But Saddam wasn’t even on the 9/11 planes!

Saddam’s Terror Ties: Iraq-war critics ignore ample evidence

Deroy Murdock (no relation – heh) at National Review Online nicely summarizes a lot of the thinking behind the Iraqi ties to terror.

Bush and his national-security team should repeatedly devote entire speeches and publications — complete with documents, names, and visuals, including photographs of terrorists and their innocent victims — to remind Americans and the world that Baathist Iraq was a general store for terrorists, complete with cash, training, lodging, and even medical attention.

The evidence for Hussein’s cooperation with and support for global terrorists is abundant and increasing.

He notes the $25,000 reward paid to families of Palestinian suicide bombers; numerous terrorist organization offices, bases, and training camps within Iraq; the capture of some key terrorist leaders in Iraq (one of which was noted here); a suspected terrorist training camp near Baghdad that included a fuselage of a passenger jet (although that may have just been for training Iraqi stewardesses); and numerous other potential ties. Are they all accurate? I doubt it. But even if only half of them are, that’s plenty. And my thinking is that for everything our intelligence agencies know, there’s five important things they don’t know.

Assuming he wishes to sway domestic and global opinion, President Bush and his administration should guide Americans and the world through the sometimes-murky data and identify the patterns and conclusions that arise. While Saddam Hussein never may endure a courtroom cross-examination, plenty already exists in the public record (and surely more should be declassified) to confirm that his ouster, the liberation of Iraq and its current rehabilitation were and are necessary phases of the war on terror. The president and his top advisers should present the case, not haphazardly, but systematically and in as comprehensive, well-documented, and well-illustrated a fashion as their vast resources will allow.

I’ve been wondering why so many things that I think could be potentially huge have been played down so much. In some cases, I’m sure, it’s because they lack enough evidence. Or, as more evidence is uncovered, they turn out to be untrue. But I also wonder if we’re going to be bombarded by evidence of WMDs, terror ties, and other Iraqi atrocities as the presidential campaign heats up next year. Although that doesn’t make the claims any less true, it will certainly smell of partisan politics instead of honest war. (via HobbsOnline A.M.)


  1. Wasn’t this issue also covered by Mr. Bush when he told the nation that there was NO link between Saddam and 9/11? I know Mr. Cheney is still making speeches that can give one a different conclusion, as confusing as that is. FOX News had 70% of their viewers believing in that link but that didn’t mean it existed. I believe we all can agree that we would like to be able to trust our goverment completely, unfortunately that is not always the case with this administration nor in the past. ***

  2. Wow, that wasn’t what I expected from ”Marine’s Girl’. Excellent points. I, too would like to trust but do not. And using information as a political tool would be very stinky, indeed. ***