The Merchant of Venice, Act IV, Sc. I
I am a tainted wether of the flock,
Meetest for death: the weakest kind of fruit
Drops earliest to the ground.

True Love Often Overlooks Previous Indiscretions,

Conservatives traditionally resist government intrusion into the home and personal lives of American citizens: Liberals tend to welcome the guiding hand of government into every facet of modern life. This is one of the fundamental differences between Liberalism and Conservatism. During the GOP Debate, Rep. Bachman called Governor Perry on his issuance of an executive order in 2007, requiring all girls in Texas to receive Gardasil, unless a waiver was signed by her parents. Gardasil by Merck, prevents infection of the more common strains of human papilloma virus. These particular viruses, once established, can initiate genital warts, as well as cervical, anal, vulvar, and vaginal cancers. The vaccine Gardasil prevents the infection and consequently prevents the associated diseases.

Texas lawmakers blocked the EO, arguing that the vaccine was too new to be considered safe, others argued that the order preempted parental rights and that the vaccine would encourage young girls to become sexually promiscuous at an early because of a false sense of security provided by the Gardasil.

The Flirtatious and Promiscuous Scarlet Has A Difficult Time Choosing From Her Many Suitors

Michelle Bachman provided an example of personal anecdotal evidence to stress the risk of injecting the vaccine into young girls. Apparently a young mother told her that her daughter suffered mental retardation after being injected with the vaccine. Thus this is more than enough proof for Bachman to refute the scientific studies of over 20,000 women and girls who were injected with the vaccine prior to FDA approval.

The studies concluded that the vaccine was 100% effective, an almost unprecedented result. The most serious side effect was redness, soreness, and swelling of the injection site.

Gardasil may be considered one of the most extraordinary risk-benefit ratios of all pharmaceuticals.

We have government intrusion in our lives; we are now required to wear seat belts and motorcycle helmets. People accept the fact that seat belts make crashes more survivable, as do motorcycle helmets, but the helmets interfere with the image of a bad ass on a motorcycle. Therein lies part of the conflict; much of our choice of transportation is based on an image. An image that we subscribe to and emulate within our own psyche and an image that we want to cultivate in the minds of those who view us. Yet the motorcycle road racer would never consider running down the track at speeds approaching two hundred miles an hour without a helmet, but if helmets save lives in motorcycle wrecks by lessening head trauma, how many lives could be saved if drivers and passengers of cars and trucks were required to wear a helmet. Surely head trauma is a major cause of death on the highway.

Since nearly all people engage in sexual activity, all of us are exposed to the papilloma virus. A rarely discussed fact is that certain men are carriers of the infection. Although they suffer no ill-effects, if they have multiple partners, they can spread the infection to many others, bringing misery and death as an unseemly gift of their sexual prowess.

The public would be enraged, Conservatives particularly, if these carriers of this often lethal infection were identified on the internet so that potential partners could have a choice in avoiding the infection of Don Juan types intent on serial infection of vulnerable maidens. Consequently, we allow carriers to continue to spread untold misery and death among females as a cost of our Constitutional freedoms.

A woman may only have one partner in her sexual life, but if that partner is a carrier of the infection, she will more than likely suffer through one or more of the associated diseases and death as a result.

Will we Conservatives be able to face our daughters and granddaughters if they have contracted one of the dreaded diseases and tell them that it is only collateral damage and a cost of our freedom; she may die secure in the knowledge that she contracted the disease as a free woman and she may now die a free woman, she can also take solace in the fact that the man who infected her will be free to infect many more women and their other partners as well, all in the name of freedom.

We may all rest assured that scientific minds like Michelle Bachman’s can recognize a potential problem when a woman complains that her twelve year old daughter suffered mental retardation after being injected with Gardasil.

As a Conservative, I realize that strict adherence to any ideology leads to fanaticism; common sense must be injected into the mix to keep the ideas and goals viable, but interposing uninformed personal opinions and ignorance into any situation is counter productive and nearly as offensive as falsifying data under the premise of science.

Hypnos and Thanatos (God of death) carrying dead Sarpedon, while Hermes watches.

It is true that there were some Palestinians “dancing” in the streets, jubilant that “America got what it deserved” on 9/11. But do those Palestinians who did celebrate represent the feelings of the entire Muslim world? All Palestinians (many of whom have grievances with the U.S. for reasons as much to do with politics as it does with the Quran)? Or can it be chalked up to something other than religion?

Consider:

The Images below are from a peaceful candlelight vigil on the streets of Tehran, Iran. (September 18th, 2001)
The pariticipants lit candles, mourned, and prayed to showed their grief over the loss of innocent life in the tragedies of Sept. 11th.

The following image is from a peaceful rally in the Muslim country of Bangladesh,
who were showing this sympathy with Americans
who have lost loved ones in this Tragedy

The picture to the right is a poignant image of two Palestinian women mourning the loss of life in the tragedies of September 11th.

- The terrorist act was strongly condemned by every single Palestinian organization including Fatah, the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Hamas, Workers Unions and Committees, Human Right organizations (AlHaq, Law, Palestine Center for Human Rights), student associations, municipalities, mosques and churches, etc.

- The US Consul General in Jerusalem reported that he has received a huge stack of faxes from Palestinians and Palestinian organizations expressing condolences, grief and solidarity. He himself was pained to see that the media chose to focus on the sensational images of a few Palestinians rejoicing.

- The Palestine Legislative Council condemned the terrorist attack on the United States and sent an urgent letter of condolences to Mr. J Dennis Hasterd, Speaker of the House of Representatives.

- Palestinians in East Jerusalem held a candle-light vigils on 12 and 14 September to express their grief and solidarity with the American families struck by this tragedy. Mr. Abdel Qader Al-Husseini, son of the late Palestinian leader Faisal Al-Husseini led one of the vigils.

- Jerusalem University students, along with the President of the University and the Deans of the various Faculties, began a blood donation drive in East Jerusalem. Students and professors went to hospitals in order to donate blood for the American victims who need it.

- The 1 million Palestinian students in the Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, stood five minutes in silence to express their solidarity with the hundreds of American children who have been struck by this strategy, which resembles in its shocking effects their daily sufferings. (see image to the right)

-In Iran, Tehran’s main soccer stadium observed an unprecedented minute’s silence in sympathy with the victims.

-Iran’s Ayatollah Imami Kashani spoke of a catastrophic act of terrorism which could only be condemned by all Muslims, adding the whole world should mobilise against terrorism.

Were the expressions of condolences sincere? Or just “obligatory” governmental lip service and image propaganda? After all, it’s easy to be cynically skeptical of Hamas and Yasser Arafat shedding one teardrop of sympathy for the United States for anything other than political cover. But what about the people themselves? “Ordinary”, everyday Muslims, whether defined as “radical” or “moderate”?

And if our skepticism for the sincerity of the well-wishes is well founded, then it should also extend to those that have nothing to do with Islam itself, but to anti-Americanism in general; anti-Americanism that isn’t fueled by religious fanaticism but rather perceptions of American imperialism and wrongful foreign policy bullying by the world’s sole hyperpower.

Were the French and our other European allies sincere in their mourning? I’m sure many were; but along with that, there were probably those who felt “America’s chickens have come home to roost”, and this was all “blowback”.

From pg 8-9 of Jean Francois-Revel‘s Anti-Americanism,

After the first gushings of emotion and crocodile condolences, the murderous assaults were depicted as a justified retaliation for the evil done by the United States throughout the world. This was the reaction of most Muslim countries, but also of rulers and journalists in some sub-Saharan African countries, not all of which have Muslim majorities. Here we see the habitual escape hatch of societies suffering from chronic failures, societies that have completely messed up their evolution toward democracy and economic growth; instead of looking to their own incompetence and corruption as the cause, they finger the West in general and the United States in particular. Classic displays of voluntary blindness to one’s own shortcomings though these were, they were but overtures; even more remarkable performances were to come. After a discreet pause of a few days, the theory of American culpability surfaced in the European press- in France above all, it goes without saying- among intellectuals and politicians, of the Left and the Right.

Shouldn’t we interrogate ourselves about the underlying reasons, the “root causes” that had pushed the terrorists to their destructive acts? Wasn’t the United States in part responsible for what had happened? Shouldn’t we take into account the sufferings of the poor countries and the contrast between their impoverishment and America’s opulence?

This line of argument was not only made in countries whose populations, keyed up to fever pitch by jihad, instantly acclaimed the New York catastrophe as well-deserved punishment. It was also heard in the European democracies, where soon enough, insinuations were made that- with all due respect for the dead, of course- a careful look at the terrorists’ motives was called for.

I believe that the anti-Americanism that saw fit to celebrate the 9/11 attacks against the U.S. as a well-deserved “bloody nose” longtime in coming can be chalked up not to religious extremism, but to world politics.

In David Killcullen’s The Accidental Guerilla, he writes on pg 249-250:

Observers of the situation are often confused by their own category errors, for example, equating liberal politics with nominal theology and nonviolence, or fundamentalist theology with extremist politics and terrorism. These traits may in theory cluster together, but are not the same thing. In fact, Quintan Wiktorowicz has argued, theology is a poor predictor for political extremism and violence. He argues that though Salafist groups share a common religious perspective, political divisions emerge when they apply enduring religious principles to contemporary problems:

