The Iraq / war on terror thread

[elikovich]

I still stand by the fact that I think he made the right decision with the information that he has had from sources that I have read.? The fact that many other people made the same conclusions he did (outside the CIA and US, and within).?

from talking to intelligence people, i've heard a different side of the story...that cheney and rumsfeld went to the intelligence community and asked what the link was between al qaeda and saddam...when intel said they weren't sure it existed, they were told to "find a link"...bottom line is from what i've heard, we were looking for any way possible to implicate saddam, even if it meant bending (or breaking) the truth

i realize this is not the best evidence, but i figured i'd bring it up, since the sources are reputable

ed

No offense Elk, but that is a bunch of BS.? The fact is they found links with Al Qaeda, but never once did they say that Suddam was part of 911.? Not once.? No matter how many times people try to level these charges against the administration, they flat out arent true.

david kay would disagree with you

ed

[gnrvrrule]

"Conservative biased rag" is a bit strong.  Obviously, the 9/11 Report is a well-research report with facts and extensive research.  That does not mean, however, that this claim by this author cannot be true.  Personally, I honestly do not know exactly what to believe.  I've yet to read the 9/11 report or this other book, so I can't comment completely on it.  But I do know that calling somone "nuts" (as SLCPUNK did, not you elikovich) for believing there was a connection is a bit strong.  This is a highly debatable issue that may be impossible to completely figure it out.  I've heard reports that there were connections and now that they're were not.  I think this author's finding is too much of a coincidence to be untrue, but who knows. 

[SLCPUNK]

Nightrain, you're right, there is a book that shows the links between the two.? And here is a link that has the book title and its description: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/152lndzv.asp

This should make you non-believers doubt yourselves.? These are facts by a political science professor who did extensive research.? So, next time, SLCPUNK, why don't you stop calling people "nuts" when someone disagrees with you?? This is why debates and conversations get nowhere.? People like you start personally attacking others with names and crap and that gets nothing done.? I believe this information is more than a coincidence: this shows there was at least some link between Saddam and al Qaeda.? You said there are no links;? you're minus one on that one so far.

First of all don't stick your nose in my posts intended for other people.

Second I have more than once given links to sources saying there was no link. They are back in all my posts. Night train knows this and has read these posts. He chooses to ignore them and says "oh there was a link".

Mind your own business boy, and if get your head out of the sand, read my posts for a change. Quit scanning quickly through posts just so you can rush to your reply and tell us we are all wrong. I have made a shitload of UNDISPUTED POSTS on the MM 9-11 thread. Go look at that thread and take me head on with those FACTS.

[SLCPUNK]

"Iraq has never threatened nor been implicated in any attack against U.S. territory and the CIA has reported no Iraqi-sponsored attacks against American interests since 1991." Stephen Zunes, "An Annotated Overview of the Foreign Policy Segments of President George W. Bush?s State of the Union Address," Foreign Policy In Focus, January 29, 2003. Segments of President George W. Bush?s State of the Union Address," Foreign Policy In Focus, January 29, 2003

[SLCPUNK]

White House 'delayed 9-11 report'
By Shaun Waterman
UPI Homeland and National Security Editor

Published 7/25/2003 8:11 PM

WASHINGTON, July 25 (UPI) -- A member of the independent commission set up to investigate the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks has accused the Bush administration of deliberately delaying publication of an earlier congressional inquiry into the attacks.

Former Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga., told United Press International that the White House did not want the report made public before launching military action in Iraq. He said the administration feared publication might undermine the administration's case for war, which was based in part on the allegation that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had supported Osama bin Laden -- and the attendant possibility that Iraq might supply al-Qaida with weapons of mass destruction.

"The administration sold the connection (between Iraq and al-Qaida) to scare the pants off the American people and justify the war," said Cleland. "There's no connection, and that's been confirmed by some of bin Laden's terrorist followers ... What you've seen here is the manipulation of intelligence for political ends."

Cleland accused the administration of deliberately delaying the report's release to avoid having its case for war undercut.

"The reason this report was delayed for so long -- deliberately opposed at first, then slow-walked after it was created -- is that the administration wanted to get the war in Iraq in and over ... before (it) came out," he said.

"Had this report come out in January like it should have done, we would have known these things before the war in Iraq, which would not have suited the administration."

The congressional inquiry, by members of both the House and Senate intelligence committees, was launched in February 2002 amid growing concerns that failures by U.S. intelligence had allowed 19 al-Qaida members to enter the United States, hijack four airliners and kill almost 3,000 people.

