Not on the Money, Big Money.
As to al-Quaida's presence in Iraq, I can say otherwise to what you've claimed, even with Wikipedia being NOT the Fount of Knowledge and edited by those ghouls with an agenda on an almost daily basis, due to the fact that we know of the strategic importance of that region to al-Qaida's long term plans. And, if for no other reason that it might turn out true in some Bizzarro universe that Iraq served as strategic flypaper for the nuts to gather 'round, no better time to be out in the open and get shot dead than THAT, eh?
So even IF what you said turned out to be true, it is piss-poor reasoning to say that the death of tens of THOUSANDS of head-nippers and the other scions of the
Allah Knows Best Crowd is not a handy side-benefit for getting rid of Hussein's 80's-Vegas glory and rape rooms and torture chambers, and, that since they've decided to come out and volunteer to be popped apart with .50 cals, we should just've just disavowed this wonderful opportunity in Iraq to make piles of skulls out of these goons due to the fact that maybe...ya know... not all 20 thousand of them were there at once.
Shall we attack Indonesia then? Or shall we assume that the large presence of al-Quaida over THERE is not quite the same importance as the many fold number that exist in the Middle East?
As Britain's Labour Party's Jack Straw explained to Charlie Rose, the West has an obligation NOT to allow any miscreants to gather and maintain an exotic collection of advanced weaponry. And sometimes we don't get to choose the order of the day in getting rid of them, even if some pols think our attention should be elsewhere.
(I realize this means little to liberals; if we don't get socialized meds and government-mandated vacation time at the beach, WE are the warmongering miscreants)
But, in any case, the operational importance of the War in Iraq had EVERYTHING to do with the Terror Lords' long term plans, and it is known now for certain.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/report/2005/zawahiri-zarqawi-letter_9jul2005.htm
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2005/10/dear_zarqawi_a.php
The letter is about 6000 words long. Zawihiri is not kidding or coy about al-quaida's very grand ambitions for the entire region. Does that not resonate with anyone? Guess not.
I've read the whole shebang, but for brevity and sanity will relay one part:
"I want to be the first to congratulate you for what God has blessed you with in terms of fighting in the heart of the Islamic world, which was formerly the field for major battles in Islam's history, and what is now the place for the greatest battle of Islam in this era . . . "
Analysis from CENTCOM (which, ya know, prosecutes war and such, and analysis such situations for aforementioned long-term impact) reads as follows:
"Al Qaeda's ambitions do not stop at Iraq's borders. Establishing the political dominance of Sunni militants in Iraq is only a first step -- a means to an end -- in realizing Al Qaeda's ambitions of imposing its control over the broader Middle East. Under Al Qaeda, Iraq will serve as a terrorist haven and staging ground for attacks against Iraq's neighbors and quite possibly Western nations."
BTW--unlike Wiki's apparent take on things, and its vast swatches of missing context, the letter was not signed by teens in pajamas as "psyche!"
People who sever living human heads mean business, I'm afraid.
As to this "distraction" charge, see also http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008120
And, it seems libs had little room to speak on this in some cases:
http://wakepedia.blogspot.com/2004/04/voices-of-others-category-guess-who.html
And as Hitchens so eloquently points out elsewhere, it is foolish to think that al-Quaida would not have utterly feasted on what would have eventually been the failed state of Iraq in any case.
http://www.slate.com/id/2172152/
So let's look at some inside scoop oddly missing from the Wiki Wookies take on things:
""The founder of al-Qaida in Mesopotamia (AQM) was Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who we can now gratefully describe as "the late." The first thing to notice about him is that he was in Iraq before we were. The second thing to notice is that he fled to Iraq only because he, and many others like him, had been driven out of Afghanistan. Thus, by the logic of those who say that Afghanistan is the "real" war, he would have been better left as he was. Without the overthrow of the Taliban, he and his collaborators would not have moved to take advantage of the next failed/rogue state. I hope you can spot the simple error of reasoning that is involved in this belief. It also involves the defeatist suggestion—which was very salient in the opposition to the intervention in Afghanistan—that it's pointless to try to crush such people because "others will spring up in their place." Those who take this view should have the courage to stand by it and not invent a straw-man argument.
