Also see below:
Special Iraq Report: Saddam Hussein and 9/11 •
Go to Original
9/11 Linked To Iraq, In Politics if Not in Fact
By Peter Baker
The Washington Post
Wednesday 12 September 2007
The television commercial is grim and gripping: A soldier who lost both legs
in an explosion near Fallujah explains why he thinks U.S. forces need to stay
in Iraq.
"They attacked us," he says as the screen turns to an image of the
second hijacked airplane heading toward the smoking World Trade Center on Sept.
11, 2001. "And they will again. They won't stop in Iraq."
Every investigation has shown that Iraq did not, in fact, have anything to
do with the Sept. 11 attacks. But the ad, part of a new $15 million media blitz
launched by an advocacy group allied with the White House, may be the most overt
attempt during the current debate in Congress over the war to link the attacks
with Iraq.
Six years later, the Sept. 11 attacks remain the touchstone of American politics,
the most powerful force that can be summoned on behalf of an argument even as
a nation united in their aftermath today stands divided on their meaning. While
Washington spent yesterday's anniversary debating the U.S. involvement in Iraq,
it struggled to define the relationship between the war there and the worldwide
battle with al-Qaeda and other extremists.
During the second day of hearings featuring Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador
Ryan C. Crocker, the echoes of Sept. 11 reverberated through the chamber. Sen.
John McCain (R-Ariz.), a presidential candidate, got Petraeus to repeat his
belief that Iraq is the "central front in the war on terror." Sen.
Barack Obama (D-Ill.), another White House aspirant, complained about the timing
of the hearing because it "perpetuates this notion that, somehow, the original
decision to go into Iraq was directly related to the attacks on 9/11."
Some Republicans described the offshoot group al-Qaeda in Iraq as the dominant
threat on the ground, playing down the broader sectarian battle for power at
the heart of the conflict. Some Democrats called the war a distraction from
the hunt for Osama bin Laden, playing down al-Qaeda's determination to use Iraq
to strike a blow against U.S. interests.
For his part, President Bush kept a relatively low profile yesterday, attending
a small service at St. John's Episcopal Church across Lafayette Square and later
leading a moment of silence on the South Lawn of the White House. The White
House released a five-page document outlining efforts to prevent future attacks
and repeating the argument that "we are fighting violent extremists in
Iraq and Afghanistan and across the world so that we do not have to fight them
on American soil."
The anniversary comes as U.S. intelligence specialists report that al-Qaeda
has reconstituted itself in the tribal areas of Pakistan and bin Laden just
released his first videotapes in nearly three years. The failure to capture
him continues to bedevil the Bush team and its supporters.
The president's homeland security adviser, Frances Fragos Townsend, dismissed
bin Laden on Sunday as "virtually impotent," drawing criticism from
terrorism analysts. And former senator Fred D. Thompson (Tenn.), who just jumped
into the Republican race for president, at first dismissed the importance of
catching bin Laden compared with other terrorists who might be in the United
States, only to retreat and quickly assert that he, too, wanted to "capture
and kill" the al-Qaeda leader.
White House press secretary Tony Snow yesterday renewed the president's commitment
to catching bin Laden as well. "We're going to find him," Snow said.
But he added that "the war against terror is not the war against one guy."
Steve Simon, a counterterrorism official in the Clinton administration , said
such comments are not surprising. "What else are they going to say?"
he asked. "It's the sixth anniversary of 9/11 and bin Laden is still out
there, probably in Pakistan giving us the finger. At this point, you've got
to say he doesn't matter because otherwise it raises important questions."
Timothy J. Roemer, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana who served
on the independent commission that investigated the attacks, said yesterday's
Iraq hearings on Capitol Hill demonstrated how "unidimensional" the
war with al-Qaeda has become. "How are we best able to counter it?"
he asked. "Is it in one place, in Baghdad? Or is it countering in many
places it's popping up?"
Although public support for Bush's handling of terrorism has fallen in his
second term - 46 percent of respondents approved of his handling of the issue
in this month's Washington Post-ABC News poll, while 51 percent disapproved
- the White House still views al-Qaeda as its most successful justification
for remaining in Iraq. After some critics accused Bush of overstating the connection
between bin Laden's group and al-Qaeda in Iraq, the White House quickly arranged
a presidential speech to defend and reinforce its assertions.