Although Salafis share the same approach to religious jurisprudence, they often hold different interpretations about contemporary politics and conditions….The different contextual readings have produced three major factions in the community: the purists, the politicos, and the jihadis. The purists emphasize a focus on nonviolent methods of propagation, purification, and education. They view politics as a diversion that encourages deviancy. Politicos, in contrast, emphasize application of the Salafi creed to the political arena, which they view as particularly important because it dramatically impacts social justice and the right of God alone to legislate. Jihadis take a more militant position and argue that the current context calls for violence and revolution. All three factions share a common [theological] creed but offer different explanations of the contemporary world and its concomitant problems and thus propose different solutions. The splits are about contextual analysis, not belief.

~~~

in 2004, an International Crisis Group report found that Salafism and terrorism rarely occur together in Indonesia, and another report made the same finding in Saudi Arabia; earlier, Francois Burgat identified a similar pattern in North Africa. Many of the most violent Iraqi groups are primarily nationalist and only nominally Islamic, as are some of the most extreme Palestinian groups. And the Netherlands security service (AIVD) identified the same wide spectrum in European radical Muslim communities in 2003. Hence, regardless of theological or political categorization, field evidence suggest that Islamic theology as such has little functional relationship with violence. On the basis of this demonstrated analytical weakness of theology as a predictor for violence, Wiktorowicz argues that we “should focus on the competing political analyses and interpretations and not necessarily the specific [theological] content of jihadi beliefs.”

If theology is a poor predictor for violence, it follows that radicalization (which includes political or theological components, or both) is relevant to counterterrorism in its political, not its theological dimension. Indeed, a focus on Islamic beliefs (equating “radical” theology with violent extremism) may be an analytical sidetrack. Rather than theology, the evidence suggests, it may make more sense to focus on recognized behavioral and sociological indicators of propensity to violence. As Marc Sageman has shown, biographical, psychological, and sociological factors are more useful predictors for terrorist activity than religion. Membership in a subversive or revolutionary political group may also indicate that an individual is “primed” for violence if an appropriate catalyst emerges- but a trigger event is needed and, again, the driving factor is political, not theological.

John Esposito:

The charge that Muslims do not condemn terrorism has been made repeatedly, despite that post-9/11, many Muslim leaders and organizations in America and globally have consistently denounced acts of terrorism. But major media outlets do not seem to find them newsworthy, and thus they must be found in smaller outlets on the internet.

The Myth of the Silent Muslim Majority:

Since the tragic events of September 11, 2001 ‘Western’ academics, intellectuals, and politicians have been apparently blind to the massive amount of condemnation coming from the Muslim majority; that is, those who oppose Wahhabism and Osama bin Laden. Indeed, the question of “why haven’t Muslims condemned the atrocities of 9/11 and other terror” is more a definitive statement than an open-ended issue for many commentators. Moderate Muslims are seen as a weak majority, unwilling to condemn and work against the ‘radicals’ like bin Laden and others.

~~~

This conception of Islam is quite commonplace among Evangelical Christians, Atheists, Zionists, politicians in the West, and media commentators generally. However, the belief that Muslims believe that the tragic events of 9/11 were justified or that bin Laden represents “mainstream” Islam is quite ridiculous. Even commentators who should know better seem to have amnesia or deliberately lie to make their case. For example, after the London bombings, Thomas Friedman stated that:

“To this day–to this day– no major Muslim cleric or religious body has ever issued a fatwa condemning Osama bin Laden”.

Apparently Friedman did not read his own newspaper on October 17th, 2001 in which a full page ad from the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty proclaimed that “Osama bin Laden hijacked four airplanes and a religion”. This ad also published statements from some of the most prominent Muslim leaders and institutions. Among those who signed were Sheikh Abudulaziz al-Shaikh (Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia and Chairmen of the Senior Ulama), Mufti Nizamuddin Shamzai of Pakistan, Zaki Badawi (Principal of the Muslim College in London), King Abdullah II of Jordan, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

Even earlier, on September 14th, 2001 the BBC reported condemnations of the 9/11 attacks as acts of terror by significant and influential clerics; for example Sheikh Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, the Grand Sheikh of al-Azhar University (viewed by many as one of the highest authorities in Sunni Islam), and Ayatollah Kashani in Iran.

Yet another example of over forty Muslim scholars and jurists condemnation of the events on 9/11.; a few notable scholars were Mustafa Mashhur (General Guide, Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt), Qazi Hussain Ahmed (Ameer, Jamaat-e -Islami, Pakistan) Sheikh Ahmad Yassin (founder, Islamic Resistance Movement-or Hamas, Palestine), and Fazil Nour (president, PAS- Parti Islam SeMalaysia, Malaysia). Just a piece of their condemnation:

The undersigned, leaders of Islamic movements, are horrified by the events of Tuesday 11 September 2001 in the United States which resulted in massive killing, destruction and attack on innocent lives. We express our deepest sympathies and sorrow. We condemn, in the strongest terms, the incidents, which are against all human and Islamic norms [my emphasis]. This is grounded in the Noble Laws of Islam which forbid all forms of attacks on innocents. God Almighty says in the Holy Qur’an: “No bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another” (Surah al-Isra 17:15).

Surprising to many in the West, Hamas and Hizbollah condemned the atrocities in London in 2005. Hamas claimed that “targeting civilians in their transport means and lives is denounced and rejected”, while Hizbollah joined on “humanitarian, moral, and religious grounds”.

Commentators like Harris, Graham, and Friedman obviously didn’t do any research or have motives for distorting the truth. Whatever conclusion one may come to, the scholarliness and truth of work by any of these men is questionable. This conclusion should not be surprising. According to Edward Said in his Covering Islam:

From at least the end of the eighteenth century until our own day, modern Occidental reactions to Islam have been dominated by a radically simplified type of thinking that may still be called Orientalist. The general basis of Orientalist thought is an imaginative and yet drastically polarized geography dividing the world into two unequal parts, the larger, “different” once called the Orient, the other, also known as “our” world, called the Occident or the West”. (pg. 4)

Said goes on to outline a entrenched bias in the West in its coverage and reaction to Islam. Whether one accepts his conclusion about the inherent bias of the West towards Islam and the long history of Western imperialism (See: Orientalism), it is quite clear that “mainstream America” seems haphazardly ignorant on Islam, its history, and contemporary Islamic/Arab reactions to current events. Condemnation of Osama bin Laden and the atrocity on 9/11 has been supplied by literally thousands of Islamic scholars, jurists, and ordinary muslims. As has been shown, these condemnations were immediate and strong.

Lets recall the Qur’anic verse that reads:

“Who so ever kills a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he has killed all mankind, and who so ever saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind,” (Al-Ma’dah:32).

While almost every nation condemned the 9/11 attacks and joined the US in fighting a defensive “war on terror”, there was one particular “secular” Arab-Muslim leader who did not condemn the September 11th attacks:

Iraq was the only Arab-Muslim country that did not condemn the September 11 attacks against the United States. A commentary of the official Iraqi station on September 11 stated that America was “…reaping the fruits of [its] crimes against humanity.” Subsequent commentary in a newspaper run by one of Saddam’s sons expressed sympathy for Usama Bin Ladin following initial US retaliatory strikes in Afghanistan. In addition,the regime continued to provide training and political encouragement to numerous terrorist
groups,

Patterns of Global Terrorism 2001

Saddam was not exactly a pious Muslim, for which he was hated by radical, puritanical Islamists who saw his regime in a similar light to how they saw Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and all the other “apostate”, secularlized Muslim states. And like the Saudi government who funded the extremism of wahhabi Islam, Saddam might not have trusted jihadists, but he was willing to “do business” with Islamic terrorists anyway and provide training, funding, and safe haven as a kind of insurance policy agreement that takfiri terrorists would direct their assaults outside of Iraq and at other apostate secular Muslim regimes as well as at mutual enemies.

Even though the war in Iraq (especially after abu Ghraib) probably did give al Qaeda and the global jihad movement new life, it also exposed al Qaeda for the monster it is, and delegitimize its ideology in the eyes of most in the Muslim world:

Last year, Sheikh Salman al-Awdah, a popular Saudi Islamic scholar criticized Osama bin Laden who once lionized him.

Mufti Sheikh Abd Al-’Aziz bin Abdallah Aal Al-Sheikh, the highest Islamic religious authority in Saudi Arabia, issued a fatwa prohibiting Saudi youth from engaging in jihad abroad. Tareq Al-Humaid, the editor of Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, points out the significance:

“It is true that some of these [young people] have become enslaved by Al-Qaeda and its ideology, and are now beyond hope; however, the importance of the fatwa lies in the impact that it will have on most of the Saudi public, and in particular the fathers and mothers. Its value lies in the fact that it will wrest from the hands of the ‘politicized sheikhs’ the card that they have been using all this time.

“Where are the moderates?” Mainstream Muslims have been rejecting terrorism and al Qaeda’s brand of Islamic ideology, even as we remain suspicious of the sincerity and heart of those who profess to be practitioners of the Islamic faith.

The most recent astonishing and important rejection and condemnation of al Qaeda comes from Sayyid Imam al-Sharif, also known as Dr. Fadl.

Who is Dr. Fadl?

Lawrence Wright, author of the most definitive account of the history of al-Qaeda, The Looming Tower, writes in the New Yorker:

Last May, a fax arrived at the London office of the Arabic newspaper Asharq Al Awsat from a shadowy figure in the radical Islamist movement who went by many names. Born Sayyid Imam al-Sharif, he was the former leader of the Egyptian terrorist group Al Jihad [Egyptian Islamic Jihad], and known to those in the underground mainly as Dr. Fadl. Members of Al Jihad became part of the original core of Al Qaeda; among them was Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden’s chief lieutenant. Fadl was one of the first members of Al Qaeda’s top council. Twenty years ago, he wrote two of the most important books in modern Islamist discourse; Al Qaeda used them to indoctrinate recruits and justify killing. Now Fadl was announcing a new book, rejecting Al Qaeda’s violence. “We are prohibited from committing aggression, even if the enemies of Islam do that,” Fadl wrote in his fax, which was sent from Tora Prison, in Egypt.

Fadl’s fax confirmed rumors that imprisoned leaders of Al Jihad were part of a trend in which former terrorists renounced violence. His defection posed a terrible threat to the radical Islamists, because he directly challenged their authority. “There is a form of obedience that is greater than the obedience accorded to any leader, namely, obedience to God and His Messenger,” Fadl wrote, claiming that hundreds of Egyptian jihadists from various factions had endorsed his position.

A year ago, MataHarley had blogged on the NIC Global Trends 2025 Report:

The two primary strategic aims of al-Qa’ida—the establishment of a global Islamic caliphate and the removal of US and Western influence so that “apostate” regimes can be toppled—are clearly threats to many existing Muslim governments and are resulting in stronger counterterrorism measures.

There is little indication that the vast majority of Muslims believe that such objectives are realistic or that, if they could come to pass, would solve the practical problems of unemployment, poverty, poor educational systems, and dysfunctional governance. Despite sympathy for some of its ideas and the rise of affiliated groups in places like the Mahgreb, al-Qa’ida has not achieved broad support in the Islamic World. Its harsh pan-Islamist ideology and policies appeal only to a tiny minority of Muslims.

According to one study of public attitudes toward extremist violence, there is little support for al-Qa’ida in any of the countries surveyed—Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Morocco, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. The report also found that majorities in all Arab countries oppose jihadi violence, by any group, on their own soil.

