| 1992年,戈爾在演講中這樣說： In pursuit of that objective, the Reagan-Bush administration would overlook the fact that it was an Iraq-based group that masterminded the assassination attempt against Israel's ambassador to the United Kingdom, which occurred in June of 1982. This event, of course, triggered Israel's invasion of Lebanon, not exactly a minor consequence for US policy. The Reagan-Bush administration was also prepared to overlook the fact that the terrorists who masterminded the attack on the Achille-Lauro and the savage murder of American Leon Klinghoffer, fled with Iraqi assistance. Nor did it seem to matter that the team of terrorists who set out to blow up the Rome airport came directly from Baghdad with suitcase bombs... |
首先要說明一點,美國對伊拉克WMD的指控並不是什麼“謊言”理由如下：
1.所謂謊言,是指故意傳布自己不相信的信息。伊拉克有過WMD，多次用過WMD，在91年到95年之間數次被迫承認自己瞞報了WMD。98年跟聯合國檢查團終止合作之後，受到聯合國決議的強烈譴責（如果大家都相信它已經沒有WMD，那還查什麼？）。克林頓在講話里稱它和國際恐怖組織組成了邪惡軸心（unholy axis）,對它把WMD交給恐怖組織的可能性深表憂慮（是的，小布什幾乎沒什麼新東西，都是從克林頓一家照抄的，連那句著名的“Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists”也無非是緊跟希拉里大嬸9月12日的講話精神而已）——要相信這麼多人和組織長期堅持同一個慌言，那麼你多半是三鹿奶粉K多了。
2.到06年為止，找到了大約500件化學武器。Delivery Systems方面的違規就更不必說了。 
3.國會授權(H.J.Res.114)攻伊的理由大多數還是站得住腳的—— 1)薩達姆擁有發展WMD所需的知識、能力和意圖(請看Duelfer報告)。他賄賂法俄等大國以便毀掉經濟制裁，戰前它的計劃已經接近成功,此後就要大幹一場；
2)它支持形形色色的國際恐怖主義組織（別扯薩達姆是什麼“世俗化的反恐鬥士”，自己去看看國務院20年來的支恐國家名單，還有1991年聯合國決議裡面的恐怖主義相關條款）
3)薩達姆破壞停火協定,不但拒絕在監督之下銷毀WMD,甚至頻繁向禁飛區的盟軍開火。
4)老生常談的人權問題。還有1998年的解放伊拉克法案。
5)為了傷害董鼎山之流五毛憤老的感情。
薩達姆和恐怖主義
關於薩達姆資助的恐怖組織，我們不說那些名字拗口的了，就以哈馬斯為例，你可以先看一則BBC的報道。
然後，你如果退一步，認為薩達姆是個“世俗性”的領導人，因而他支持的恐怖組織也一定是“世俗性”的（即民族主義的組織，以奪走以色列的國土為目標，並不以推行伊斯蘭法為目標）、他決不會跟原教旨主義團體有牽連——那麼，請你先到wiki上查一下哈馬斯屬於“俗恐”還是“教恐”——或者再退一步，我們就當哈馬斯本身不是原教旨主義組織好了(雖然Powell同志在講話中另有意見)，那麼請問，給它撐腰的是誰？當然是那個“伊朗伊斯蘭共和國”，現在的媒體都承認伊朗是哈馬斯主要的軍火供應者（有的人說是支國，不過恐怕還是要伊朗作中間人）——你要是不相信當前的新聞報導，我們可以看看美國情報分析部門多年前對哈馬斯的介紹。
回過頭來梳理一下，哈馬斯長期受伊朗支持，而薩達姆又對它公開資助，如果你還要堅持認為薩達姆這樣的“世俗”政權不可能跟“原教旨”合作（即使它們暫時有共同的敵人和戰略目標），似乎就說不過去了（這等於說敘利亞那個世俗性政權不可能跟德黑蘭的代理人真主黨合作）。當然你可以把“合作”的含義定得很窄，下面我再舉個例子,或許有人認為哈馬斯被歸於恐怖組織不公平,反而應該給它的領導人頒發那個炸藥和平獎，我乾脆就以基地組織為例吧。
請看2000年CIA給國會的報告，不要看伊拉克那個條目(因為報告主題是WMD,而我們談的是恐怖主義，而且還不能是“俗恐”，必須是“教恐”，否則單純拿出Abu Nidal組織或者胡狼卡洛斯就可以定論了），請點擊蘇丹部分，那裡提到該國化學武器的來源時是這麼說的 | Quote: | | In the WMD arena, Sudan has been developing the capability to produce chemical weapons for many years. In this pursuit, it has obtained help from entities in other countries, principally Iraq. Given its history in developing chemical weapons and its close relationship with Iraq, Sudan may be interested in a BW program as well. | 你再看99年和98年這些更早年份的同一報告，都可以找到這一結論，那麼伊拉克幫蘇丹發展化學武器這件事說明了什麼？那就要請克林頓同學來回答。(在轟炸希法製藥廠之後) | Quote: | | There is convincing information from our intelligence community that the Bin Laden terrorist network was responsible for these bombings. Based on this information, we have high confidence that these bombings were planned, financed and carried out by the organisation Bin Laden leads. | 本拉登和當時蘇丹政權的關係是公開的秘密，況且蘇丹“議長”圖拉比當時也在大力推行伊斯蘭化，那個政權本身就是很原教旨很暴力很威脅西方社會安全的一個東西。 | Sudan, however, continued to be used as a safehaven by members of various groups, including associates of Usama Bin Ladin's al-Qaida organization, Egyptian al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the Palestine Islamic Jihad, and HAMAS. Most groups used Sudan primarily as a secure base for assisting compatriots elsewhere. | 但是你會聽說中情局一直認為世俗化的薩政權和原教旨的本拉登是“天然敵人”，很不可能“ 合作”——這就是我前面說的，他們在很窄的意義上使用“合作”這個詞，也就是說，只有聯合參與一次具體的恐怖襲擊才叫“合作”，而其它形式的幫助——如宣傳、資助、提供外交護照、支持其分支、甚至給基地核心組織成員提供武器和軍事技能 訓練。。。這些都不叫“ 合作”。
要知道戰後從伊政權的內部文件中獲得了哪些信息，最好看看USJFCOM的06年報告和07年的這部Iraqi Perspectives Project: Saddam and Terrorism，主流媒體拿這個東西打擊布什，結果是搬起石頭砸了自己的腳。(支國朋友上不去USJFCOM網站的話可以去Federation of American Scientists看這五卷報告)
友情提示，前一部報告請看該PDF文檔的第72頁，後一部就有多處可看了 | Quote: | Saddam's interest in, and support for, non-Iraqi non-state actors was spread across a wide variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist, and Islamic terrorist organizations. For years, Saddam maintained training camps for foreign "fighters" drawn from these diverse groups. In some cases, particularly for Palestinians, Saddam was also a strong financial supporter. Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda's stated goals and objectives.