As it happens, we also know that Zarqawi—who probably considered himself a rival to Bin Laden as well as an ally—wrote from Iraq to Bin Laden and to his henchman Ayman al-Zawahiri and asked for the local "franchise" to call himself the leader of AQM. This dubious honor he was duly awarded. We further know that he authored a plan for the wrecking of the new Iraq: a simple strategy to incite civil murder between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. The incredible evil of this proposal, which involved the blowing up of holy places and the assassination of pilgrims, was endorsed from whatever filthy cave these deliberations are conducted in. As a matter of fact, we even know that Zawahiri and his boss once or twice counseled Zarqawi to hold it down a bit, especially on the video-butchery and the excessive zeal in the murder of Shiites. Thus, if there is any distinction to be made between the apple and the tree, it would involve saying that AQM is, if anything, even more virulent and sadistic and nihilistic than its parent body.
And this very observation leads to a second one, which has been well-reported and observed by journalists who are highly skeptical about the invasion. In provinces like Anbar, and in areas of Baghdad, even Sunni militants have turned away in disgust and fear from the AQM forces. It's not difficult to imagine why this is: Try imagining life for a day under the village rule of such depraved and fanatical elements.
To say that the attempt to Talibanize Iraq would not be happening at all if coalition forces were not present is to make two unsafe assumptions and one possibly suicidal one. The first assumption is that the vultures would never have gathered to feast on the decaying cadaver of the Saddamist state, a state that was in a process of implosion well before 2003. All our experience of countries like Somalia and Sudan, and indeed of Afghanistan, argues that such an assumption is idiotic. It is in the absence of international attention that such nightmarish abnormalities flourish. The second assumption is that the harder we fight them, the more such cancers metastasize. This appears to be contradicted by all the experience of Iraq. Fallujah or Baqubah might already have become the centers of an ultra-Taliban ministate, as they at one time threatened to do, whereas now not only have thousands of AQM goons been killed but local opinion appears to have shifted decisively against them and their methods.
The third assumption, deriving from the first two, would be that if coalition forces withdrew, the AQM gangsters would lose their raison d'être and have nothing left to fight for. I think I shall just leave that assumption lying where it belongs: on the damp floor of whatever asylum it is where foolish and wishful opinions find their eventual home."
Perhaps by the standards you've apparently laid out, and since no names of Afghan nationals appeared on the airline flight passenger manifests that day, we can and should only be attacking Saudi Arabia (19 of the hijackers' nationality) and perhaps Egypt (1 name).
As far as this notion of "taking away" from the war in Afghanistan, if the Prez is not of the opinion that more concentrated firepower would help now, it is unlikely to have helped then either. Operationally, Afghanistan is not really similar to Iraq. It is known as the killers of empires for a very valid and traditional reason. The terrain, yes, but also the political and disconnected ideological terrain is just not solid enough to hold together any kind of coalition. We were there duking it out with the Sons of Allah at least 24 months before things really got geared up in Iraq. I don't know about you, but it seems that if that intensity was at full tilt then and we STILL couldn't seal the deal, then it's doubtful more troops would have done any better.
In any case, as we speak, more troops or not is something the generals themselves are not in agreement on at the moment.
And, if you're in the business of slamming Bush for all eternity for dropping the ball on an issue where more balls in the game would have yielded few benefits but would have been a boon to Taliban propaganda (as it is now ), let's go over a few things while we're hashing out the FULL history of terror, that region, and the lackluster responses of various Prezes:
First of all, the major groundwork for Iraq was laid before he even took office:
(I noticed Clinton didn't exactly shut down this terror demon either)
Oct. 12, 2000 - A terrorist bomb damages the destroyer USS Cole in the port of Aden, Yemen, killing 17 sailors and injuring 39.
Aug. 7, 1998 - Terrorist bombs destroy the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. In Nairobi, 12 Americans are among the 291 killed, and over 5,000 are wounded, including 6 Americans. In Dar es Salaam, one U.S. citizen is wounded among the 10 killed and 77 injured.
