This archival web page was frozen in its current form for historical record with the commencement of hostilities in Iraq, March, 2003. Only two articles by Harry Browne were added afterwards, from December, 2003 and March, 2004. Some of the news links on the left side may no longer work. All other content is property of the Downsize DC Foundation, formerly known as the American Liberty Foundation. » Two Important Notes...
Can we back up
by Jim Babka
Claim #2: One of our radio ads claims that Hussein has no clear ties to Osama bin Laden or other terrorist groups. Can we back-up this assertion in the face of Colin Powell's UN testimony to the contrary?
Powell's overall presentation was certainly very impressive, but was it credible? Specifically, is there any meat to his most important claim about Hussein's supposed links to terror? The answer is no.
Powell's argument rests entirely on one man: Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian-born Palestinian who moved from Afghanistan to Kurdistan in northern Iraq after the fall of the Taliban. Consider what Powell said about Al-Zarqawi:
- Zarqawi has visited Baghdad. This is meaningless. All of the terrorists involved in the 9-11 murders had lived in the United States, but that doesn't mean they were taking direction or gaining assistance from George W. Bush.
- Zarqawi was implicated in the murder of Lawrence Foley in Jordon. Irrelevant. We already know that Zarqawi is a terrorist, but what we're looking for is evidence that Hussein is. Hussein has in no way been implicated in the Foley murder, or in any of Zarqawi's other activities.
- Zarqawi is part of a network of 116 operatives. So what? There's still no link to Hussein.
- Zarqawi and his cronies are "operating in northern Kurdish areas outside Saddam Hussein's controlled Iraq." Notice the quotes—these are Powell's exact words, and his own words refute his case. Zarqawi operates outside of Hussein's control, but why is that if he's Hussein's tool for terrorism? The obvious answer is that Zarqawi has no connection with Hussein at all, except perhaps to fear him.
And why should Zarqawi fear Hussein? Because Hussein has been the scourge of Islamist radicals for more than two decades. Is it is possible that Hussein might change his tune at some point to get back at us? It's possible, but unlikely, since any overt act of terrorism on his part would be his certain death warrant. (For more on this point see Claim #7)
Given the complete lack of evidence for links between Hussein and terror we must assume that Hussein is still who he has always been—an enemy of radical Islamists. And we must rely on the CIA's previous conclusion that Hussein has no links to terror. (See theage.com.au/articles/2002/ 09/10/1031608245289.html)
Our Director of Public Policy, Harry Browne, explained that George W. Bush had failed to make the case for potential war with Iraq back in October 2002. Seems little has changed. You can read his editorial, "Iraq: 'A war waiting for a pretext'" here: wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29236.