http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=584&e=3&u=/nm/20040909/pl_nm/campaign_cheney_dc
Are the Bush admin’s claims about Abu Musab al Zarqawi true? And if so, how strong does it support the claim that Saddam had links to al Qaeda?
I must give Cheney some credit: He makes G.W. almost look honest by comparison…which is no easy feat!
al Zarqawi has been friends with some members of al Qaeda, but he has never been a member. Aside from receiving some medical treatment in Iraq, al Zarqawi never received any financial or hardware support from Hussein.
There was an al Qaeda training camp being set up in the north of Iraq–in the region protected from the Iraqi army by U.S. bombers. Cheney continues to repeat the same tired lie that has been debunked over and over since November of 2002 so that Bush does not have to accept blame for being the liar (on this point) and so that those who only follow the headlines without reading the news will continue to believe the lie that Iraq was associated with the WTC/Pentagon attacks.
Zarqawi was also one of the ‘al Qaeda’ guys held by Iran. At one time there was a deal in the works for Iran to turn him over to us, but Larry Franklin at the pentagon managed to torpedo the plan.
So, nobody will defend Cheney’s statement?
I know the gist of the Larry Franklin thing, but how did he torpedo the Zarqawi turnover? I thought the Iran scandal (with renegade intelligence officers) occurred really recently.
Saddam did provide safe havens for terrorists and did actively supported terrorists abroad. Now he does neither. What difference does it make whether they called themselves Al Qaeda or Islamic Jihad or whatever? You think they’re only a threat to America if they tattoo Al Qaeda on their forehead? The whole meaning of Al Qaeda is holed like an old sieve anyway. One day Mohammed is Al Qaeda, the next he’s The Mujahadeen Islamic Front (of Judea) and on Friday it’s Hitzbolla or Hamas. There’s noting special or magic about Al Qaeda, it’s just one amongst a whole slate of terrorists organisations festering in the Middle East.
Rune, if it makes do difference, then would Cheney bother to link Saddam to al Qaeda when there’s no support for that allegation?
Obviously, it makes a difference, and obviously because of al Qaeda’s rather successful attack on the US a few years back.
If you start fighting every single terrorist group you soon must attack the IRA too ? You'll of course answer... islamic ones only... but that includes all sorts of groups ! Are you going to defend the US or start hitting every islamic wierdo on the planet ?
Especially since some of these groups do keep within certain geographical areas. Hamas and Hezbollah for example that act only in Israel and Lebanon. If the US starts going after them they certainly aren't using resources to hunt down AQ and international menaces.
Either you focus and do the job properly or you just piss off arabs all over the place even more than Bush does now (since the US would be interfering in all sorts of political situations). Labeling everyone as a general brand "terrorist" doesn't help fight terrorism.… forgot one nice analogy. When your fighting crime you shouldn’t be shooting and hunting down small time drug dealers. Go for the dangerous sorts. Same with terrorists.
No of course not. We go after the Amish and Quaker terrorist organisations with equal vigour. And the Buddhist extremists. And Methodist suicide bombers and lets not forget those damn militant Pentecostals, mean sonsabithces!
IRA hasn’t planted any bombs for some time, but if they had you bet I’d want to go after them. Still for all their awfulness they never descended to the level of horror as done by Islamic inspired terror organisations. Hezbollah has killed more American soldiers than any other terrorist organisation, and Hamas has killed several Americans and repeatedly called for attacks on the US. In any case, I’m not solely preoccupied with attacks on the US. This is a worldwide problem, and I think the latest attack in Russia is at least on par with 9/11.
Yes it does.
Revtim, it seems to me you need to define more precisely what you think Al Qaeda is and what Al Qaeda members are.
I use the standard definition, the terrorist group founded approximately in 1989 by bin Laden and Muhammad Atef. Are there other definitions?
So we agree the first part of Cheney’s statement “provided safe harbor and sanctuary to terrorists for years “ is correct.
If you ask me then Al Qaeda is a chimera and it is a grave mistake to concentrate unduly on it. Al Qaeda as an organisation has ceased to exist in any meaningful way, if it ever did. It is an idea, a dream, a way of life or a belief. One is a member of Al Qaeda if one subscribes more or less to the creeds of the extremists version of Islam that Osama and the boys believe in and if one work to fulfil the dreams by way of terror and violence.