Al-Qa’ida is alienating former Muslim supporters by killing Muslims in its attacks. Recent scholarly research indicates that terrorist groups that kill civilians seldom accomplish their strategic goals. Although determining precisely the number of Muslims worldwide who have died in al-Qa’ida attacks is difficult, examination of available evidence suggests that at least 40 percent of the victims have been Muslims.

The roughly 40-year cycle of terrorist waves suggests that the dreams that inspire terrorist group members’ fathers to join particular groups are not attractive to succeeding generations. The prospect that al-Qa’ida will be among the small number of groups able to transcend the generational timeline is not high, given its harsh ideology, unachievable strategic objectives, and inability to become a mass movement.

Mata writes:

Muslim supporters are alienated by jihad movements killing Muslims!

And where has the global Islamic jihad movement gained the majority of their PR by wreaking bloodthirsty welfare on fellow Muslims?

Iraq. Point made.

This single element… changing the hearts and minds of Muslims… come to us not only because of the courage and fortitude of our US and allies’ military personnel, but also because of the very failings of the enemy itself. We can be certain that it was not part of Iraq strategy to have the jihad and rebel movements shed the blood of so many innocent Iraqis merely to allow them to show their true colors. But we can also be certain that had we not made them so desperate as to attempt to tear Iraq in two, it’s likely the Muslim world may have continued to hold them up as honorable religious fighters.

Lawrence Wright, author of The Looming Tower, the definitive account of al Qaeda history, wrote about al Qaeda’s Master Plan in the New Yorker. Toward the end of the article, he writes:

Al Qaeda’s apocalyptic agenda is not shared by all Islamists. Although most jihadi groups approve of Al Qaeda’s attacks on America and Europe, their own goals are often more parochial, having to do with purifying Islam and toppling regimes in their own countries which they see as heretical. Many of these groups would be happy to see Al Qaeda disappear, so that their campaigns can be understood as nationalist guerrilla struggles with specific political goals.

This rupture has grown increasingly apparent in the past five years. Sheikh Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah, Hezbollah’s spiritual leader, publicly denounced the September 11th attacks and condemned Al Qaeda’s use of suicide bombers, even though the tactic was employed in the 1983 attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Beirut and the barracks of American and French troops in Lebanon, both of which are believed to have been carried out by Hezbollah. After September 11th, leaders of the Egyptian Islamist organization, Gama’a Islamiya, which has worked closely with Al Qaeda in the past, publicly condemned Al Qaeda’s tactics and its goals of worldwide jihad. Even some of Zawahiri’s former colleagues in the Egyptian terror group he formed, Al Jihad, argue that Al Qaeda has undermined the cause of Islam by instigating anti-Muslim sentiment in the U.S. and the West.

It is notable how seldom these ideologues refer to the words of bin Laden or Zawahiri, the nominal leaders of the movement, perhaps because the declarations of Al Qaeda’s leadership are directed more at Americans and Europeans than at the jihadis. “Beware the scripted enemy, who plays to a global audience,” David Kilcullen, the counterterrorism strategist at the State Department, wrote in a paper now being used by the U.S. military in Iraq as a handbook for dealing with the insurgency. Al Qaeda, he wrote, propagates a “single narrative” aimed at influencing the West; but each faction within the jihadi movement has its own version of this narrative, often sharply different from the message being put forward by bin Laden and Zawahiri.

Here are more useful links:

Statements from leading Muslim leaders, condemning the terrorist attacks of September 11th

* Organization of the Islamic Conference, Doha, Qatar. October 10th, 2001: (representing 56 Muslim nations)
“These terrorist acts contradict the teaching of all religions and human and moral values.”

*“Terrorists are mass murderers, not martyrs”, states Shaykh Hamza Yusuf.

*“Bin Laden’s Violence is a heresy against Islam”, states Abdul Hakim Murad

*Muslim scholar Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi denounced the attacks against civilians in the U.S.

*Sheikh Mohammed Sayyed al-Tantawi of Al-Azhar, the highest institution in Sunni Islam, warned that those who attack innocent people will be punished by Allah, in his weekly sermon to thousands of worshippers in Cairo. “Attacking innocent people is not courageous, it is stupid and will be punished on the Day of Judgment,” the moderate Sheikh Tantawi said at Al-Azhar mosque. “It’s not courageous to attack innocent children, women and civilians. It is courageous to protect freedom, it is courageous to defend oneself and not to attack,” he said.

* “Hijacking Planes, terrorizing innocent people and shedding blood constitute a form of injustice that can not be tolerated by Islam, which views them as gross crimes and sinful acts.” Shaykh Abdul Aziz al-Ashaikh (Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia and Chairman of the Senior Ulama, on September 15th, 2001)

*The terrorists acts, from the perspective of Islamic law, constitute the crime of hirabah (waging war against society).” Sept. 27, 2001 fatwa, signed by:
Shaykh Yusuf al-Qaradawi (Grand Islamic Scholar and Chairman of the Sunna and Sira Countil, Qatar)
Judge Tariq al-Bishri, First Deputy President of the Council d’etat, Egypt
Dr. Muhammad s. al-Awa, Professor of Islamic Law and Shari’a, Egypt
Dr. Haytham al-Khayyat, Islamic scholar, Syria
Fahmi Houaydi, Islamic scholar, Syria
Shaykh Taha Jabir al-Alwani, Chairman, North America High Council

*“Neither the law of Islam nor its ethical system justify such a crime.” Zaki Badawi, Principal of the Muslim College in London. Cited in Arab News, Sept. 28, 2001.

*“It is wrong to kill innocent people. It is also wrong to Praise those who kill innocent people.” Mufti Nizamuddin Shamzai, Pakistan. Cited in NY Times, Sept. 28, 2001.

*“What these people stand for is completely against all the principles that Arab Muslims believe in.” King Abdullah II, of Jordan; cited in Middle East Times, Sept. 28, 2001.

The above statements by high ranking international Muslim scholars appeared in an advertisement placed by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, in the NY Times, October 17th, 2001 (p. A 17)

*CANADIAN MUSLIM SCHOLARS REJECT “MISGUIDED” CALLS FOR JIHAD : The Canadian office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR CAN) and the Canadian Muslim Civil Liberties Association (CMCLA) today denounced a series of recent statements made by Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda network that state that Muslims should wage a “jihad” against Americans.

“Islam respects the sacredness of life, and rejects any express statement or tacit insinuation that Muslims should harm innocent people. Despite our disagreement with certain American policies, we must never abuse the concept of Jihad to target innocent civilians.

Jihad, which literally means ‘struggle,’ has an internal, societal and combative dimension. The internal dimension of Jihad encompasses the struggle against the evil inclinations of the self, and the spiritual project to adorn the self with virtues such as justice, mercy, generosity and gentleness. The societal dimension includes struggling against social injustice and creating a communal identity based on charity, respect and equality. Finally, the combative aspect of jihad is only to be used as self-defense against aggression or to fight oppression, and, even then, to be observed with strict limits of conduct that preserves the life of innocents and the sanctity of the environment.

Moreover, this latter type of Jihad can only be declared by a legitimate, recognized religious authority. Using the concept of Jihad to justify harming the innocent is contrary to the letter and spirit of Islam.We condemn any violence that springs from this misguided interpretation.”

*Ingrid Mattson, a professor of Islamic studies and Muslim-Christian relations at Hartford Seminary in Hartford, said there was no basis in Islamic law or sacred text for Mr. bin Laden’s remarks. “The basic theological distortion is that any means are permitted to achieve the end of protesting against perceived oppression,” said Dr. Mattson, a practicing Muslim.

“Islamic law is very clear: terrorism is not permitted,” she added. “Even in a legitimate war — even if Osama bin Laden were a legitimate head of state, which he’s not — you’re not permitted to indiscriminately kill civilians, just to create terror in the general population.” (“Experts Say Bin Laden is Distorting Islamic Law“, NY Times, Oct. 8, 2001)

Al-Sheikh

An Islamic scholar in Saudi Arabia has said the terrorist network alqaeda goes against the principles of Islam. The statement was issued after al-qaeda militants were arrested last month in S. Arabia.

The Saudi scholar, Al-Sheikh said:

“The things that al-Qaeda members do in Saudi Arabia must be unacceptable to any Muslim,”

“He who commits crimes such as those of the deviant sect (refering to al-qaeda) is nothing but a wicked person who has abandoned his faith and behaves like animals or barbarians.”

“Supporting them means committing one of the biggest sins.”

Given that “Muslims dancing in the streets” in celebration of the 9/11 attacks appears to have been overexaggerated by media sensationalism and that most Muslims either were never on board with the global jihad movement or have since rejected al Qaeda’s theology of hate, who then are we at war with? Who attacked us on 9/11 if Islam is not to blame?

Don’t expect to see this on MSNBC or Huffpo, but feel free to send them an email.

Suspected leader of Ansar Al-Islam, 7 criminal associates arrested

BAGHDAD – Iraqi Security Forces arrested the suspected leader of Ansar al-Islam and seven criminal associates during a series of joint security operations conducted in Mansour and Adhamiyah today.

ISF and U.S. advisors searched several residential buildings for the wanted individual who allegedly has links to senior Al-Qaeda leadership.

Well, it’s gone. 2009 is finally freaking GONE

The year started with my wife outta work, no family income (I just get beer money for my books), two sick kids, the neighbor’s trampoline had just taken flight into the back of our car-almost totaling it.

The year continued…

Obama took office. He and Dems gave a trillion dollars in “stimulus” money to their organized labor donors who paid 80% of their campaign money (according to the Federal Election Commission website) with the idea that if the kickback wasn’t given right away unemployment would rise above 8%.

Then unemployment reached almost 11% (almost 25% in some states…states that probably won’t be blue again in the fall-not w 1:4 voters outta work!).
The war in Iraq continues under the Bush plan, and Obama-who had pledged for 2yrs to focus on Afghanistan-took 10 months to decide on what to do.

Also in Afghanistan, our own Flopping Aces writer, Chris Galloway returned from his tour there in April, but on June 30th his months of being unable to adjust, his frustrations w Obama and the left’s ignorance of the war on terror among other challenges drove him to take his own life. God bless you Chris! You’re missed more than you know.

My wife did find a job, but 3 more of my friends lost their jobs (2 of em far left, unabashed moonbat Obama lovers).

