Bush, Bin Laden, and Iraq -- Response to a Sam Miller

I don't get very many commentators on my blog -- hell, it comes as a suprise that people actually read this blog, so when one commentator pipes up, the least I could do is respond. Sam Miller (hey Sam!) responds to an earlier post of mine by asking:

One simple question:

Did Bush get Bin Laden?

[he had 3 years]

Sam elaborates on his commment here, in response to the recent re-appearance of Bin Laden on video.

Bin Laden is back. On tape. But that is bad enough. Bush had three years. The world was willing to help him after 9/11 to get Bin Laden. He could have gotten him. He didn't. He failed us. He said he would smoke him out. He didn't.

9/11 needs a strong reaction: Get the guys who did it, and make sure it never happens. It happened during Bush' watch. . . .

[A]nd, just to be clear: There is NO connection between Iraq and 9/11. Try to find a quote of Bush where he would say that loud and clear what you might have in your head. You will not find anything. Bush suggested it in indirectly often enough. But he never said it, since there was no evidence. There was no evidence because it was not so.

In response to the first point, it is worth noting that General Tommy Franks, former U.S. commander of U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, rebuked Kerry's charge that Bush "let Osama escape" in an op-ed for the New York Times Oct. 19, 2004. Since the Times' article is no longer available online, the Washington Post will suffice:

"I was responsible for the operation at Tora Bora, and I can tell you that the senator's understanding of events doesn't square with reality," . . .

Franks, who has endorsed the Republican president's re-election bid, challenged Kerry's contention that U.S. forces had the fugitive al Qaeda leader surrounded but "outsourced" the job of capturing him to Afghan forces in the rugged Tora Bora region of eastern Afghanistan.

We don't know to this day whether Mr. bin Laden was at Tora Bora in December 2001. Some intelligence sources said he was; others indicated he was in Pakistan at the time; still others suggested he was in Kashmir," wrote Franks, who led the invasions of Afghanistan and later Iraq as chief of the U.S. military's Central Command.

"Tora Bora was teeming with Taliban and Qaeda operatives, many of whom were killed or captured, but Mr. bin Laden was never within our gasp."

Franks contended that the American military did not outsource military action, although "we did rely heavily on Afghans because they knew Tora Bora."

(Retired U.S. General Attacks Kerry Over Bin Laden, Reuters. October 19, 2004).

Regarding the "connection between Iraq and 9/11" -- it depends on what one means by such an assertion. While it is true that Saddam Hussein had no direct connection with 9/11, it is a recognized fact that Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda had channels of communication, that Iraq provided financial and moral support for terrorism, and that it served as a "safe haven" for Islamic terrorists of all stripes. It is a recognized fact that Iraqi intelligence operatives assisted in the engineering of the first attack on the World Trade Center and it is highly probable that they faciliated a meeting of those who were responsible for the second attack on September 11th, 2001.

Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard has done extensive research into this subject, beginning with an analysis of a memo detailing cooperation between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. ("Cased Closed" Weekly Standard Nov. 24, 2003). Dan Darling, another blogger who's analysis and knowledge of this subject I respect, did a six part analysis of this memo and Haye's article, and also believes there was indeed a connection.

Hayes went on to publish The Connection : How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America, which is one of the most thorough books on the subject to date, as well as critiquing the misleading reporting of the media that gives rise to the "Bush lied" meme. (If you don't have time to read the book, most of Hayes' articles are compiled in one place here (scroll down).

So, to Sam, I would say check out the above, read the book, come back and we'll discuss it.

Finally, I would propose that although finding and capturing Bin Laden is indeed a crucial element to the war on terrorism, it will not in the least mean the end of Al Qaeda or militant Islam's jihad on Western civilization. Norman Podhoretz made the excellent case that we are involved in a new kind of war in his article World War IV: How It Started, What It Means, and Why We Have to Win (a rather long article -- see this post for a summary of key points). If Kerry's history as an antiwar activist means anything, I believe his priority is to cut and run more than anything, and his belief that we ought to rely on France and Russia (Friends of Saddam Hussein implicated in the U.N. "Oil For Food" scandal) doesn't exactly instill within me a feeling of confidence.

I don't agree with President Bush on every single issue, but I do have faith that our present Commander in Chief will "stay the course" in this international war on terror.