2008 Woodie Awards
Is the war in Iraq part of the war on terror?
Presidential debates, Bush pushes the fight against terrorism
Igor Volsky
Issue date: 10/7/04 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 2 next >
Last Thursday, 61 million Americans tuned into the foreign -policy-centered presidential debate. Both candidates attempted to sway the 10 to 20 percent of undecided voters, but by the end of the night Sen. John Kerry emerged as the clear winner.
Still, each candidate held his own. President Bush defended his illegal invasion (according to Kofi Annan and international law, both of which George Bush has nothing but the highest disregard) of Iraq and tried to lump it into the global war on terrorism. For his part, Sen. Kerry correctly pointed out that it was not Saddam Hussein who attacked the United States on 9/11, but rather al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.
President Bush uses the presence of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a deadly 38-year-old terrorist, who has emerged as a major threat in Iraq as exhibit A in his "Iraq is part of the terror war" argument. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice has dubbed Zarqawi "the face of terrorism in Iraq." Matthew Levitt, a former FBI terrorism analyst, calls him "the most active and frenetic terrorist commander out there today." International security experts even argue that Zarqawi is more important than bin Laden who is "out avoiding capture in the frontier provinces of Pakistan" while the Zarqawi "is executing operation after operation after operation."
This terrorist, who according to experts has tenuous ties with al-Qaeda, has become active within Iraq only after the American occupation and there is little evidence tying him to Saddam Hussein. In fact, on March 2, Jim Miklaszewski of NBC News reported that the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out Zarqawi and his terrorist operation prior to the invasion of Iraq, but failed to act. From June 2002 through January 2003, the White House rejected three Pentagon plans to attack Zarqawi. "Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi's operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam," Miklaszewski reported.
Still, each candidate held his own. President Bush defended his illegal invasion (according to Kofi Annan and international law, both of which George Bush has nothing but the highest disregard) of Iraq and tried to lump it into the global war on terrorism. For his part, Sen. Kerry correctly pointed out that it was not Saddam Hussein who attacked the United States on 9/11, but rather al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.
President Bush uses the presence of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a deadly 38-year-old terrorist, who has emerged as a major threat in Iraq as exhibit A in his "Iraq is part of the terror war" argument. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice has dubbed Zarqawi "the face of terrorism in Iraq." Matthew Levitt, a former FBI terrorism analyst, calls him "the most active and frenetic terrorist commander out there today." International security experts even argue that Zarqawi is more important than bin Laden who is "out avoiding capture in the frontier provinces of Pakistan" while the Zarqawi "is executing operation after operation after operation."
This terrorist, who according to experts has tenuous ties with al-Qaeda, has become active within Iraq only after the American occupation and there is little evidence tying him to Saddam Hussein. In fact, on March 2, Jim Miklaszewski of NBC News reported that the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out Zarqawi and his terrorist operation prior to the invasion of Iraq, but failed to act. From June 2002 through January 2003, the White House rejected three Pentagon plans to attack Zarqawi. "Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi's operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam," Miklaszewski reported.