| | Quote: | | Some aspects of the indirect cooperation between Saddam's regional terror enterprise and al Qaeda's more global one are somewhat analogous to the Cali and Medellin drug cartels. Both drug cartels (actually loose collections of families and criminal gangs) were serious national security concerns to the United States. Both cartels competed for a share of the illegal drug market. However, neither cartel was reluctant to cooperate with the other when it came to the pursuit of a common objective-expanding and facilitating their illicit trade. The wellpublicized and violent rise of the Medellin cartel temporarily obscured and overshadowed the rise of, and threat posed by, the Cali cartel. Recognizing Iraq as a second, or parallel, "terror cartel" that was simultaneously threatened by and somewhat aligned with its rival helps to explain the evidence emerging from the detritus of Saddam's regime. Based on captured recordings and documents, this paper illustrates in part how Saddam Hussein ran his "cartel." |
| Quote: | | In the years between the two Gulf Wars, UN sanctions reduced Saddam's ability to shape regional and world events, steadily draining his military, economic, and military powers. The rise of Islamist fundamentalism in the region gave Saddam the opportunity to make terrorism, one of the few tools remaining in Saddam's "coercion" toolbox, not only cost effective but a formal instrument of state power. Saddam nurtured this capability with an infrastructure supporting (1)his own particular brand of state terrorism against internal and external threats, (2)the state sponsorship of suicide operations, and (3) organizational relationships and "outreach programs" for terrorist groups. Evidence that was uncovered and analyzed attests to the existence of a terrorist capability and a willingness to use it until the day Saddam was forced to flee Baghdad by Coalition forces. |
最猛的是這一句
| Quote: | | Captured documents reveal that the regime was willing to co-opt or support organisations it knew to be part of al- Qa'ida, as long as that organisation's near-term goals supported Saddam's longterm vision. | 要是不想讀大部頭的東西，可以回憶一下普京同志04年訪問中亞時的重要講話。
順便說一句，奧巴馬上任後,白宮網站改版,布什的演講和視頻都刪掉了,這給查閱資料帶來了很大的不便;看來還是官僚機構好一些,CIA和國務院的歷史資料都在。
有些同學對於小布什的印象只有那句著名的“Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists”，剛才說了，這篇演講在白宮網站上已經沒了(順便說一句，希拉里大嬸的類似講話也沒了，因為她已經不是參議員，只能到這裡看一下)。好在正如布什自己所說，媒體跟官僚機構一樣永遠不會下台，因此在CNN上還是能找到這句話的出處（見演講）。
(希拉里的這篇演說要去國會圖書館查閱，點擊Page: S9288，最後一部分是Mrs. CLINTON的演講：
We will also stand united behind our President as he and his advisers plan the necessary actions to demonstrate America's resolve and commitment, not only to seek out an exact punishment on the perpetrators but to make very clear that not only those who harbor terrorists but those who in any way give any aid or comfort whatsoever will now face the wrath of our country.
I hope that message has gotten through to everywhere it needs to be heard: You are either with America in our time of need or you are not. | (當然，John Kerry在1997年的一篇演講也值得一讀，題目是We Must Be Firm With Saddam Hussein）
回到小布什的原話，前言後語是這樣的： | And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime. |
02年的一次演說也可以作為參照
I've said in the past that nations are either with us or against us in the war on terror. To be counted on the side of peace, nations must act. Every leader actually committed to peace will end incitement to violence in official media and publicly denounce homicide bombings. Every nation actually committed to peace will stop the flow of money, equipment and recruits to terrorist groups seeking the destruction of Israel, including Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah.
| 總之，“跟我們站在一邊”所指的無非是以下幾點：
“（政權領導人）必須命令官方媒體停止鼓吹暴力，並公開譴責自殺式炸彈襲擊,阻止資金和設備落入企圖毀滅以色列的恐怖組織——包括哈馬斯、伊斯蘭聖戰組織及真主黨等。”
薩達姆真的跟恐怖主義“毫不相干”嗎？對於蘆大仙來說，誰敢質疑這一點就是十惡不赦。國務院多年以來的Overview of State-Sponsored Terrorism名單如果不算數，不知道始終高舉聯合國權威的蘆老人家有沒有讀過安 |
