June 29, 2005

Lawsuit: Iraq Involved In 9/11 Conspiracy (Updated with counter-arguments)

Hold on, There was no connection between Saddam Hussein, al Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks, Nancy Pelosi told me so.

CBS) Over a thousand victims and family members of those who died in the Sept. 11 attacks sued Iraq and its leader Saddam Hussein Wednesday alleging there is evidence of a conspiracy with Osama bin Laden to attack the United States.

The lawsuit alleges that Iraqi officials were aware, before Sept. 11, of plans by bin Laden to attack New York and the Pentagon.

The suit, filed Wednesday on behalf of 1,400 victims of the Sept. 11 attacks and their families, also claims Iraq sponsored terrorists for a decade to avenge its defeat in the Gulf War.

"Since Iraq could not defeat the U.S. military, it resorted to terror attacks on U.S. citizens," said the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court.

The suit names bin Laden, al Qaeda and Iraq as defendants and seeks more than $1 trillion in damages. It was brought by Kreindler & Kreindler, a New York law firm specializing in aviation disaster litigation.

The left has been berating George Bush for inferring such a connection in his speech last night. They wouldn't lie about such a thing, would they?

Posted by Traderrob

DISCLAIMER FROM RUSTY: Traderrob posted this, and I think it's an important piece of news. Jason at Texas Rainmaker elaborated on this some time ago. However, I do not now nor have I ever believed there was any direct connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. While there may have been an occasional meeting between the Baathists and al Qaeda, I have never seen anything like compelling evidence of Iraq's involvement. It looks to me more like mutual support for anti-Israel and anti-Kurdish activities than anything else.

Did the Baathists really support an al Qaeda that was fighting their own regime through their allies in Ansar al-Islam in Kurdistan along the Iranian borders? I doubt it, although it is possible that some sort of truce was called between the two groups. But most of these theories rely on connecting a lot of disparate pieces of information--the classic logic of the conspiracy theoriests.

Sorry, I don't believe it. Not yet anyway.

UPDATE #2: Ok, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, let me address Reliapundit's points that he makes here. He notes that the Declaration of War against Iraq included two 9/11 references.

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
True, but so what? So Saddam a) doesn't go after members of Ansar al-Sunnah who are in control of a small area of Kurdistan along the Iranian border and who are horboring al Qaeda refugees from the successful campaign in Afghanistan. b) harbors, for very brief periods of time, a handful of other al Qaeda operatives. Harboring a fugitive is not the same as helping him commit the crime. It may be cause for war (please see Grotius) but it does not mean Hussein helped al Qaeda plan 9/11.

Point 2:

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens
Hussein did support terrorism. Hamas, Islamic Jihad, al Aqsa Martyr's Brigade, PFLP, PLO, etc....maybe even some minor contributions to al Qaeda. These groups, active against Israel, have killed a number of American citizens. This has nothing to do with Hussein actually planning 9/11. Hussein made som MAJOR miscaculations in his time, but he wasn't an idiot.

Point 3:

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations
Yes, it most certainly did. And every one in 2002-3 believed this, other than the extreme Left who don't believe anything the U.S. government EVER says. Further, 9/11 showed us that we could not simply take Hussein's word for it that he had no WMD--he had told us that in 91 and when his son-in-law defected we learned otherwise. 9/11 taught us that we cannot wait until proof positive of a threat, but must act even in the face of uncertainy.

This does not mean the war in Iraq was unjust, only that we did not invade because Saddam was responsible for 9/11.

So, John Cole is right, in my opinion, and SoCal Pundit wrong. Sorry, that's how I sees it.

By at 04:37 PM | |