Last night, my wife and I did the usual. We looked back on the year, we complained about some things, and we thanked God for others (a trip to Disneyworld with our kids that was the greatest vacation in our lives!). We talked about making resolutions, and decided on a list of things we wanna try and do instead. As we waited up for the ball to drop on TV, I got a facebook message that a friend of mine’s mom had just died. 2009 was going out like bitch.

I dunno what 2010 will bring. I know the deadline for Iran to give up its nuclear program has come and gone, and that Obama “strongly objected” to the tyrannical oppression of the Iranian people. I know that even if the current plan in Iraq works, 50-70,000 American combat troops will just be re-named “security forces” in October. I know that there’s no plan for fighting terrorists in Afghanistan other than to make soldiers read Miranda rights if they choose to capture a suicide bomber (should Marines get badges now, or will those grunts just toss em on the ground w a firm, “Badges!? We don’t need no stinking badges!”?). I know that even TIME Magazine reported that there is no military option for Yemen. I know from a friend just back from the region that Somalia is a war zone w Americans fully involved and the world ignoring it (but Obama did get a peace prize). I know that Israel is not gonna wait forever re: Iran, that Russia’s making offensive weapons again for the first time in 20yrs, and I know that if I look around the web or TV I can still find some leftwinger nutroots moonbat moron blaming Bush for something-anything-even though Obama’s been President for a year now.

More than anything, I know that 2009 changed me. Chris’ death effects me harder than any other that I’ve known in Iraq or Afghanistan. I know that what pissed him off politically and militarily pisses me off too. I know that the trip I took w my wife and kids to Disneyworld in December changed me somehow. I no longer care as much about trying to warn people on the left of threats. I no longer care to debate them about the validity of the war in Iraq, about the need for the war in Afghanistan, or the (4) 911 Commission report causes that drove Al Queda to start killing Americans in 1992 (3:4 of which were blowback from America’s war on Iraq).

I care more about my family now. I care more about my friends. I don’t live in a leftist nest like San Fran, LA, NYC, DC, or Boston, and since I live between the burbs and farm country in Ohio…I don’t think the war whose name must not be spoken is gonna effect me as much as it will those who cannot dare to speak its name. I will not be attacked. Al Queda’s not gonna waste operatives in the Akron area as much as they gonna aim for someplace where the leftnuts are all gathered-like NYC and DC on 911.

So, when the next attack comes, and it will, it’s gonna be aimed at those who continue to try and pretend there is no war, there is no threat, and if we’re just nice to everyone around the world (except Republicans who they wish would die ala Rush Limbaugh), then everything will be fine. I’ve tried for years to explain documented threats and ties, and now those people need to learn on their own. How? Well, Clinton’s Counterterrorism Czar, Richard Clarke, was asked by the 911 Commission back in 2004, and he told them there’s only 1 thing that gets Americans to recognize the threat: “more body bags.”

Maybe the same is true with the economy. Maybe the leftnuts who lose their jobs and can’t find another will start to ask why they can’t? Maybe they’ll start to see that repealing the Bush tax cuts (or letting them expire) is not a good idea ’cause it raises the tax on those same people who do the hiring? Maybe they’ll see that they can’t find a job because small business owners had their taxes increased, and they have less to spend on new hires? Maybe they’ll see that forcing businesses to spend more on healthcare means less money for hiring them? Maybe the nutroots people who are outta work will say, “Gosh, I like taxing people who make $250,000 a year, but…now those people are spending their money on these new taxes instead of spending it on hiring me? With 1:4 people in the blue state of Michigan looking for work…it could happen.

2009 was a good year and a bad year. Obama gave himself a B+ for having accomplished nothing. Since, by the Bush standard, he is responsible for everything then 2009 gets a B+. If you agree, then great. If you don’t, then you must be some sort of right winger teabagger conservative wackjob (at least by MSNBC, Huffpo, and NYT standards).

In the end, I’m optimistic about 2010. Why-with so much potential horror looming?! I’m optimistic because like no other time in our recent history…there is no place for the left to hide. No conspiracy theories, no blaming Bush, not denial or deliberate ignoring of wars, nothing can hide them from the cold dark realities of the world, from the broken promises of their leaders, from their own cowardly refusal to open their minds to the scary scary thought that if something wasn’t Bush’s fault or the Repubs’ fault, then what caused it?

What caused the recession?
Why are so many out of work?
Why are Dems supporting the indefinite war in Iraq now?
Why did Al Queda start killing Americans?
What if Bush’s anti-charisma wasn’t to blame for “the world hating us?”

So many more cold questions that they didn’t even dare to ask before, but this year…this year they cannot even escape the answers.

Welcome Dems, welcome to reality

Tony Blair got it years ago, and still gets it:

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair has said he would have found a justification for invading Iraq even without the now-discredited evidence that Saddam Hussein was trying to produce weapons of mass destruction.

“I would still have thought it right to remove him. I mean, obviously you would have had to use and deploy different arguments about the nature of the threat,” Blair told the BBC in an interview to be broadcast this morning.

It was a startling admission from the onetime British leader, who was President Bush’s staunchest ally in the decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

Blair’s comments were immediately denounced by critics who accused him of using false pretenses to drag Britain into an unpopular war that has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of allied troops and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians.

Speaking to broadcaster Fern Britton, Blair insisted that ousting Hussein had improved the situation in Iraq by laying the foundation for a more democratic country. He described the upcoming Iraqi elections as “probably the single most significant thing that’s happened to that region for many years.”

“I can’t really think we’d be better with him and his two sons still in charge,” Blair said of Hussein.

The title of that article above, from the LA Times, is titled: WMD Not Point Of Iraq War.

Of course it wasn’t. It was One of MANY reasons for that war, one of which….and the most important in my opinion…was Saddam’s support of terrorists. After 9/11 we could not allow this tyrant to continue to support our enemies while thumbing his nose at the entire world for the previous 13 years. As the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Phase II investigation report on pre-war Iraq Intelligence stated:

Conclusion 10: Statements in the major speeches analyzed, as well additional statements, regarding Iraq’s support for terrorist groups other than al-Qa’ida were substantiated by intelligence information. The intelligence community reported regularly on Iraq’s safe harbor and financial support for Palestinian rejectionist groups, the Abu Nidal Organization, and others. The February 2002 NIE fully supported the claim that Iraq had, and would continue, to support terrorist groups.

Conclusion 11: Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other al-Qa’ida-related terrorist members were substantiated by the intelligence assessments. Intelligence assessments noted Zarqawi’s presence in Iraq and his ability to travel and operate within the country. The intelligence community generally believed that Iraqi intelligence must have known about, and therefore at least tolerated, Zarqawi’s presence in the country.

Conclusion 12: Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa’ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence. Intelligence assessments, including multiple CIA reports and the November 2002 NIE, dismissed the claim that Iraq and al-Qa’ida were cooperating partners. According to an undisputed INR footnote in the NIE, there was no intelligence information that supported the claim that Iraq would provide weapons of mass destruction to al-Qa’ida. The credibility of the principal intelligence source behind the claim that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with biological and chemical weapons training was regularly questioned by DIA, and later by the CIA. The Committee repeats its conclusion from a prior report that “assessments were inconsistent regarding the likelihood that Saddam Hussein provided chemical and biological weapons (CBW) training to al_Qa’ida.”

Amendment 119 – strike the above conclusion and insert

Conclusion 12: Statements by the President and Secretary Powell that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training were supported by the intelligence. Numerous intelligence assessments stated that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training and specifically training in poisons and gases. While some DIA reports raised questions about the credibility of this reporting and one CIA report noted that the source may have exaggerated his reporting in a separate area, the CIA did not raise questions about the source’s weapons training reporting and., in fact, provided and approved the use of this language in both the President’s and Secretary’s remarks.

Comments – None of the statements provided in this report suggested or implied that Iraq and al-Qa’ida had “partnership.” Additionally, while there were policymakers who commented that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training, those comments were fully supported by the intelligence. The al-Libi reporting on CBW training was never questioned by the CIA and the information was approved by the CIA for use in both the President’s Cincinnati speech and Powell’s UN speech. In the case of the Powell speech CIA actually provided the information to him to use in the speech in the draft of the speech the CIA wrote. Furthermore, the conclusion as drafted says that intelligence community “assessments were inconsistent” so accordingly, how can the Committee judge policymakers to not have any statements substantiated by the intelligence?

As did the Iraqi Perspectives Project, Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents (pdf):

Saddam’s interest in, and support for, non-Iraqi non-state actors was spread across a wide variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist, and Islamic terrorist organizations. For years, Saddam maintained training camps for foreign “fighters” drawn from these diverse groups. In some cases, particularly for Palestinians, Saddam was also a strong financial supporter. 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.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.

~~~

Captured Iraqi documents have uncovered evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism, including a variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist and Islamic terrorist organizations. While these documents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network, they do indicate that Saddam was willing to use, albeit cautiously, operatives affiliated with al Qaeda as long as Saddam could have these terrorist-operatives monitored closely. Because Saddam’s security organizations and Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network operated with similar aims (at least in the short term), considerable overlap was inevitable when monitoring, contacting, financing, and training the same outside groups. This created both the appearance of and, in some way, a “de facto” link between the organizations. At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust. Though the execution of Iraqi terror plots was not always successful, evidence shows that Saddam’s use of terrorist tactics and his support for terrorist groups remained strong up until the collapse of the regime.

Key line:

The Iraqi Perspectives Project (IPP) review of captured Iraqi documents uncovered strong evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism.

Even more here about the ties.

There was clear evidence Saddam supported terrorists and we could not allow that. No way, no how. I thank god every day we had a few world leaders, like Tony Blair and President Bush, that did what needed to be done to protect our countries.

As for the WMD’s. That same Senate report above concludes that while he may have not had any major amounts of WMD he DID have the intent and capabilities of reconstituting those WMD programs within a short amount of time after sanctions being lifted.

Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990’s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.

Did he have those nukes when we invaded?

Nope.

If left untouched could he have had a nuke in a short amount of time?

Yup.

That’s the point.

He supported terrorists and took every step to ensure that he would have WMD within weeks of sanctions being lifted.

Those are the reasons we invaded and why it was the only right, just and smart thing to do.

I will end this post with a portion of President Bush’s speech to the UN in 2002, there were many reasons for the Iraq invasion….and most of the left and our MSM ignores them, instead wailing and gnashing their teeth about WMD. Those possible WMD’s along with Saddam’s support of terrorism made him a “grave and gathering danger”:

In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities — which, the Council said, “threaten(ed) international peace and security in the region.”

This demand goes ignored. Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human rights found that Iraq continues to commit “extremely grave violations” of human rights and that the regime’s repression is “all pervasive.” Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating, burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands; children in the presence of their parents — all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state.

In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687, demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq’s regime agreed. It broke its promise. Last year the Secretary-General’s high-level coordinator of this issue reported that Kuwaiti, Saudi, Indian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Bahraini, and Omani nationals remain unaccounted for — more than 600 people. One American pilot is among them.

In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolution 687, demanded the Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism, and permit no terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Iraq’s regime agreed. It broke its promise. In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organization that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder. In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former American President. Iraq’s government openly praised the attacks of September 11th. And al-Qaida terrorists escaped from Afghanistan are known to be in Iraq.