Although the committee completed its work at the end of last year, publication of the report has been delayed by what one committee staffer called "vigorous discussion" with administration officials over which parts of it could be declassified.

The 800-page report -- 50 pages of which were censored to protect still-classified information -- was published Thursday.

It is a litany of poor management, bad communication and flawed policy that enabled the 19 hijackers to carry out their deadly plan. Failures by the CIA, the FBI and the super-secret National Security Agency are catalogued.

Many of the censored pages concern the question of support for al-Qaida from foreign countries. Anonymous officials have told news organizations that much of the still-classified material concerns Saudi Arabia, and the question of whether Saudi officials -- perhaps acting as rogue agents -- assisted the 19 men, 15 of whom were Saudis.

Inquiry staff would not comment to UPI about the issue, but one did say that the section contained references to "more one country."

Prior to the report's publication, a person who had read it told UPI that it showed U.S. intelligence agencies had no evidence linking Iraq to the 9-11 attacks or to al-Qaida. In fact, the issue is not addressed in the declassified sections of the report.

One other person who has seen the classified version of the document told UPI subsequently that the Iraq issue is not addressed in the still-classified section, either. "They didn't ask that question," the person said.


http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030723-064812-9491r

[SLCPUNK]

The original effort by the White House was to limit the scope of the 9/11 investigation to only two congressional committees. ?President Bush asked House and Senate leaders yesterday to allow only two congressional committees to investigate the government's response to the events of Sept. 11, officials said.? Mike Allen, ?Bush Seeks To Restrict Hill Probes Of Sept. 11; Intelligence Panels' Secrecy Is Favored,? Washington Post, January 30, 2002. 

?I, of course, want the Congress to take a look at what took place prior to Sept. 11.  But since it deals with such sensitive information, in my judgment, it?s best for the ongoing war against terror that the investigation be done in the intelligence committees,? President Bush said. David Rosenbaum, ?Bush Bucks Tradition on Investigation,? The New York Times, May 26, 2002.


?Angry lawmakers [McCain, Pelosi, Lieberman] accused White House Friday of secretly trying to derail creation of an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks while professing to support the idea.? Helen Dewar, ?Lawmakers Accuse Bush of 9/11 Deceit,? Los Angeles Times, October 13, 2002.

[SLCPUNK]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Bluntly contradicting the Bush administration, the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks reported Wednesday there was "no credible evidence" that Saddam Hussein had ties with al-Qaeda.


In a chilling report that sketched the history of Osama bin Laden's network, the commission said his far-flung training camps were "apparently quite good." Terrorists-to-be were encouraged to "think creatively about ways to commit mass murder," it added.


As devastating as the Sept. 11 attacks were, the commission disclosed that an earlier, more ambitious plan called for hijacking 10 planes instead of four. The target list for such a strike ranged from coast to coast, including the CIA and FBI headquarters as well as unidentified nuclear plants, and tall buildings in California and Washington state.


Bin Laden made overtures to Saddam for assistance, the commission said, as he did with leaders in Sudan, Iran, Afghanistan and elsewhere in his drive to build an Islamic army.


While Saddam dispatched a senior Iraqi intelligence official to Sudan to meet with bin Laden in 1994, the commission said it had not turned up evidence of a "collaborative relationship."


The Bush administration has long claimed links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, and cited them as one reason for last year's invasion of Iraq.


On Monday, Vice President Dick Cheney said in a speech that the Iraqi dictator "had long established ties with al-Qaeda."


President Bush has said there is no evidence that Saddam was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks.


But critics have alleged the administration has left a contrary impression with the public. Last fall, Cheney referred to what he called a credible but unconfirmed intelligence report that Mohamed Atta, one of the Sept. 11 hijackers, had met at least once in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official a few months before the attacks.


The panel report said that meeting never happened.


The report prompted a fresh attack on Bush from Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate. "The administration misled America. The administration reached too far," the Massachusetts Democrat told Detroit radio station WDET in an interview.


The bipartisan commission issued its findings as it embarked on two days of public hearings into the worst terrorist attacks in American history.

[SLCPUNK]

How much more do you need?

How can you keep blurbing this out over and OVER and still believe it?

There was no connection! Hence...you are nuts if you believe there was. There is none!

Bush tried to block the 9-11 hearings because he knew what they would find. He knew good and goddamn well that they would claim 'no link'.