In response, on August 20 the United States attacked targets in Afghanistan and Sudan with over 75 cruise missiles fired from Navy ships in the Arabian and Red seas. About 60 Tomahawk cruise missiles were fired from warships in the Arabian Sea. Most struck six separate targets in a camp near Khost, Afghanistan. Simultaneously, about 20 cruise missiles were fired from U.S. ships in the Red Sea striking a factory in Khartoum, Sudan, which was suspected of producing components for making chemical weapons.
June 21, 1998 - Rocket-propelled grenades explode near the U.S. embassy in Beirut.
June 25, 1996 - A bomb aboard a fuel truck explodes outside a U.S. air force installation in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. 19 U.S. military personnel are killed in the Khubar Towers housing facility, and 515 are wounded, including 240 Americans.
Nov. 13, 1995 - A car-bomb in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia kills seven people, five of them American military and civilian advisers for National Guard training. The "Tigers of the Gulf," "Islamist Movement for Change," and "Fighting Advocates of God" claim responsibility.
February 1993 - A bomb in a van explodes in the underground parking garage in New York's World Trade Center, killing six people and wounding 1,042.
The Resolution on Iraq? Approved, as you surely know, by the majority of both parties. Not the Bush's Oil Boys or the Zionists.
______________________________
The Iraq resolution, in relevent part:
"Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
BRUTAL REPRESSION OF ITS CIVILIAN POPULATION....
There were at least
14 reasons named in said resolution to eliminate the regime. Then there is this from the I
raq Liberation Act signed by Bill Clinton:
(b) HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE- The Congress urges the President to use existing authorities under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to provide humanitarian assistance to individuals living in areas of Iraq controlled by organizations designated in accordance with section 5, with emphasis on addressing the needs of individuals who have fled to such areas from areas under the control of the Saddam Hussein regime.
But that was before radical leftist groups (who think America is the bane of the planet) pulled the Democrats' chain. Time for them to ...well.....Move On
ALSO:
President Clinton stated in February 1998:
Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.... Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits.... It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.... Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal.... President Clinton ~ 1998 [1]
And ask Factcheck.org about the handy quotes from other Democrats about the dangers of an armed Iraq. Not Wikipedia. College proffys will nail you with red ink for using the latter. At least the other links will get a legit glance or two before bashing the Annenberg group.
The whole bruha of WMD did not start with Bush--nor will it end there.
I promise you that much.
Speaking of Factcheck.org, check out also related:
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/b/bushlied.htm
http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html
http://www.mediaresearch.org/press/2006/press20060623.asp
http://iraqdocs.blogspot.com:80/
http://www.post-gazette.com:80/pg/06036/649858.stm
I'm always on guard against the memory-deficient types now making some oddball sales pitches of late. And while it's true the Deulfer Report said S.H. had no WMD, it also mentioned he wanted them back once he got rid of the Keystone Kops UN inspectors. And Brit Intel has not backed down to this day (see the factcheck link above) on the issue of Walter Mitty Fantasy Boy Wilson's claim that Hussein never sought Nigerian Uranium.
As to BDS and blaming Bush for all eternity on all matters that Obama would just as soon see go away and let him be on the links?
How convenient.
As Mark Steyn said:
"
Afghanistan is HIS now: Notwithstanding “years of drift”, whether it winds up as victory or defeat or is his call. It’s Obama’s war. It’s Obama’s economy. The stimulus bill is his stimulus, and for $787 billion it created 30,000 new jobs (according to the government) or (according to the Associated Press) 25,000. Either way, you do the math. It’s Obama’s unemployment rate, Obama’s dollar, Obama’s debt."
Sorry bud. Rules of the house.
As to Hussein's ultimate manly-man reasons for harboring or desiring to either have and then dispose and then lie about WMD, that is also utterly irrelevent to this discussion.
Numerous intel agencies and Hans Blix, David Kay, and a host of others may very well have been wrong, but as I said we don't live in an age when caution can be overdone.
It's not a good idea to have the whole wretched Third World of tinhorns world bristling with high-powered weaponry just because the bozos in the tough neighborhood claim to need the same.
The fact that others besides Hussein might harbor or want WMD is a timing issue of their day of downfall--not an argument about non-intervention per se.
