Was Iraq Bait?

Wow.  I don't know what to say.  Just when the folks over at Kos couldn't have come up with a bunch of bigger conspiracy nuts, they top it all with this:

I was listening to "Here and Now" on WBUR earlier. They were doing some early analysis of today's hearings on Iraq. A quote from Ambassador Crocker jumped out at me. Robin Young reported that he said, "Al Qaeda chose to fight us in Iraq...." He went on to claim that since they are losing it has been very demoralizing for Al Qaeda and that this is why the Pre-Emptive Invasion of Iraq has made the United States safer.

I'm looking for transcripts and will listen to the "Here and Now" program again this evening. But this quote made me wonder...

We know that no-one from Iraq had anything to do with the attacks on the U.S. in September of 2001. (I refuse to use the marketing brand we've given to that tragic event.) We know that there were no WMD's in Iraq and that Iraq posed no immediate threat to the U.S. We also know that Al Qaeda was not thriving in Iraq under Saddam. There have been suspicions that we have gone in simply to get some control over some of the oil resources in the Mid-East. Or to obtain a strong military presence there.

But what if we simply went in to attract Al Qaeda to Iraq in the hopes that they would engage there and not here? Is it possible that we just used the population of an entire country as bait?

I'm apparently not the first to think so. I think I've come close to this conclusion before and, perhaps, I simply couldn't stomach the possibility. As soon as I heard that quote and the question came up in my mind, I did feel sick to my stomach.

The Iraq-Al Qaeda connection has never made sense to me. Saddam Hussein was a secular leader for the most part. And he was a tyrant. He wouldn't have allowed anyone seeking power to build their forces within his realm. We have known that Saudi Arabia is a strong Al Qaeda base. We know that many of those in involved in the attacks of 2001 were from Saudi Arabia. So, why didn't we attack them? (That's a rhetorical question...) But Al Qaeda wasn't limited to one country. They are spread out around the world. So, how do you make the battle against them simpler? How do you get them to muster a lot of energy in one location and take risks of exposure and loss? You go into a vulnerable place where they might find some support, but not enough to prevail. One where you can claim enough justification for an invasion because there is little support for the existing government in that country. You use that fragile population as bait.

Yes folks, your buddy, your friend, the United States, invaded Iraq to lure Al-Qaeda members to their deaths.

We weren't smart enough to just track them across the internet and put a bullet in the back of their heads when they weren't looking.

Nope, we decide to invade another country and it was all to lure in Al-Qaeda members.

If you need to double think that because you think it's a possibility, you need to turn off your computer and give it to someone who's smart enough to use it properly.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com