Iraq’s revisionists |

Iraq’s revisionists

To hear some Democrats bemoan the war in Iraq, you would think there was no link whatsoever between the fighting there and the war on terror.

The conventional claptrap is that President Bush mislead the nation by tying Iraq to terrorists. A rising tide of evidence suggests otherwise.

While Iraq has not been connected to 9/11, it has been directly linked to al-Qaida, whose handiwork in post-Saddam Iraq is unmistakable.

Authorities say one of Osama bin Laden’s henchmen, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, ran terrorists training camps in both Iraq and Afghanistan. That’s old news.

The latest intelligence suggests at least six contacts in recent years — some post-9/11 — between Iraqi officials and leaders of Mr. bin Laden’s scoundrels.

The most alarming account came from a leader of an al-Qaida training camp in Afghanistan. He said bin Laden turned to Iraq for technical assistance in the use of chemical weapons — an area of deadly expertise that Saddam Hussein employed on his own people.

It’s also reported that from 1997 until last year , an al-Qaida militant traveled between Afghanistan and Iraq looking specifically to acquire poisons.

Yes, containment rather than war would have been the more prudent U.S. policy in Iraq. That said, those who whitewash Iraq’s conduct before the war are attempting to rewrite recent history before the ink’s dry.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.