~~~

Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its unclear program — weapons design, procurement logs, experiment data, an accounting of nuclear materials, and documentation of foreign assistance. Iraq employs capable nuclear scientists and technicians. It retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon. Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year. And Iraq’s state-controlled media has reported numerous meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear scientists, leaving little doubt about his continued appetite for these weapons.

Iraq also possesses a force of Scud-type missiles with ranges beyond the 150 kilometers permitted by the U.N. Work at testing and production facilities shows that Iraq is building more long-range missiles that could inflict mass death throughout the region.

In 1990, after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, the world imposed economic sanctions on Iraq. Those sanctions were maintained after the war to compel the regime’s compliance with Security Council resolutions. In time, Iraq was allowed to use oil revenues to buy food. Saddam Hussein has subverted this program, working around the sanctions to buy missile technology and military materials. He blames the suffering of Iraq’s people on the United Nations, even as he uses his oil wealth to build lavish palaces for himself, and arms his country. By refusing to comply with his own agreements, he bears full guilt for the hunger and misery of innocent Iraqi citizens.

In 1991, Iraq promised U.N. inspectors immediate and unrestricted access to verify Iraq’s commitment to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. Iraq broke this promise, spending seven years deceiving, evading and harassing U.N. inspectors before ceasing cooperation entirely. Just months after the 1991 cease-fire, the Security Council twice renewed its demand that the Iraqi regime cooperate fully with inspectors, “condemning” Iraq’s “serious violations” of its obligations. The Security Council again renewed that demand in 1994 and twice more in 1996, “deploring” Iraq’s “clear violations” of its obligations. The Security Council renewed its demand three more times in 1997, citing “flagrant violations” and three more times in 1998, calling Iraq’s behavior “totally unacceptable.” And in 1999, the demand was renewed yet again.

As we meet today, it has been almost four years since the last U.N. inspectors set foot in Iraq — four years for the Iraqi regime to plan and build and test behind a cloak of secrecy.

We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in the country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic and the facts lead to one conclusion. Saddam Hussein’s regime is a

grave and gathering danger.

To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime’s good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take.

Delegates to the General Assembly: We have been more than patient. We have tried sanctions. We have tried the carrot of “oil for food” and the stick of coalition military strikes. But Saddam Hussein has defied all these efforts and continues to develop weapons of mass destruction. The first time we may be completely certain he has nuclear weapons is when, God forbid, he uses one. We owe it to all our citizens to do everything in our power to prevent that day from coming.

The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding or will it be irrelevant?

~~~

Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it and the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq.

We can harbor no illusions. Saddam Hussein attacked Iran in 1980, and Kuwait in 1990. He has fired ballistic missiles at Iran, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Israel. His regime once ordered the killing of every person between the ages of 15 and 70 in certain Kurdish villages in Northern Iraq. He has gassed many Iranians and 40 Iraqi villages.

History-like hindsight-is supposed to be 20:20, but the deliberate partisan, political divide regarding the invasion of Iraq makes that hard.

It’s not a new phenomenon. Long ago it was said that the true story of a war can’t be told until the last of its veterans has passed away, and only a few months ago did the last World War One veteran go to his great reward. For decades after the Civil War (and some would argue even today) the debate raged on, and the healing of Southern Reconstruction didn’t really start culturally until the unity of the Spanish-American War turned foes into brothers-in-arms.

Conspiracy theories-often fueled by politics-still rage over the 911 attacks, the invasion of Iraq, whether or not Roosevelt deliberately allowed the Pearl Harbor attack to happen, whether or not the U.S. Navy knew the U.S.S. Maine had a boiler explosion and wasn’t sunk by a mine. People still think that the Lusitania was set on a suicide mission to get the United States into World War One. These myths will always remain, and it’s good that they do because they spark investigation and a search for understanding of these world changing events. The relationship between the 911 attacks and the invasion of Iraq is interesting in that both have a long list of conspiracy theories attacked to each, and yet the abstract, more indirect relationship between the two events is dismissed out of hand. To that end, even if one believes the relationship between Iraq War and 911 attacks is a conspiracy theory, it’s worthwhile to examine if for no other reason than harvesting a better understanding.

Opponents of President Bush and of the invasion of Iraq often claim, “Iraq did not attack the United States on Sept 11, 2001,” but Germany, Italy, and the rest of the Axis didn’t attack Pearl Harbor either and yet the U.S. went to war with them as well as the Japanese. Why? Because those Axis powers had an alliance, an agreement to help the Japanese. It was a paper only agreement (history shows us that there were no battles with uber-racist NAZI S.S. troops fighting alongside Japanese troops), but it was an agreement none-the-less. Additionally, the Axis nations declared war on the United States after the Pearl Harbor attacks. Similarly, we know from Clinton Administration claims, from captured documents, from pre-war and post-war intelligence that Saddam’s intelligence agencies had relationships with various groups in the Al Queda terrorist network of groups. We know from the 1998 Clinton Administration indictment of Osama Bin Laden that the two had reached an agreement to get WMD into the hands of the Al Queda network of terrorist groups.

the indictment states that Al Qaeda reached an agreement
with Iraq not to work against the regime of Saddam Hussein and that
they would work cooperatively with Iraq, particularly in weapons
development.

We also know from 1990-2003 Saddam’s government considered itself at war with the United States and from 1992-today Osama Bin Laden’s Al Queda network of terrorist groups has been at war with the United States.

Why?

Why did Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda go to war with the United States in 1992? According to the 911 Commission’s final report, the reason that the Al Queda network went to war with the United States, and ultimately the reason for the September 11, 2001 attacks was 4 different things (pg48-49)

He [Osama Bin Laden] inveighed against the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam’s holiest sites.
He spoke of the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of sanctions imposed after the Gulf War, and
he protested U.S. support of Israel.

Why were American forces in Saudi Arabia from 1992-2001? They were there for one reason: to enforce no-fly-zones over Iraq which were there to protect Iraqis from Saddam. If the United States had removed Saddam in 1991, then the U.S. forces wouldn’t have been needed in Saudi Arabia, and Osama Bin Laden’s first casus belli wouldn’t exist.

Why was Osama concerned about the suffering of the Iraqi people? He was concerned-like many around the globe-because the U.S. led sanctions were starving tens of millions of people as a failed means of influencing Saddam. Again, had the United States removed Saddam in 1991, Osama Bin Laden’s second casus belli against the United States-his second reason for the 911 attacks-wouldn’t have existed.

Why was Osama Bin Laden so concerned about the United States support for Israel in the 1992-2001 period when Al Queda went to war with the United States? What was unique about that period in America’s support for Israel? In much of the Arab World (and in anti-Semitic circles around the world as well), America’s continued pressure on Saddam Hussein’s regime was viewed as an American shield for Israel; as the United States protecting Israel from Saddam and other aggressive Arab regimes.

The historical lesson and inescapable fact is that if the United States had chosen to remove Saddam from power in 1991, OR if the United States had simply walked away from Iraq in 1991 and washed their hands of Saddam’s regime without trying to compel compliance with United Nations resolutions, then Saddam’s regime would have remained in power, BUT the reasons for Osama Bin Laden and the Al Queda terrorist networks’ war on the United States simply would not exist; i.e. the reasons for the Sept 11, 2001 attacks wouldn’t have existed.

Would Osama Bin Laden and his network still have found other reasons to wage war on the United States? One cannot tell for certain, but it does seem that their nature and their destiny has been to fight superpowers, and with the United States as the sole superpower in the 1990′s, it seems more than likely other excuses for casus belli would have been claimed.

Would Saddam Hussein have still been a threat to the United States if he had been left in power in 1991, and if the United States didn’t pursue compliance with U.N. Resolutions? Absolutely. In 1992 U.N. inspectors found that Saddam’s regime had actually built a nuclear bomb, but lacked enriched uranium for it. From 1992-1995 U.N. inspectors found vast amounts of WMD. Saddam had invaded or attacked every single one of his neighbors during his reign, he’d used WMD in the past, had ordered them used against U.S. troops in the 1991 Gulf War (Iraq Survey Group Report, transcript of recording, vol II). Few reasonable leaders would argue that Saddam was not a threat, and no one would argue that a Saddam Hussein who still had ballistic missiles, WMD, and more in 1992 was not a regional or even global threat. Determined that he was a threat, Saddam either had to be removed in 1991 by the United States, in the 1991-2003 period by internal forces (multiple attempts at which all failed with increasing futlity), or by the United States in 2003.

The abstract, and more indirect relationship between the 911 attacks and the invasion of Iraq is simple: the war with Al Queda and their attacks on the United States (including the 911 attacks) were blowback, consequences, fragmentary effects of the 1991 invasion of Kuwait and Iraq.

The DIRECT relationship between the 911 attacks and Saddam’s regime is far more debated. To be clear, the hijackers were no more Iraqi than the pilots who bombed Pearl Harbor were German and Italian. However, the question of direct Iraqi ties to the 911 attacks go back to that very day when-as the attacks were happening-Iraq shot down an unarmed Predator drone over Iraq that was searching for WMD etc. On that day, after getting sparse, scattered, and chaotic information about the attacks-while they were happening, and while getting 2-3x as many false reports and rumors of attacks, members of the Bush Administration were not at all culpable or irresponsible for asking if Saddam’s regime was behind the attacks.

In fact, at the time it had become a common cultural expectation. During the 1990′s the Clinton Administration repeatedly claimed that Saddam’s regime and the Al Queda network worked together. Mass media reports of the time carried this theme fully and without question. It was even showing up in movies where characters would claim anything-even meteor showers on New York City were the result of Saddam (Armaggeddon ffwd to 1:40).

Unfortunately, on Sept 11, 2001 there was no way to tell if the attacks were directly or just indirectly related to the on-going American war against Saddam (a war that was so poorly reported that most Americans even today fail to realize it even happened, but conversely was so burned into the minds of the Arab Street at the time that it still conjures up bitter memories in the region).

The question of direct Iraqi involvement in the 911 attacks was investigated first by the Bush Administration, and they found no evidence to make a conclusion. Subsequent investigations by the CIA, FBI, the House and Senate intelligence committees, the entire intelligence community, the 911 Commission and more all ran into the same problem: there was no evidence. For political partisans opposed to President Bush and/or the invasion of Iraq that was enough to support their argument that the invasion was somehow not necessary. The conclusion they promoted-that there was “no evidence” of a direct involvement was but 1/3 of the truth. Another 1/3 was the reason that there was “no evidence’ was because almost none had been collected or analyzed, and the reason for that (almost always ignored by political opponents of the Iraq invasion) was that from December 1998-December 2002 the United States had not a single spy inside Iraq. For four years there was no evidence collected, and thus there was “no evidence.”

Most alarmingly, after 1998 and the exit of the U.N. inspectors, the CIA had no human intelligence sources inside Iraq who were collecting against the WMD target.
- Senator Pat Roberts 070904 SIC Release of WMD investigation report
Press Conference transcript

The last 1/3 is the most obvious, and the most deliberately ignored for political purposes: every single investigation that looked at the question of direct regime ties to the 911 attacks and/or the Al Queda network of terrorist groups ALWAYS pointed out that because so little evidence had been collected, the issue was to remain open-not closed or concluded.

After the invasion, innumerable direct ties between the Al Queda network of terrorist groups and Saddam’s regime have been uncovered. These ties are shown in captured and authenticated documents, in the interrogation of former regime leaders, and in the capture of Al Queda operatives. In fact, the relationship between the regime and the network was far far more involved than any relationship between Germany and Japan or Mussolini and Tojo.

Yet it remains a political issue more than a historical one today. six years after the second invasion of Iraq, eight years after the 911 attacks, 17 years after Osama and the Al Queda network declared war on the United States, and 18 years after the United States and Saddam’s regime went to war over Kuwait.

Perhaps, now that President Bush is gone, and there is no more need to use the invasion of Iraq as a draw issue for his opposition…perhaps now people can be mentally brave enough to recognize the undeniable blowback/more-indirect relationship between the Ignored War on Saddam’s regime (1991-2001) and the 911 attacks. There certainly is no more reason to deny this fact, and there’s no more reason to avoid a conclusive investigation into the depth of regime ties to the Al Queda network of terrorist groups.

LONDON (Reuters) – Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair will be asked to testify to a panel investigating the Iraq war, the head of the inquiry said Thursday.

Former civil servant John Chilcot said the inquiry, set up by Prime Minister Gordon Brown, would look at British involvement in the war, covering the period from the summer of 2001 to the end of July this year.

“The people we invite to give evidence will be those we judge … are best placed to supply the information we need to conduct our task thoroughly,” the inquiry chairman told a news conference.

“That will, of course, include the former prime minister and other senior figures involved in decision taking,” he added.

Blair’s decision to send 45,000 troops to join the U.S.-led invasion to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein six years ago provoked massive anti-war protests in London and the resignations of ministers.

No Truth Commissions here in the US (though if Obama’s poll numbers take another hit, and Healthcare fails…it’s a good bet there’ll be more dancing & calling for one from the distraction driven Dems.

Call me Tony. I’m happy to help w the timeline & pics

This is one of those articles that I really REALLY hope people will read before just commenting on the headline or the quoted sections. In fact, I think it’s one of the best articles I’ve seen on this subject in half a decade. Yes, it’s long, detailed, and forces many readers to question their previously held beliefs about regime ties to the Al Queda terrorist network, but it’s not the typical anti-Bush/anti-war piece or a woohoo-Bush-was-right piece either. It is EXACTLY why: members of the 911 Commission, Sen Intel Com, as well as others (and why every investigation into the subject of regime ties) have called for MORE investigation (while specifically saying the matter should not be closed). Mark’s done a fantastic piece of work here, and it deserves reading.
-Scott

During a series of email and telephone exchanges Matthew Degn relayed to www.regimeofterror.com his vast array of experiences working with intelligence issues relating to the current and former situation in Iraq. Among his responsibilities during his years in Iraq Degn worked as a civilian interrogator attached to the U.S. Army in Iraq before working as a Senior Policy/Intelligence Adviser to Deputy General Kamal and other top intelligence officials with the Iraq’s Ministry of Interior. Degn, currently working on a book about his experiences in Iraq (personal website here), continues to argue against those that feel there was no link between terrorism and Saddam Hussein’s regime based on his involvement with hundreds of interrogations in Iraq and his involvement with many of the Iraqi Intelligence officials with the Ministry of Interior. Degn says that much of the public perception about Saddam Hussein’s regime and terrorism are incorrect.

Degn is currently the Director of the Intelligence Studies Program and a professor at American Military University currently a professor at American Military University whose testimony about events in Iraq has been cited by NPR, ABC News, the Washington Post and elsewhere.

