saudi millionaire accused by the United States of plotting bomb attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa, has left Afghanistan, Afghan sources said Saturday. Bin Laden’s whereabouts were not known…..” The article reports, “Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden…..”
On February 14, 1999, an article appeared in the San Jose Mercury News claiming that U.S. intelligence officials are worried about an alliance between Osama bin Laden and Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. The article states that bin Laden had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official near Qandahar, Afghanistan in late December 1998 and that “there has been increasing evidence that bin Laden and Iraq may have begun cooperating in planning attacks against American and British targets around the world.” According to this article, Saddam has offered asylum to bin Laden in Iraq. The article said that in addition to Abu Nidal, another Palestinian terrorist by the name of Mohammed Amri (a.k.a. Abu Ibrahim) is also believed to be in Iraq.
On February 18, 1999, National Public Radio (NPR) reported, “There have also been reports in recent months that bin Laden might have been considering moving his operations to Iraq. Intelligence agencies in several nations are looking into that. According to Vincent Cannistraro, a former chief of CIA counterterrorism operations, a senior Iraqi intelligence official, Farouk Hijazi, sought out bin Laden in December and invited him to come to Iraq.” NPR reported that Iraq’s contacts with bin Laden go back some years, to at least 1994, when Farouk Hijazi met with bin Laden when he lived in Sudan.
On February 28, 1999, an article was written in The Kansas City Star which said, “He [bin Laden] has a private fortune ranging from $250 million to $500 million and is said to be cultivating a new alliance with Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, who has biological and chemical weapons bin Laden would not hesitate to use. An alliance between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein could be deadly. Both men are united in their hatred for the United States…..”
On December 28, 1999, an article appeared in The Herald (Glasgow, Scotland) titled, “Iraq tempts bin Laden to attack West.” The article starts, “The world’s most wanted man, Osama bin Laden, has been offered sanctuary in Iraq…..” The article quotes a U.S. counter-terrorism source who said, “Now we are also facing the prospect of an unholy alliance between bin Laden and Saddam. The implications are terrifying.”
Able Danger, a highly-classified U.S. Army intelligence program under the command of the U.S. Army Special Operations Command, supports information from the Czech Republics intelligence service that Mohammed Atta meet with the Iraqi ambassador at the Prague airport on April 9, 2001.
On July 21, 2001 [less than two months prior to 911] the Iraqi state-controlled newspaper “Al-Nasiriya” predicted that bin Laden would attack the U.S. “with the seriousness of the Bedouin of the desert about the way he will try to bomb the Pentagon after he destroys the White House.” The same state-approved column also insisted that bin Laden “will strike America on the arm that is already hurting,” and that the U.S. “will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs” – an apparent reference to the Sinatra classic, “New York, New York.” (Tina’s Note: Evidence of failure to share information.)
After the 9/11 attacks, Saddam became the only world leader to offer praise for bin Laden, even as other terrorist leaders, like Yassir Arafat, went out of their way to make a show of sympathy to the U.S. by donating blood to 9/11 victims on camera. Saddam later pays tribute to 9/11 by having a mural painted depicting the World Trade Center attack at an Iraqi military base in Nasariyah.
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a director of an al Qaeda training base in Afghanistan, fled to Iraq after being injured as the Taliban fell (prior to the U.S./Iraq war). He received medical care and convalesced for two months in Baghdad. He then opened a terrorist training camp in northern Iraq and arranged the October 2002 assassination of U.S. diplomat Lawrence Foley in Amman, Jordan.
CIA director George Tenet (appointed by President Bill Clinton July 11, 1997) wrote in a letter to Senator Bob Graham dated October 7, 2002. “We have solid reporting of senior level contact between Iraq and al Qaeda going back a decade. Credible information exists that Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression. . . . We have credible reporting that al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities.”
On October 16, 2002, the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 was signed into law. The authorization (Public law 107-243) had passed the House by a vote of 296-133, and the Senate by a vote of 77-23. This resolution stated, “Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;” and “Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens.”
Babil, an official newspaper of Saddam Hussein’s government, run by his oldest son Uday, published information that appeared to confirm U.S. allegations of the links between the Iraqi regime and al Qaeda. In its November 16, 2002 edition, Babil identified one Abd-al-Karim Muhammad Aswad as an “intelligence officer,” describing him as the “official in charge of regime’s contacts with Osama bin Laden’s group and currently the regime’s representative in Pakistan.”
On April 25, 2003 CNN reported that Farouk Hijazi had been captured by U.S. forces. Farouk Hijazi was a former intelligence official who may have plotted the attempted assassination of George H.W. Bush in 1993. He was also a contact between Saddam Hussein’s regime and Osama bin Laden. Farouk met with bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998 and is also believed to have met with bin Laden in Sudan in the early 1990’s.
While sifting through the Iraqi Intelligence Service’s [Mukhabarat] bombed ruins on April 26, 2003 the Toronto Star’s Mitch Potter, the London Daily Telegraph’s Inigo Gilmore and their translator discovered a memo in the intelligence service’s accounting department. Dated February 19, 1998 and marked “Top Secret and Urgent,” it said the agency would pay “all the travel and hotel expenses inside Iraq to gain the knowledge of the message from bin Laden and to convey to his envoy an oral message from us to bin Laden, the Saudi opposition leader, about the future of our relationship with him, and to achieve a direct meeting with him.”
On September 13, 2006, a deputy prime minister of Iraq by the name of Barham Salih gave a speech in which he said, “The alliance between the Baathists and jihadists which sustains Al Qaeda in Iraq is not new, contrary to what you may have been told.” He went on to say, “I know this at first hand. Some of my friends were murdered by jihadists, by Al Qaeda-affiliated operatives who had been sheltered and assisted by Saddam’s regime.”
The remarkable politicization of this war by our friends on the left and others is frankly quite disturbing. Instead of joining with their fellow Americans to continue the fight against this very serious threat to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all peoples around the world they have chosen to use the emotional trappings that always accompany war to try to sway public opinion to their personal advantage and away from the life or death mission. They have chosen to ignore and lie about events of the pastmany in which they were active participants. It is a selfish and despicable way to approach politics and a shabby betrayal to our nation and other nations regarding international concerns and responsibilities. Ill leave you with one last bit of information and one more of Meagan’s thoughts:
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (passed by the House and Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 31, 1998) stated “It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.” This legislation also allocated $97,000,000 to aid Iraqi democratic opposition organizations.
Meagan said: There is not any proof that Saddam Hussein was involved in support of terrorists who wanted to attack America. His terrorists preyed mostly on his own people, who are living in worse conditions since Saddam was overthrown.
As we have seen, a whole lot of folks, including those in the Clinton administration, have had plenty to say on the subject of Iraq and the threat Saddam posed to the world including his support of terrorists. (Tina’s note: The people in Iraq are not today living in worse conditionsbut thats another argument)
Lesson: Always pay attention, arm yourselves with accurate and complete information, and please, choose wisely in the coming election.
The quotes from Richard Miniter, a Brussels based investigative journalist, were from an interview with Kathryn Jean Lopez at National Review Online, Clintons Loss?
Quotes from the Clinton Administration and news reports during his term in office and beyond were found HERE and HERE. (includes sources, published works and video)