IANC (I’m not Cheney) but I suspect he used the moniker Al Qaeda (as Putin does now) because it pushes some buttons. I don’t agree but he’s a politician. He bullshits. So what, I’ve heard worse.
To be honest, I do not know enough about his support of other terrorists to agree or disagree. My question is whether his statement about al Qaeda is true.
Perhaps, but nevertheless if Cheney is lying about enemies giving them support he should be called on it.
I’m no expert, but I would think that by most people’s definitions to truthfully call someone a member of an organization they would have to not only share its ideals but also have contact with it and take orders from its leaders.
Yes, there’s worse, but nevertheless he should be called on it if it’s a lie.
Because Cheney is perpetuating a deliberate lie concerning 9/11 as a reason to get re-elected. Unfortunately, too many voters accept the lie at face value, even though the 9/11 report that Bush and Cheney support says otherwise.
Well, those of us who actually read the State Department and intelligence reports that were written before the Bush administration began ordering them to be puffed up do not agree with that distortion.
From the State Department’s Overview of State-Sponsored Terrorism
Now let’s examine this list of “support.”
The MEK was/is a group that was directed at destabilizing Iran. They were mostly inactive, but what activity they performed was limited to anti-Iran operations. They were such terrible terrorists, that the U.S. signed them up as allies as soon as we had secured Iraq.
The PKK is one of several groups engaged in long-term power struggles over who will fight Iraq and Turkey to establish a new Kurdish state; they are not active in “international terrorism.” (In fact, U.S. agencies have reported that they foreswore violence, resorting to “diplomatic” channels in 2000, although I would not be surprised that they have been caught up in the current violence). It seems unlikely that they were being supported by Hussein, who would be as threatened by the Kurdish independence movement as Turkey is.
The support of the PLF is not given a date, but then they go on to insinuate a direct connection by discussing activities of the slightly different PLFP. Meanwhile, the most recent attack directly connected to the PLF seems to have occurred in the 1980s. There is no established connection between the PLPF and the pre-invasion Iraq. The insinuation by State is clearly one intended to mislead by insinuation.
Including the Abu Nidal Organization is a bad joke. Prior to 2001, Iraq appears to have allowed Abu Nidal, himself, to retire to Iraq–eleven years after his last terrorist activity, which was, itself, an attack on a PLO officer in a bit of internecine warfare.
al Zarqawi had some surgery or other medical attention and left the country without any connection with the Ba’ath regime.
Beyond that, we have only the sporadic donation of money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. However, Hussein never announced that he would reward the families of all such bombers, (and, in fact, he gave out only a few such donations–much as a few of our Saudi “allies” have done). With his hit-or-miss approach to donations and the fact that he always made the award after the fact, it was clearly a PR move on his part to garner favor with the Arab community that basically hatred and feared him and there is no evidence that his donations actually influenced the decision of any suicide bomber.
So the “support” for terrorism amounts to allowing a couple of people to retire from terrorism, completely, or get medical attention, a failure to attack some groups that were operating within his own borders, and some lip service with no material aid in support of a few Palestinian groups for the purposes of bolstering his own image without actually extending any assistance.
That simply does not rise to the level of “provid[ing] safe harbor and sanctuary to terrorists for years,“ (particularly when the “years” were pretty much all several years prior to our invasion (and, in fact, prior to thw WTC/Pentagon attacks).
Someone’s lying. Because the 9-11 Commission Report said quite clearly that NO “Collaborative Operational Relationship” existed between Iraq and Al Qaeda:
**
Then again, perchance Cheney never got the memo. After all, he is only the Vice-President.
Um, weren’t al Qaeda traveling in Kurdish lands? The lands that the Allies controlled with their no-fly zones?
Are you saying he was out of the loop? 
Actually, yes, it does make a difference. Hizbollah and Islamic Jihad have never attacked the United States, and don’t seem interested in doing anything other than terrorizing Israel. While this is certainly not a good thing, it’s something for Israel to deal with, not us. Al Qaeda leadership in Afghanistan, Pakistan and the surrounding areas, not to mention operatives that are inside America, are a much bigger problem.
I ask again: did al-Qaida travel in Kurdish lands, which were not in Sadaam’s control at the time?