Political Expediency

Sunday, April 15, 2007
According to my old Webster expediency is the doing or consideration of what is selfish rather than what is right or just. This is I think the driving force behind the Democrats current efforts to whitewash the regime of Saddam Hussein and nullify any claims that he had operational ties with AlQaida. Note the word operational, it is in and of itself part of this ongoing effort to discredit the Bush administration and gain political power. Back in the 90's the use of the term operational was not the issue, people were just looking for contacts of any kind. The idea that the contacts had to be operational is a relatively recent deveolopment.

In fact I would say that all one has to do is look at the events of 1998 to see these ties:

In February 1998 AlQaida announced its infamous fatwa against the United States, citing the treatment of Iraq in its list of grievances against Americans.

There are attacks on US embassies in Africa on August 7, 1998 which leave hundreds dead and thousands injured.

October 1998 the House overwhelmingly supports the Iraqi Liberation Act at the behest of the Clinton administration, making the removal of Saddam Hussein from power the national policy of the United States.

In November and December 1998 the crisis concerning the UN Weapons Inspectors in Iraq intensifies and ultimately the inspectors are forced to leave Iraq.

Operation Desert Fox is launched in December 1998 and represent the heaviest attacks since Operation Desert Storm.

Ed Morrisey has a post up Follow the Money which contains some interesting information about AlQaida, Saddam and money:

Andy picks up on one very important connection between Iraq and AQ -- money:

Forgetting all of these circumstances, among others, Tom [ed. Jocelyn] also recalls, as Steve Hayes, myself, and others have for some time, that in 1998, "Ayman al-Zawahiri was in Baghdad ... and collected a check for $300,000 from the Iraqi regime." I would add, for context, that this was in the same time frame as bin Laden and Zawahiri's infamous fatwa calling for the murder of Americans — which, if you read it, argues that American actions against Iraq are a big part of the justification. It also came just a few months before al Qaeda bombed the U.S. embassies in east Africa, the Clinton administration bombed a Sudanese phramaceutical factory because intel indicated it was a joint Iraqi/Qaeda chemical weapons venture, and Clinton counter-terror honcho Richard Clarke fretted that "wily old Osama would boogie to Baghdad" — of all places — if the U.S. made things too hot for Qaeda in Afghanistan.

Sure, maybe all this is just a big coincidence. But, given that al Qaeda is a 24/7 terror operation whose main target is the U.S., I've always wondered for what earthly purpose Senator Levin and other connection naysayers figure Saddam Hussein gave Ayman Zawahiri 300K?

So this is not operational? I have heard here of late that the Democrats only went along with the war because they were denied oversight and as such did not realize that Bush was lying to us all. However, the vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq was passed on October 10, 2002 and the Democrats did not lose control of the Senate until the November elections. That of course means they were in control of the Intelligence Committee.

The other day I had this discussion with a friend who was upset because he says that is has been proven that Saddam had nothing to do with AlQaida. I told him that the only thing that has been proven is that the media and the Democrats will say whatever works for them at the time.

In fact back in 1999 ABC did a report on the ties between Saddam and AlQaida:

Stephanopoulos, who used to work for Clinton, should remember that, back in 1998, the Clinton Administration issued a sealed indictment of bin Laden that read, in part, "...Al-Qaida reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al-Qaida would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al-Qaida would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq." What evidence did they have?

And ABC reported in December of 1999 that "ABC News has learned that in December, an Iraqi intelligence chief, named Farouq Hijazi, now Iraq's Ambassador to Turkey, made a secret trip to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden. Three intelligence agencies tell ABC News they cannot be certain what was discussed, but almost certainly, they say, bin Laden has been told he would be welcomed in Baghdad."

So it seems the truth is relative. Or so some would have us believe. The real truth is that if Saddam was really the innocent victim, the much abused dictator that some folks would have us believe he was, the real question is why were the United Nations and the Clinton Administration picking on the poor man for all those years? Why wait until after Bush came to office and invaded Iraq to decide Saddam was no threat?


Buddy Larsen said...

Great post--I get so sick of hearing that lame "Iraq had nothing to do with AQ" horesh*t. You can almost see the next Dem whopper coming, at any point in time. Just figure out whatever nonsense it will take to cover the next attack on Bush, and here it will come.

I've posted this before, but here 'tis again, for reference.

Doug said...

Who's spinning Intel

More Terror Connections: Andy McCarthy

Dangerous Liaisons

Doug said...

For Terrye:
Teresita said...
So she put me up a snack, and says:

"Say, when a cow's laying down, which end of her gets up first?
Answer up prompt now --
don't stop
to study over it.
Which end gets up first?"

"The hind end, mum."

"Well, then, a horse?"

"The for'rard end, mum."

"Which side of a tree does the moss grow on?"

"North side."

"If fifteen cows is browsing on a hillside, how many of them eats with their heads pointed the same

"The whole fifteen, mum."

"Well, I reckon you HAVE lived in the country. I thought maybe you was trying to hocus me again. What's your real name, now?"

"George Peters, mum."

Doug said...

Grapes of Wrath: America's Recipe for al-Qaeda's Victory
The US State Department Supports All But Somalis in Somalia

Why can’t the United States (read: State Department) ‘vow to support’ the Somali Transitional Federal Government who, unlike other theaters in the Long War, has wanted to both install a representative secular democratic system of government and fight al-Qaeda on their own soil?

As one will clearly see, we choose instead to let the willing and almost able wither on the vine like forgotten grapes in a vineyard that sees too few of them to begin with.

Doug said...

More Cheers for the Dennis Miller Show

Doug said...

Here's the Miller Archive I was Looking for
Search for Carvey, Lovett Lowe, Dan Dreisen,(Sinatra) Steyn, and etc, and enjoy.

Doug said...

I'll Fly Away - Allison Krause

Syl said...

Good post, Terrye!

I find it rather disgusting that the people who pout about 'dissent' never question what they're told by people claiming to 'dissent'.

I saw a presentation on BookTV early this AM by an Italian reporter who has written a book claiming that the forged documents were the basis for the 16 words. Not one member of the audience questioned a single word.

They just sit there and swallow it as long as it goes along with the CW that Bush Lied.

Doug said...

Taking Cues from DC Dems:
Ministers Loyal to Iraqi Cleric Quit Government Posts

Moktada al-Sadr’s followers said that they were withdrawing because the government had refused to set a timetable for pulling American troops out of Iraq.
The Lede: Why Now?

terrye said...


Hey, I know more about cows than I do politics. Dennis Miller is great.