The War on Terror

The thing that scares me to death about John Kerry is that he is so much like Clinton when it comes to National Security. He leans too heavily on his advisors. Nevermind the fact that James P.Rubin (former Clinton State Department spokesman) is one of Kerry's senior advisors who once supported the strong theories of the link between Al Queda and Iraq's Hussein and now he has "flip-flopped" and no longer supports those theories. Kerry doesn't make time for terror briefings unless forced to. Most of all, like Clinton, he doesn't think we are actually at WAR with terrorism.

John Kerry said in his speech at the Democratic National Convention that he will never hesitate to use force after we have been attacked.

After?? That scares me to death. After California is attacked?? After malls all over the USA are attacked? After schools are attacked?? ....after Nantucket is attacked?

He said he would wage war against "real and imminent threats". Then he failed to define exactly what "real and imminent" means to him. That scares me too. What if a threat seems real to us, but not to him or his advisors?? What if, like in Somalia, the threat is very real to the troops on the ground, but not to the administration at home in the Kerry White House, so the troops are not adequately supplied for the "real and imminent threat" before them?

John Kerry's vagueness is a dim picture when placed next to President Bush's specific and detailed plan of attack to those "real and imminent" threats as we have seen this week.....

This bit of information coming our of Albany New York this morning shows me that this War on Terror is very real...

Howard Dean and others complaining that the President issued recent terror warnings for political reasons simply because the information was "old" are silenced. Homeland Security is working and thwarting attacks before they happen.

Thank God!

******************************************************************

This article is worth reading: National Review Online

"Jim Marshall is a Vietnam combat veteran, a Congressman serving on the House Armed Services Committee, and a Democrat. After returning from a fact-finding trip to Iraq he had this to say: "I'm afraid the news media are hurting our chances. They are dwelling upon the mistakes [and] not balancing this bad news with the 'rest of the story,' the progress made daily. ... The falsely bleak picture weakens our national resolve, discourages Iraqi cooperation, and emboldens our enemy."

Could it be that the MSM is reporting only negative things coming out of Iraq???? For political reasons??

************************************************************************

Al Queda and Iraq:

From the NYT on June 25, 2004:

Contacts between Iraqi intelligence agents and Osama bin Laden when he was in Sudan in the mid-1990's were part of a broad effort by Baghdad to work with organizations opposing the Saudi ruling family, according to a newly disclosed document obtained by the Americans in Iraq.....

American officials described as an internal report by the Iraqi intelligence service detailing efforts to seek cooperation with several Saudi oppositions groups, including bin Laden's organization, before Al Queda had become a full-fledged terrorist organization. He was based in Sudan from 1992 to 1996, when that country forced him to leave and he took refuge in Afghanistan.....

The document, which asserts that bin Laden "was approached by our side", states that bin Laden previously "had some reservations about being labled an Iraqi operative" but now was willing to meet in Sudan, and that "presidential approval" was granted to the Iraqi security service to proceed....."

....At the meeting, bin Laden requested that sermons of anti-Saudi cleric be rebroadcast in Iraq. That request, the document states, was approved by Baghdad."

Other evidence of the link:

Clinton also believed in the al Queda/Iraq link before President Bush did.........[from Washington Times article June 25,2004] "..during President Cllinton's eight years in office, there were at least two official pronouncements of an alarming alliance between Baghdad and Al Queda. One came from William S. Cohen, Clinton's defense secretary. He cited an al Queda-Baghdad link to justify the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.

Mr. Bush cited the linkage, in part, to justify invading Iraq and ousting Saddam Hussein. He said he could not take the risk of Iraq's weapons falling into bin Laden's hands....

The other pronouncment disclosed a close relationship between al Queda and Saddam's regime, which included specialists on chemical weapons and all types of bombs, including truck bombs, favorite weapon of terrorists."

When William H. Cohen testified to the 9/11 commission regarding the proceeding disclosures, he said that "bin Laden had been living [at the plant], that he had, in fact, money that he had put into this military industrial corporation , that the owner of the plant had traveled to Baghdad to meet with the father of the VX program." He said that "if the plant had been allowed to produce VX that was used to kill thousands of Americans, people would have asked him, 'You had a manager that went to Baghdad; you had Osama Bin Laden, who funded, at least the corporation, and you had traces of VX and you did what? And you did nothing?' Is that a responsible activity on the part of the secretary of defense?"

Or a President of the United States?

President Bush did the right thing by ending the connection between Iraq and al Queda ....before we were attacked with chemical weapons.

*******************************************************************
GOOD NEWS out of Iraq by Chrenkoff.......

Excellent points made here.

*******************************************************************

Have a great day everyone and remember to pray for our troops!!