~~~

Another reason for conflicting reports that Degn pointed out is both the chain of command in the U.S. government’s many agencies and compartmentalization of information (“need to know”). Degn said he saw firsthand how these two factors led to vital wartime information being “watered down” before it mades its way to official reports and investigations.

Over the past many months a number of interviews, documents, admissions and other revelations have come to light that continue to undermine the notion that al Qaeda and al Qaeda linked groups were not able to operate inside Iraq during the rule of Saddam Hussein. These findings match up with older reports on the hotly contested that may now deserve re-examination.

A study byThe Combating Terrorism Center at West Point of al Qaeda documents deemed the “Sinjar Records” indicates that al Qaeda was, in fact, able to operate inside the country during the rule of the former regime. The center also has previously posted internal al Qaeda documents in which al Qaeda members revealed to one another that “some of them went to Saddam” likely in referrence to al Qaeda members fleeing Afghanistan to Iraq.

These documents match the testimony of what a former overseer of Iraqi prisons, Dan Bordenkircher, claims he was told by numerous prisoners. In an interview with Ryan Mauro, Bordenkircher says that he was told that al Qaeda was not limited to areas beyond Saddam Hussein’s control but was present in Mosul and Kirkuk and received assistance from one of Saddam Hussein’s sons.

In an interview with FrontPage magazine, Osama al Magid, a former police officer in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq from 1992-2003, said that al Qaeda was present and protected in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

FP: How about Al Qaeda in Iraq?
Al-Magid: Al Qaeda and other people who believed the same as Al Qaeda had been in Iraq for many years. When I say “believed” I mean people who hated America and wanted to destroy the U.S. Saddam had this in common with Al Qaeda and this is why he provided them protection.

In an interview last year conducted by Michael Totten a Sunni Iraqi stated that al Qaeda wasn’t out in the open in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq but was there in some capacity.

“We can’t compare that to the situation we have now with all these different types of organizations running around all over the country. Before there was nothing like an Al Qaeda organization here. I mean, they were here, but they were secretive, they were not in the field, they were not recognized yet. But now we feel that they are serious, that something big is going on.”

Also on this topic Thomas Joscelyn points out that a fairly recent Senate Intelligence Committe report on prewar Bush adminstration statements on the topic backed up allegations that al Qaeda was in Saddam’s Iraq and not limited to Kurdistan. Joscelyn found that the report included the following statements:

Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other al Qaeda-related terrorist members were substantiated by the intelligence assessments. Intelligence assessments noted Zarqawi’s presence in Iraq and his ability to travel and operate within the country. The intelligence community generally believed that Iraqi intelligence must have known about, and therefore at least tolerated, Zarqawi’s presence in the country.

Joseph Shahda translated and explained a 2008 al Qaeda document, reportedly written by Saif al Adel, who denied links between the group and Saddam Hussein’s regime but said the group did have a presence in the Sunni areas of Iraq building cells prior to invasion.

Jeff Stein’s interview with former CIA operative Charles Faddis revealed that al Qaeda did have a presence in Iraq prior to invasion though Faddis argues that there was no link to Saddam Hussein’s government (more on Farris’s thoughts on the topic will be shared in a yet to be published interview with this website).

A story posted on al Sumaria‘s website (link is now down) stated that followers of Saddam Hussein welcomed al Qaeda into Iraq during the invasion and worked together to cause chaos in the country.

It is to be noted that in the wake of the US invasion to Iraq, Sunni Arabs, followers of former President Saddam Hussein welcomed Al Qaeda and allowed for the flow of foreign fighters across the borders to fuel insurgency in Anbar province and establish quasi military structures in Falluja mainly. Al Qaeda and Saddam supporters have imposed their power in these regions and went through fierce battles with the Marines. However, as Al Qaeda’s arbitrary violence has mounted against civilians, Arab tribes formed awakening councils funded by the US aimed against Al Qaeda.

In another Senate report looking into the reported mistreatment of detainees Senior Guantanamo Bay interrogator David Becker told the committee interviewing him that “only ‘a couple of nebulous links”’ were uncovered between al Qaida and Iraq (An interview with someone in charge of interviewing detainees in Iraq by this website is also in the works.)

In a post on his Global Terror Alert website in January 2006 Evan Kohlman analzyed al Qaeda in Iraq’s “Distinguished Martyrs” series which included a document discussing Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other al Qaeda members and saying that they did not fight alongside members of Saddam Hussein’s regime at the start of the Iraq war though the document does not give the reasons for this decision.

Abu Umar al-Masri – A 37-year old senior Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) leader trained in Yemen and Afghanistan who later joined a group of other elite EIJ operatives in Albania preparing for jihad in nearby Kosovo. When other members of the infamous “Albanian Returnees” group were seized in a joint mission by Albanian security services and the CIA for targeting the U.S. embassy in Tirana, Abu Umar fled Albania for Italy, where he was imprisoned for several years as a suspected terrorist. After a harrowing trip through Germany, Afghanistan, Iran, and Syria, Abu Umar eventually ended up in Iraq just prior to the fall of Saddam Hussein and joined Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Evan Kohlman also posted another document which old CT Blog post cited Abu Ismail al-Muhajir saying:

“As I have explained before, the brothers in Iraq decided to stay out of the war and not to fight alongside Saddam until the war was over and Saddam’s regime was eliminated. They had many reasons for making this decision… Nonetheless, the situation took a turn for the worse after the regime’s collapse... we decided to stay and hide [in Iraq].

