Andy McCarthy on Iraq, al Qaeda, and 9/11
In this Corner post, Andy McCarthy points out, based on things we either know to be true, or cannot rule out, the absurdity of the immediate dismissal of any connection between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and 9/11.
The gist is that there is abundant evidence of significant, ongoing, and operational ties between al Qaeda and Iraq, going back at least to the 1990s, and there's plenty of reason to believe that part of the animus for bin Laden's fatwa against Americans involved sympathy for Iraq (see this post for bin Laden in his own words). And there were at least two meetings (both of which are discussed in the first linked post) between Iraqi intelligence and key 9/11 figures that have not, to date, been either disproven or explained.
So while it's fair to say that we don't have enough evidence of Iraqi involvement in 9/11 to prove a case in a U.S. court of law, I think McCarthy is spot on in say there's more than enough for us to make decisions regarding foreign policy and defending the U.S.
I also think McCarthy is absolutely right to be frustrated by the bizarre reluctance of the Bush administration to put forth a robust defense of the intelligence and the decision making process leading up to the war. While key parts of the case for war turned out to be at least partially incorrect (while no WMDs turned up in Iraq, it's simply not true to conclude from that, as some on the left are attempting, that Iraq never had them), others, such as Saddam's status as a threat to the U.S. and to neighboring countries in the middle East, were spot on. Iraq's ties to, and support for, terrorists and terrorism are plain to anyone with eyes to see. In a post-9/11 world, even absent any direct ties to 9/11, that's more than enough justification for removing Saddam. Too bad the administration won't make that case.
The gist is that there is abundant evidence of significant, ongoing, and operational ties between al Qaeda and Iraq, going back at least to the 1990s, and there's plenty of reason to believe that part of the animus for bin Laden's fatwa against Americans involved sympathy for Iraq (see this post for bin Laden in his own words). And there were at least two meetings (both of which are discussed in the first linked post) between Iraqi intelligence and key 9/11 figures that have not, to date, been either disproven or explained.
So while it's fair to say that we don't have enough evidence of Iraqi involvement in 9/11 to prove a case in a U.S. court of law, I think McCarthy is spot on in say there's more than enough for us to make decisions regarding foreign policy and defending the U.S.
I also think McCarthy is absolutely right to be frustrated by the bizarre reluctance of the Bush administration to put forth a robust defense of the intelligence and the decision making process leading up to the war. While key parts of the case for war turned out to be at least partially incorrect (while no WMDs turned up in Iraq, it's simply not true to conclude from that, as some on the left are attempting, that Iraq never had them), others, such as Saddam's status as a threat to the U.S. and to neighboring countries in the middle East, were spot on. Iraq's ties to, and support for, terrorists and terrorism are plain to anyone with eyes to see. In a post-9/11 world, even absent any direct ties to 9/11, that's more than enough justification for removing Saddam. Too bad the administration won't make that case.