Thursday, June 17, 2004

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

Okay, from the statements here (especially Statement 15), the 9-11 Commission is saying there was no credible evidence of a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda. Yet in some of these very statements we have testimony from al-Qaeda members saying that they kept in communication with Iraqi intelligence agents. One of the security thugs at the al-Qaeda meeting in Malaysia in January of 2000, a man named Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, was a member of the Saddam Fedayeen. What, did the commission think that Shakir was doing this like some guys are part of an Elks lodge? That helping to provide security and driving services for al-Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiyah was sort of a community-service thing? He's right there in Statement 16, outline of the 9-11 plot.

On top of this, we've got evidence from Czech intel describing both a meeting between Iraqi intelligence and Mohammed Atta as well as British intel confirming US reports that Iraq and al-Qaeda were coordinating efforts not to step on each others' toes in the fight against their common foe, the United States. While there are no documents that name Salman pak as an area where al-Qaeda was allowed to train, it is conceivable that information-sharing was going on between the former Iraqi government and the terroist group. How is it conceivable? You've got a member of Saddam's fanatical death squad doing al-Qaeda scutwork. It's very conceivable that other members of Saddam's network of sycophants were providing technical assistance to al-Qaeda.

So, if the Commission is denying the evidence right in front of them, then why should we trust anything they say about the entire event? In fact, why should we not be surprised when articles like this one from National Review Online get no mention in the press yet a Reuters hack job can be seen as serious journalism.

Again, this is all the more reason for Bush to be re-elected. Screw the Europress. We've done the right thing for more reasons that have shown true than you needed.

1. WMDs: remnants of one used on a US convoy were found marked like a regular Iraqi artillery shell to disguise them. Once we can check the rest of the conventional caches that are buried throughout the country, who knows what else will come up?

2. Terror links: the Commission is just plain wrong, and half of them are using it against the President thanks to it being an election year.

3. Humanitarian Horror: Right, we still haven't seen the prewar videos of what Saddam's bullyboys did in his name, have we? You know the ones that the tv news programs won't show because they're too graphic for American audiences? Yet US Senator Rick Santorum was able to show them to members of Congress.

Spread the word. Those videos need to be released to the public through every channel possible.

We have enough evidence that the war in Iraq is just. There is enough evidence that the Bush administration is right and that its critics are wrong. So, why is the Commission so intent on saying that the evidence shows the opposite of what it shows? What are they trying to do to the current administration?

No comments: