Sunday, March 30, 2008

Who Says There’s No Smoking Gun Between Saddam, al-Qaeda?

Many Democrats and liberals have been hell bent to say that President Bush lied about his alleged claims that former Iraqi President and dictator Saddam Hussein had connections with terrorist group al-Qaeda may want to take a peek at a recently released report.

“The Iraqi Perspectives Project Primary Source Materials for Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents,” was recently released and while it stated that there were no direct links (or smoking gun) between Saddam and the terror group, which claims responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, there sure does seem to be enough dots to show that the bloody dictator had Sunday Tea with a few members of al-Qaeda.

For example, it has been known for a long time, and this report mentions it, that Saddam had a long relationship with terrorist organizations and supplied them with training grounds, funds and equipment. What many Bush critics don’t want to acknowledge is that al-Qaeda and Iraq’s former dictator had common objectives and a limited working relationship.

“At times, these organizations (Saddam’s security organizations and Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network) would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust,” stated on page 559 of the report.

And then there is the liaison with Ayman al-Zawahiri, prominent leader of al-Qaeda and leader of Egyptian Islamic Jihad.

“Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al-Qaeda’s stated goals and objectives,” stated on page 62 of the report.

So, just using those two passages alone, the report does state that there was a strong link to Saddam and al-Qaeda. Granted, no one is saying that Saddam had bin Laden over for poker night but there was a type of link there. And that is just al-Qaeda.

At the moment, there is no proof that both parties worked on the 9/11 attacks and President Bush never stated such a thing. But the fact that Saddam Hussein was a loose cannon who already had an established history of lying to the U.N. and breaking resolutions, among other things, America could not stand quietly by, waiting to be attacked again.

Going into Iraq to determine if Saddam had weapons of mass destruction was the right course of action. Taking military action so soon after U.N. weapons inspectors went in there is up for debate, as mentioned before in The Times Observer.

But the job of any American president is to protect the people and to ensure their safety. And that is what the president was doing. We may not agree with how President Bush went about it but it was something that had to be done to finally determine how much of a threat Saddam actually posed to America.

To read the complete report, please click here.

3 comments:

Mark Eichenlaub said...

Excellent post. It's nice to see some rational analysis on this subject by someone in the press, particularly of your stature.

I've been writing about this subject for years at www.regimeofterror.com and elsewhere and I'd love to discuss this topic with you sometime if you are interested.

You can reach me through my site if so.

Keep up the great work.

Anonymous said...

So your saying, their was a 'type' of connection, but then you say there was a 'strong' connection. So if a co-worker of yours goes and commits a robbery, than you, by the fact that you have been known to have a working relationship with him, should be implicated as well? Any law student would know that mere associations are not evidence enough to try a man, much less convict. 6 degrees of separation puts many of us 'in cahoots' with Saddam!

The Times Observer said...

Anonymous, thank you for stopping.

While I understand what you are saying, let's not forget what the report stated:

“At times, these organizations (Saddam’s security organizations and Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network) would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust.”

So the two groups did work together at times and it does not sound like mere associations as you put it. And I did mention that the two groups had a limited working relationship. I never claimed that they were business partners.

But please stop by again.