(This is where you say something like "well my sources are better than your sources". That is what I have come to expect from this 'debate' at this point. Crap like this.)


Don't get your panties in a wad if somebody questions your sanity here. I must wonder myself if any rational person would push away the findings of a 9-11 report? Is that rational thinking? Is it rational to think that violating the Geneva Convention (on a few different levels) was justified? Is it rational to believe that we have really made our nation safer with this war? Is it rational to believe that we have not recruited more Islamic wack-jobs from all this? Is it rational to believe we have improved our standing in the international community with this? Is it rational to ignore the fact that Bush's corporate buddies are making huge profits from this war?

So yea, you are nuts, if you STILL believe there is a connection between two.

[gnrvrrule]

Bin Laden made overtures to Saddam for assistance, the commission said, as he did with leaders in Sudan, Iran, Afghanistan and elsewhere in his drive to build an Islamic army.

I view that as a connection.  You can say it's not, but I say it is.  I'm not saying they're best friends.  I'm saying that there was some sort of connection, large or small.  That's all I have to say on that.

[axls_locomotive]

Bin Laden made overtures to Saddam for assistance, the commission said, as he did with leaders in Sudan, Iran, Afghanistan and elsewhere in his drive to build an Islamic army.

I view that as a connection.  You can say it's not, but I say it is.  I'm not saying they're best friends.  I'm saying that there was some sort of connection, large or small.  That's all I have to say on that.

did you forget to read this bit? no connection at all

"While Saddam dispatched a senior Iraqi intelligence official to Sudan to meet with bin Laden in 1994, the commission said it had not turned up evidence of a "collaborative relationship."

[GnRNightrain]

Come on Jarmo your much smarter than that.? Your analogy is no where near the same.? The war on terror, terrorists and Al Qaeda arent limited to those people (and the countries they were from) in the 911 attacks.?

It was a joke, I even put a smiley after it.?

Sorry, I missed it

Well, you don't think it's interesting that none of them were from Iraq yet, Iraq is the enemy?




/jarmo

That was never the argument for the war.  If North Korea had ties to islamic terrorist networks it wouldnt  matter that none of North Korea is Muslim or arab.  What matters is they might give their weapons to the terrorists.

[sandman]

the TRUE reason we went to war is because saddam ignored several Resolutions ordered by the UN. The UN demanded numerous times for him to disarm and show us what he had. and he refused.

now think about that....why was he refusing?

with that in mind, immediately after 9/11, bush had to attack iraq.

kerry still says that even knowing EVERYTHING, he still would vote to invade. everyone was shocked he admitted that.

if saddam had hit us with a chemical weapon, everyone would have blamed bush for having the intelligence and not doing anything about it.

[Prometheus]

Jason my man here is a quote i found wandwering into my e-mail acct. and ya know what I really think you will like it

"You cannot cripple an opponent by outwitting him in a political debate,
You can do it only by following Lenin's injunction: 'In political
conflicts,  the goal is not to refute your opponent's argument, but to
wipe him from the face of the earth.'"
 --The Art of Political War (4thReichKlan Political Manual)


hahaha

[SLCPUNK]

the TRUE reason we went to war is because saddam ignored several Resolutions ordered by the UN. The UN demanded numerous times for him to disarm and show us what he had. and he refused.

now think about that....why was he refusing?

with that in mind, immediately after 9/11, bush had to attack iraq.

kerry still says that even knowing EVERYTHING, he still would vote to invade. everyone was shocked he admitted that.

if saddam had hit us with a chemical weapon, everyone would have blamed bush for having the intelligence and not doing anything about it.

haha, so even if Bush was correct in the way he went to war (which he certainly was not, rather he was in violation of Geneva Convention) he still was wrong!!!

Still wrong. Because there were no weapons. So his intelligence needs a complete overhaul and the people who failed America and led us into a war, that violated international law, should be fired! Including George W. Bush! Bush took that intelligence and used it as a reason to take us to war. As a leader, he should be impeached for this. It was an irrational, foolish, expensive and mostly important: deadly choice.


Almost a thousand of our sons, daughters, cousins, fathers, mothers dead because of a President who took us to war because of "WMD". WMD was the first line. Then when that looked weak he took it to "Liberate Iraq". LOL gimmie a break already. Talk about flip flop. That guy was busy hopping from one foot to the next trying to keep it going.

Bush had to act....on Osama Bin Laden. Not Iraq. While he was playing grab ass with all his Saudi connections, and lining up corporate contracts for "rebuilding Iraq", Osama was strolling into Pakistan.