The Institute for Defense Analysis investigation of Saddam Hussein era documents showed regime support for EIJ and EIJ has been documented as having had a presence in Saddam’s Baghdad.

Nikolas K. Gvosdev , a professor at the Naval War College and editor at The National Interest, relayed a guest post from Alexis Debat in a June 2006 at The Washington Realist stating that:

According to Jordanian intelligence sources, these individuals were highly instrumental in setting up Zarqawi’s network in Iraq in 2002. Abu Ayyub al Masri, for example, was reported by the US military to have set up Zarqawi’s first cell in Baghdad in mid-2002. This Egyptian group, led by al Masri, is reported to have played a critical role in Al Qaeda in Iraq, which cell structure and modus operandi are almost identical to those of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad in the 1980s.

Abu al Masri was also said to have close ties to Ayman al Zawahiri, who reportedly had links to Iraq going back many years. In 2004 TIME magazine reported on al Qaeda documents showing Zarqawi and some of his associates were in Baghdad during Saddam’s rule:

He spent the months leading up to the war moving through Iran and northern Iraq, where he attached himself to the Kurdish Islamist group Ansar al-Islam. A confidential al-Tawhid document obtained by TIME describes a fighter killed in Fallujah last April as having joined al-Zarqawi in Baghdad “just before the fall of the previous regime”—a claim that backs up the Bush Administration’s disputed assertions that al-Zarqawi passed through the Iraqi capital while Saddam Hussein was in power. Al-Zarqawi has built his network in Iraq by exploiting the furies unleashed by the fall of Saddam.

The notion that an Iraq-al Qaeda link was based solely, or even primarily, on one or a few mistreated al Qaeda detainees is not a very serious one when al Qaeda documents, Baath documents, detainee admissions and other revelations, both old and new, show that al Qaeda was in areas of Iraq under Saddam Hussein’s control and the full extent or reason for this presence has yet to be thoroughly explained to the general public.

Crossposted from Regime Of Terror

Propaganda is described in many ways, but one of those has got to be the kneejerk reliance and subsequent marketing of half quotes as whole truths. A half quote is a half truth, and this poor excuse for honest, factually accurate information is no doubt why newspapers are failing, and why their writers are fleeing to the Obama Administration for PR employment as spinmeisters. Take for example this article:

WASHINGTON — Former Vice President Dick Cheney’s defense Thursday of the Bush administration’s policies for interrogating suspected terrorists contained omissions, exaggerations and misstatements.

In his address to the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative policy organization in Washington, Cheney said that the techniques the Bush administration approved, including waterboarding — simulated drowning that’s considered a form of torture — forced nakedness and sleep deprivation, were “legal” and produced information that “prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people.”

[NOTE President Bush’s Sept 6, 2006 address on this topic listed specific examples of this. Also, recently declassified CIA documents show that Congress was briefed on the “actionable intelligence” that the EIT program yielded. A partial list of thwarted attacks is available here.]

He quoted the Director of National Intelligence, Adm. Dennis Blair, as saying that the information gave U.S. officials a “deeper understanding of the al Qaida organization that was attacking this country.”

In a statement April 21, however, Blair said the information “was valuable in some instances” but that “there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means. …”

[NOTE: The Admiral doesn’t make clear if by “other means” he means other enhanced interrogation techniques or something more extreme. However, the CIA documents that President Obama declassified for political purposes clearly show that the use of EITs was only done AFTER traditional interrogation methods had been used, AFTER multiple levels of higher authority had approved their use, and a clear requirement for using the EITs instead of traditional interrogation methods had to be demonstrated before they were authorized.]

“…The bottom line is that these techniques hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security.”

[NOTE: The admiral and writers miss the point that it’s not JUST the secret techniques that damaged American image abroad-as the revelation of most secret programs would do, but that the illegal exposure of the EIT program by the economically struggling New York Times (whether for financial or political reasons) is what caused the damage. Had the program remained as secret as other offensive covert CIA programs…there would have likely been no damage at all. In fact, the program didn’t include any sort of public relations staff or plan at all.]

A top-secret 2004 CIA inspector general’s investigation found no conclusive proof that information gained from aggressive interrogations helped thwart any “specific imminent attacks,” according to one of four top-secret Bush-era memos that the Justice Department released last month.

[NOTE: the CIA’s Inspector General investigation only looked at CIA involvement regarding the EIT program. It did not look at how intelligence gained from EITs was used by American leaders and the 16 other intelligence agencies. However, people who did have that knowledge-like 4 CIA Directors, Vice President Cheney, President Bush, and more-have all said that the intelligence gathered by the CIA led to attacks being thwarted.]

FBI Director Robert Mueller told Vanity Fair magazine in December that he didn’t think that the techniques disrupted any attacks.

[NOTE: Vanity Fair? Gosh, I wonder what he “revealed” to Rolling Stone, GQ, and TEEN Magazine?! Is this the same FBI Director Mueller who told a concerned President Bush in August 2001 that the FBI had the situation in control, was conducting 70+ investigations, had the 20th hijacker in custody w the entire 911 plot on his laptop (also in Mueller's custody), and still the 911 attacks occurred? One wonders if the 911 plot could have been thwarted had EIT's been used on Zacarias Moussoui, or even if they'd have had the political courage to open his laptop despite the ominous presence of the ACLU's shadow protecting the right to privacy on that laptop?]

LINK TO BUSH’S SEPT 6.2006 SPEECH DETAILING HOW IT PREVENTED ATTACKS

_ Cheney said that President Barack Obama’s decision to release the four top-secret Bush administration memos on the interrogation techniques was “flatly contrary” to U.S. national security, and would help al Qaida train terrorists in how to resist U.S. interrogations.

However, Blair, who oversees all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, said in his statement that he recommended the release of the memos, “strongly supported” Obama’s decision to prohibit using the controversial methods and that “we do not need these techniques to keep America safe.”

_ Cheney said that the Bush administration “moved decisively against the terrorists in their hideouts and their sanctuaries, and committed to using every asset to take down their networks.”

The former vice president didn’t point out that Osama bin Laden and his chief lieutenant, Ayman al Zawahri, remain at large nearly eight years after 9-11 and that the Bush administration began diverting U.S. forces, intelligence assets, time and money to planning an invasion of Iraq before it finished the war in Afghanistan against al Qaida and the Taliban.

[NOTE: Let the leftist talking points begin! VP Cheney is correct that the US devastated Al Queda in 2001 and 2002 as well as later covertly. Writers of this article, however, can’t seem to pick up a calendar and realize that Al Queda largely escaped Afghanistan in December 2001, and was almost completely driven from the country in the first 3 months of 2002. When there were just remnants of Al Queda in Afghanistan, the US handed over most of the responsibility for the war there to our NATO allies, and left mopping up forces in country with the belief that relying on allies was a good idea. Then there was a 4-5 month period in 2002 when the US began to update its military strategies for Iraq, and in September 2002 (6 months after the final major battle with Al Queda in Afghanistan), the US began its military/political/diplomatic runup to war in Iraq. Partisan political opponents of the Iraq invasion called this September 2002-March 2003, 6-month period the “Rush to war,” but sometimes that term also encompasses the additional, previous 6-months during which Al Queda fled to Pakistan and the war in Afghanistan dwindled to a mopping-up operation. Only ONE U.S. military unit was shifted from Afghanistan to the invasion of Iraq (the 5th Special Operations Unit), and that unit specialized in using indigenous forces to overthrow a country covertly and with the support of air power rather than full out invasion. No other units were diverted from fighting Al Queda in Afghanistan (which had already fled Afghanistan) to the invasion of Iraq. These are chronological, historical facts that the writers of the article are either ignorant of realizing or chose to deliberately ignore for purposes of misleading. Short version: someone needs a calendar]

There are now 49,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan fighting to contain the bloodiest surge in Taliban violence since the 2001 U.S.-led intervention, and Islamic extremists also have launched their most concerted attack yet on neighboring, nuclear-armed Pakistan.

[NOTE: Eight years after driving Al Queda from Afghanistan, they are still not back in anywhere near the same size in forces, and remain in Pakistan-not Afghanistan. Sending troops to fight Al Queda in a country that they are not largely in…is a mistake, and while the writers use correct facts about a Taliban offensive and the numbers of US forces in Afghanistan eight years after driving out Al Queda, these facts are distractions from the reality that the fight against Al Queda in Afghanistan never resurged to post April 2002 levels. The fight against Al Queda’s allies, the Taliban has resurged, and relying on America’s allies has proven to be folly at best which is why the offensive has happened, and why US forces have been sent back in en masse.]

_ Cheney denied that there was any connection between the Bush administration’s interrogation policies and the abuse of detainee at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison, which he blamed on “a few sadistic guards . . . in violation of American law, military regulations and simple decency.”

However, a bipartisan Senate Armed Services Committee report in December traced the abuses at Abu Ghraib to the approval of the techniques by senior Bush administration officials, including former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

“The abuse of detainees in U.S. custody cannot simply be attributed to the actions of ‘a few bad apples’ acting on their own,” said the report issued by Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and John McCain, R-Ariz. “The fact is that senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality and authorized their use against detainees.”

[NOTE: Notice how the writers take Cheney’s core point-that Abu Ghraib and Gitmo are not connected-and distract from it by focusing on three words used to describe Abu Ghraib. The point remains unchallenged: the EIT program at Gitmo which is the subject of much debate and discussion these days is not an episode in history identical to the criminal abuses at Abu Ghraib.]

_ Cheney said that “only detainees of the highest intelligence value” were subjected to the harsh interrogation techniques, and he cited Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, the alleged mastermind of the 9-11 attacks.

He didn’t mention Abu Zubaydah, the first senior al Qaida operative to be captured after 9-11. Former FBI special agent Ali Soufan told a Senate subcommittee last week that his interrogation of Zubaydah using traditional methods elicited crucial information, including Mohammed’s alleged role in 9-11.

The decision to use the harsh interrogation methods “was one of the worst and most harmful decisions made in our efforts against al Qaida,” Soufan said. Former State Department official Philip Zelikow, who in 2005 was then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s point man in an internal fight to overhaul the Bush administration’s detention policies, joined Soufan in his criticism.

