Connecting the Electoral Dots in Iraq

“What does Iraq have to do with 9/11?” “The war in Iraq is a disaster, we should pull out immediately.” These are two, frequently heard comments in the debate over our foreign policy regarding the Islamic Terrorists. These oft-repeated remarks reflect valid, concerns, but do they reflect the whole truth?

With our elections just two weeks away, we need to think long and hard about this issue before voting. The Democrat-leadership, overwhelmingly liberal, has made it clear what their plans will be if they capture the House or Senate: immediate withdrawal from Iraq, constitutional “rights” afforded to suspected, terrorist enemies currently being detained, and the end to wire-tapping surveillance which has been successful in intercepting terrorist communications that have consequently thwarted several planned attacks.

Since 9/11, under the leadership of President Bush, America has employed a new, comprehensive strategy for engaging our sworn enemies. The untold story is this- with initiatives such as the Patriot Act, Homeland Security and the military engagement of outlaw states around the world, we have been enormously effective in putting our enemy squarely on the defensive- just where they ought to be! Have there been high costs to pay for this Bush doctrine? Yes, most definitely, all wars incur great expense in both lives and treasure, but as 9/11 NY Mayor Rudy Giuliani reminds us, “by going on the offense these past five years we have most assuredly prevented further attacks in our own country.”

The Brooklyn Bridge, the New York PATH Train and the Golden Gate Bridge are just a few of the al Qaeda targets over the last few years that have been saved from sure destruction by our new Security System- wire-tapping included. Al Qaeda-member Assem Hammond is currently being held under arrest in Lebanon for helping to organize some of these plots. The Brooklyn Bridge target was an operation being planned by al Zarqawi, who thankfully, was killed last June by our military forces in Iraq! That might appear odd to some, since the Bush-haters would have us all believe that al Qaeda has nothing at all to do with Iraq?

For further enlightenment on the Iraq/al Qaeda linkage one needs only to take a close look at the Madrid bombings of March 3, 2004. Jamal Zougam was one of the first people arrested after the Spanish train bombings which killed 191 and injured 1700. In one of the bags that failed to explode authorities found a cell phone that was traced back to Zougam’s address. Zougam was part of an al Qaeda cell led by Yarkas and Azizi who, in turn, were proven agents in the planning of 9/11. In the Tarragona region of Spain these terrorists coordinated meetings between a Hamburg cell and Mohammed Atta, pilot of the first plane that hit the World Trade Towers. I would say that’s a pretty close connection!

Norwegian Defense authorities discovered that Jihadists had targeted Spain in 2004 because they were perceived to be the weak link in Europe for supporting the war in Iraq. Abu Dujan Al Afgani, military spokesman for al Qaeda in Europe, said, “this is a response to Spain’s collaboration with the criminals Bush and his allies…to the crimes that you caused in the world, and specifically in Iraq and Afghanistan, and there will be more if God wills it.” After Tony Blair, Spain’s prime minister Aznar was Bush’s strongest European ally in the War on Terror. That is, until the election!

Four days after the Madrid bombing, Zapatero, the candidate of the Socialist Workers Party, replaced Aznar after winning a dramatic electoral victory supported by those intimidated by the attack and waving placards that read, “No to War, Yes to Peace.”The voting results followed the al Qaeda plan perfectly, and troops were subsequently withdrawn from Iraq. Liberals are faced with the disturbing thought that: if Iraq has nothing at all to do with al Qaeda, then why would al Qaeda care so much about removing Spanish troops from there? Spain had been third, behind Great Britain and Italy, for their troop level commitment. Lee Feinstein, a Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations remarked, “the most troubling thing about this is the way the incoming Spanish government is sending a message to terrorists that this may be a
potential model for them to affect policy and elections.” Presumably they want to affect such elections for their favored purposes, don’t they? It was generally agreed at the time, that Spain had indeed capitulated in the face of terrorist pressure. Time correspondent Andrew Sullivan said, “in [the] election victory for the socialists al Qaeda got even more than it could have dreamed of. It has removed a government intent on fighting terrorism and installed another intent on appeasing it.” Sen. Joe Lieberman noted, “any withdrawal by Spain would amount to appeasement. Anyone who thinks that if…a nation’s troops stay out of a particular military conflict that they’ll be somehow protected from the fanatical Islamic terrorists, is just wrong! That’s the same logic that Neville Chamberlain [used] in Munich to try to pacify Hitler in the late 1930s, and obviously that didn’t work.”

Before voting this election, remember which party supports Sen. Lieberman’s view, and which party just kicked him out for the sole reason of his support for an aggressive, offensive strategy in the war on Terror. As you prepare to do your solemn duty in the voting booth consider which candidate al Qaeda might be for…then vote the oppositeway!
(send comments to: WFC83197@aol.com)