The reason to emphasize al-Qaeda, aides said, is simple. "People know
what that means," said one senior official who spoke about internal strategy
on the condition of anonymity. "The average person doesn't understand why
the Sunnis and Shia don't like each other. They don't know where the Kurds live.
. . . And al-Qaeda is something they know. They're the enemy of the United States."
The new ad campaign drives that home more emotionally than any speech. Sponsored
by a group of Bush allies under the name Freedom's Watch, four spots are airing
in 60 congressional districts in 20 states. The commercials urge Congress to
stick with the president's strategy in Iraq. The most poignant of them stars
a soldier identified as John Kriesel, who was wounded on Dec. 2, 2006, and is
shown walking with two artificial legs.
Former Bush White House press secretary Ari Fleischer, one of the group's founders,
said the ad is not misleading by saying "they attacked us" in the
context of Iraq and showing the image of the Sept. 11 attack. "Iraqis did
not attack us on 9/11," he agreed. But it does not matter, Fleischer added,
because some of the same sorts of people who did are now fighting U.S. forces
in Iraq.
"Nine-one-one absolutely is a bona fide, legitimate reason to remind people
what's at stake," he said. "The point is not that Iraq was responsible
for 9/11. They're not. But 9/11 should be a vivid reminder to everyone about
how vulnerable our country is and that's why we need to win in Iraq."
The question of what relationship the Iraq war has to the broader terrorism
fight prompted a tense exchange during yesterday's Senate hearing. Sen. Russell
Feingold (D-Wis.), a leading war opponent, suggested Iraq has diverted too much
attention and resources. "The question we must answer is not whether we
are winning or losing in Iraq but whether Iraq is helping or hurting our efforts
to defeat al-Qaeda," Feingold said. "That is the lesson of 9/11, and
it's a lesson we must remember today."
Feingold pressed Crocker, who has served as ambassador in Pakistan, to say
whether the hunt for radicals in Afghanistan and Pakistan or the campaign in
Iraq was more important to defeating al-Qaeda.
Crocker would not choose. "Fighting al-Qaeda in Pakistan is critically
important to us," he said. "Fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq is critically
important to us."
Go to Original
Special Iraq Report: Saddam Hussein and 9/11
By Angus Reid
Global Monitor
Wednesday 12 September 2007
A third of adults in the United States believe Saddam Hussein played a role
in 9/11, according to a poll by CBS News. 33 per cent of respondents think the
deposed Iraqi leader was personally involved in the terrorist attacks on the
World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
Al-Qaeda operatives hijacked and crashed four airplanes on Sept. 11, 2001,
killing nearly 3,000 people. In June 2004, the federal commission that investigated
the events of 9/11 stated that there had been "no collaborative relationship"
between the deposed Iraqi regime and the terrorist network in the planning and
carrying out of the attacks.
In August 2006, U.S. president George W. Bush referred to the situation, saying,
"Nobody has ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were
ordered by Iraq. I have suggested, however, that resentment and the lack of
hope create the breeding grounds for terrorists who are willing to use suiciders
to kill to achieve an objective. I have made that case."
The coalition effort against Hussein's regime was launched in March 2003.
At least 3,773 American soldiers have died during the military operation, and
more than 27,700 troops have been wounded in action.
In December 2005, Iraqi voters renewed their National Assembly. In May 2006,
Shiite United Iraqi Alliance member Nouri al-Maliki officially took over as
prime minister.
On Aug. 22, Bush linked the 9/11 attacks with the coalition effort in Iraq,
saying, "If we were to abandon the Iraqi people, the terrorists would be
emboldened, and use their victory to gain new recruits. As we saw on September
the 11th, a terrorist safe haven on the other side of the world can bring death
and destruction to the streets of our own cities."
-------
Jump to today's Truthout Features:
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. t r u t h o u t has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is t r u t h o u t endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
"Go to Original" links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted on TO may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the "Go to Original" links.
Print This Story
E-mail This Story