[NOTE: The writers are completely incorrect in their claim, and in their poor writing, that Cheney somehow said only 1 person was subjected to waterboarding. He specifically said there were three. He just didn’t give their names, hair color, weight, or grandmothers’ maiden names all of which would have been as relevant as their names to his point: that only 3 people were waterboarded.]

_ Cheney said that “the key to any strategy is accurate intelligence,” but the Bush administration ignored warnings from experts in the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the State Department, the Department of Energy and other agencies, and used false or exaggerated intelligence supplied by Iraqi exile groups and others to help make its case for the 2003 invasion.

[NOTE: One of the problems with writing under the influence of emotion and a lack of historical hindsight is that what pops up on the screen can sometimes be an oxymoron rather than a clear point. Here the writers are trying to say that Cheney claimed “accurate intelligence” is important, but that he somehow didn’t rely on “accurate intelligence” for the 2003 war. Does this mean that having “accurate intelligence” is not important? Are they trying to say that Cheney is correct, and having “accurate intelligence” IS important? If the first, then they’re ignoring the fact that 6yrs after the invasion of Iraq Cheney thinks it is important, and he is correct. If they’re trying to make the second point (that “accurate intelligence” is not important, then they’re effectively saying that the intelligence used for the invasion of Iraq was enough. Either way, they present an oxymoronic argument that ignores the two greatest lessons of both the 911 attacks and the invasion of Iraq: 1) America’s intelligence services were woefully inadequate from 1998-2007…at least, and 2) Of course having “accurate intelligence” is important, but it’s been almost a decade since American intelligence services were brought back up to speed and strength after the peace dividend cuts of 1998, and historical flashpoints and the actions of America’s enemies do not wait for “accurate intelligence”; they strike when its weakest. “Accurate intelligence” is important, but NEVER accurate enough, and rarely in sufficient qualities.]

Cheney made no mention of al Qaida operative Ali Mohamed al Fakheri, who’s known as Ibn Sheikh al Libi, whom the Bush administration secretly turned over to Egypt for interrogation in January 2002. While allegedly being tortured by Egyptian authorities, Libi provided false information about Iraq’s links with al Qaida, which the Bush administration used despite doubts expressed by the DIA.

A state-run Libyan newspaper said Libi committed suicide recently in a Libyan jail.

[NOTE: al Libi was alive in US custody, and the Bush/Obama policy of handing over unsavory characters to their home countries didn't work out too well for him.]

_ Cheney accused Obama of “the selective release” of documents on Bush administration detainee policies, charging that Obama withheld records that Cheney claimed prove that information gained from the harsh interrogation methods prevented terrorist attacks.

“I’ve formally asked that (the information) be declassified so the American people can see the intelligence we obtained,” Cheney said. “Last week, that request was formally rejected.”

However, the decision to withhold the documents was announced by the CIA, which said that it was obliged to do so by a 2003 executive order issued by former President George W. Bush prohibiting the release of materials that are the subject of lawsuits.

[NOTE: President Obama had no problem releasing politically suggestive documents regarding the EIT program despite the fact that they too are subject of the exact same lawsuits as the documents VP Cheney, as well as both Democrats and Republicans, want to see released. The same executive order cited by the writers allows President Obama to release the Cheney documents, but the writers chose not to let the readers believe there’s duplicity on the part of the Obama Administration, themselves, or that politics are being played with national security.]

_ Cheney said that only “ruthless enemies of this country” were detained by U.S. operatives overseas and taken to secret U.S. prisons.

[NOTE: This is completely not true, and anyone who actually watched Vice President Cheney and/or read the text of his speech knows it. The writers know it, and that’s why the word “ONLY” is not included in the quote. It’s not there because he didn’t say “ONLY.” That false claim is put forth by the writers-writers who follow up their false quote by arguing against their own false quote that it wasn’t “only ruthless enemies of this country.” What the writers do not dispute (conveniently) is that “ruthless enemies of this country” were held at Gitmo exactly as Vice President described.]

A 2008 McClatchy investigation, however, found that the vast majority of Guantanamo detainees captured in 2001 and 2002 in Afghanistan and Pakistan were innocent citizens or low-level fighters of little intelligence value who were turned over to American officials for money or because of personal or political rivalries.

[NOTE: This has nothing to do with what Vice President Cheney said. He never said there were no innocent detainees, and the writers acknowledge that by not putting the word “ONLY” in the quote from VP Cheney.]

In addition, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Oct. 5, 2005, that the Bush administration had admitted to her that it had mistakenly abducted a German citizen, Khaled Masri, from Macedonia in January 2004.

Masri reportedly was flown to a secret prison in Afghanistan, where he allegedly was abused while being interrogated. He was released in May 2004 and dumped on a remote road in Albania.

In January 2007, the German government issued arrest warrants for 13 alleged CIA operatives on charges of kidnapping Masri.

[NOTE: This has nothing to do with what Vice President Cheney said. He never said there were no innocent detainees, and the writers acknowledge that by not putting the word “ONLY” in the quote from VP Cheney.]

_ Cheney slammed Obama’s decision to close the Guantanamo Bay prison camp and criticized his effort to persuade other countries to accept some of the detainees.

[NOTE: This is incorrect. The Vice President opposed the ignorant choice to close Gitmo before having a plan to close it.]

The effort to shut down the facility, however, began during Bush’s second term, promoted by Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

“One of the things that would help a lot is, in the discussions that we have with the states of which they (detainees) are nationals, if we could get some of those countries to take them back,” Rice said in a Dec. 12, 2007, interview with the British Broadcasting Corp. “So we need help in closing Guantanamo.”

_ Cheney said that, in assessing the security environment after 9-11, the Bush team had to take into account “dictators like Saddam Hussein with known ties to Mideast terrorists.”

[NOTE: This claim that Saddam Hussein had known ties to Mideast terrorists was never disputed by any Director of the CIA, by President Clinton, by President Bush Sr., or by the FBI. In fact, part of the 1998 Department of Justice indictment of Osama Bin Laden specifically cites his ties to the Saddam Hussein regime.]

Cheney didn’t explicitly repeat the contention he made repeatedly in office: that Saddam cooperated with al Qaida, a linkage that U.S. intelligence officials and numerous official inquiries have rebutted repeatedly.

[NOTE: This is completely false. No intelligence leader, no intelligence publication, and no independent commission has ever said that the issue of regime ties to the Al Queda network and its affiliates (using the Obama nomenclature) has ever been fully investigated, or concluded. In fact, quite the opposite is true: all bi-partisan and/or independent investigations have called for more investigation into the matter as initial intelligence was almost non-existent and post-invasion intelligence shows a trend of demonstrating more and more ties rather than fewer.]

The late Iraqi dictator’s association with terrorists vacillated and was mostly aimed at quashing opponents and critics at home and abroad.

The last State Department report on international terrorism to be released before 9-11 said that Saddam’s regime “has not attempted an anti-Western terrorist attack since its failed plot to assassinate former President (George H.W.) Bush in 1993 in Kuwait.”

[NOTE: The writers here are actually suggesting that the State Department’s intelligence assessment (or any intelligence assessment before 911) was accurate? After the 911 attacks, the House and Senate Intelligence Committees formed a bi-partisan investigation into how and why the attacks succeeded. Among the shocking revelations was the fact that from 1998-9/11/01 there was an average of 4-40 people in the entire 16 American intelligence agencies watching the entire Al Queda network. Later, a Senate Intelligence Committee, bi-partisan investigation pointed out in 2004 that between 12/98 and 12/03 (FIVE YEARS!) there was not a single human intelligence asset inside all of Iraq. Yet, these same writers who danced with the idea of how important “accurate intelligence” is earlier in their article want to rely on a report that formed a conclusion about a 2 entities where one had not a single human intelligence asset, and the other had a whopping four people watching the entire network. Their focus on the need for “accurate intelligence” is clearly subjective to whatever point they’re trying to make rather than consistent.]

A Pentagon study released last year, based on a review of 600,000 Iraqi documents captured after the U.S.-led invasion, concluded that while Saddam supported militant Palestinian groups — the late terrorist Abu Nidal found refuge in Baghdad, at least until Saddam had him killed — the Iraqi security services had no “direct operational link” with al Qaida.

[NOTE: This is not true. If it were, the writers would have included the entire quote. In almost every case, those who believe that the threat of Saddam’s regime working with Al Queda was non-existent are basing those beliefs on at least one of three things:

1) Hope. The thought of a rogue regime with WMD is a nightmare that many cannot imagine.

2) Denial. Whether it was the 1998 Clinton impeachment, the 2000 election, the 911 attacks, or the invasion of Iraq, partisan divide has become engrained in many Americans over the last 11 yrs. For those who follow the news, politics, and history it is particularly acute. As such, skepticism reigns. If someone tends to doubt Democrats, then anything said by a Democratic leader is automatically so doubtful for many people that it is assumed to be either a lie or at least not true. The same is conversely true for people who have followed those dividing events closely and view anything said by a Republican as intrinsically false, misleading, a lie, or a cover-up of some sorts.

3) Half truths come from half quotes. As we’ve seen throughout this oped article, relying on partial quotes is extremely irresponsible sometimes. It’s mostly irresponsible when a person deliberately ignores an important caveat. If there is a sign that says, “No Turn On Red During Weekday Hours 5-7pm,” and the driver ignores the second part…then they’re likely to cause an accident or get fined. When a quote says, “There is no evidence of a tie between Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein…” it’s important to read the rest of the quote and not dismiss it because it fits one’s political agenda or conflicts with a mental fear.

If the FULL QUOTE/FULL TRUTH is, “There is no evidence of a tie between Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein because we had no one watching either Iraq or Al Queda for 4yrs, and more intelligence needs to be collected before a conclusion can be reached.” Then ignoring the second half of the quote, ignoring the whole truth in favor of a false, half truth is wrong.

The only thing more wrong is marketing that half truth as though it were fact. Take for example the very last part of this article-the part about the investigation into the 600,000 captured documents from Saddam’s regime. Did the writers mention that only about 1/5 of those documents had been examined? Did they mention that the very same report cited multiple, confirmed, documented, operational ties between Saddam’s regime and Al Queda network groups/affiliates? No. Why would they leave that out and present a false impression that the issue had been fully investigated, fully concluded, and is closed?]

More on ties between Saddam’s regime and (as Pres. Obama likes to say….) “the Al Queda terrorist network and its affiliates.”