[Mr Cowbell ?]

the TRUE reason we went to war is because saddam ignored several Resolutions ordered by the UN. The UN demanded numerous times for him to disarm and show us what he had. and he refused.

now think about that....why was he refusing?

with that in mind, immediately after 9/11, bush had to attack iraq.

kerry still says that even knowing EVERYTHING, he still would vote to invade. everyone was shocked he admitted that.

if saddam had hit us with a chemical weapon, everyone would have blamed bush for having the intelligence and not doing anything about it.

haha, so even if Bush was correct in the way he went to war (which he certainly was not, rather he was in violation of Geneva Convention) he still was wrong!!!

Still wrong. Because there were no weapons. So his intelligence needs a complete overhaul and the people who failed America and led us into a war, that violated international law, should be fired! Including George W. Bush! Bush took that intelligence and used it as a reason to take us to war. As a leader, he should be impeached for this. It was an irrational, foolish, expensive and mostly important: deadly choice.


Almost a thousand of our sons, daughters, cousins, fathers, mothers dead because of a President who took us to war because of "WMD". WMD was the first line. Then when that looked weak he took it to "Liberate Iraq". LOL gimmie a break already. Talk about flip flop. That guy was busy hopping from one foot to the next trying to keep it going.

Bush had to act....on Osama Bin Laden. Not Iraq. While he was playing grab ass with all his Saudi connections, and lining up corporate contracts for "rebuilding Iraq", Osama was strolling into Pakistan.

No SLCPUNK you are a little off he had 3 reasons to go into Iraq.

1) WMD
2) THey believed He was related to the 9/11
3) Liberate Iraq

So far he's failed 2 of the 3 and stirred up a civil war. We will have soldiers in Iraq in the year 2050. Its just the way it is. Soon as we pull out the best militiant group will take power and most of the strongest groups in Iraq hate us for invading them. Needless to say this world isnt a safer place for Americans. Anyone who believes we are safer now needs to go talk to the families of the 1,000 people who have lost their lives, if this keeps up we could loose 3,000 soldiers easily in the next 5 years over there and surpass the 9/11 # of victims. So no one can sit there and say the US is any safer with Saddam gone.

[SLCPUNK]

Jason my man here is a quote i found wandwering into my e-mail acct. and ya know what I really think you will like it

"You cannot cripple an opponent by outwitting him in a political debate,
You can do it only by following Lenin's injunction: 'In political
conflicts,? the goal is not to refute your opponent's argument, but to
wipe him from the face of the earth.'"
 --The Art of Political War (4thReichKlan Political Manual)


hahaha

LOL.....well.....

There may be some truth to that.

Call me stubborn.....

[SLCPUNK]

Bin Laden made overtures to Saddam for assistance, the commission said, as he did with leaders in Sudan, Iran, Afghanistan and elsewhere in his drive to build an Islamic army.

I view that as a connection.? You can say it's not, but I say it is.? I'm not saying they're best friends.? I'm saying that there was some sort of connection, large or small.? That's all I have to say on that.

haha, you crack me up! Take my sources that prove you wrong and try to use  (part of )them against me to show me you are right? Man....FOUL!!!!

You might of found a connection (in fantasy land, where certain people can never admit they were wrong) but they did not!

While Saddam dispatched a senior Iraqi intelligence official to Sudan to meet with bin Laden in 1994, the commission said it had not turned up evidence of a "collaborative relationship."

[SLCPUNK]

the TRUE reason we went to war is because saddam ignored several Resolutions ordered by the UN. The UN demanded numerous times for him to disarm and show us what he had. and he refused.

now think about that....why was he refusing?

with that in mind, immediately after 9/11, bush had to attack iraq.

kerry still says that even knowing EVERYTHING, he still would vote to invade. everyone was shocked he admitted that.

if saddam had hit us with a chemical weapon, everyone would have blamed bush for having the intelligence and not doing anything about it.

haha, so even if Bush was correct in the way he went to war (which he certainly was not, rather he was in violation of Geneva Convention) he still was wrong!!!

Still wrong. Because there were no weapons. So his intelligence needs a complete overhaul and the people who failed America and led us into a war, that violated international law, should be fired! Including George W. Bush! Bush took that intelligence and used it as a reason to take us to war. As a leader, he should be impeached for this. It was an irrational, foolish, expensive and mostly important: deadly choice.


Almost a thousand of our sons, daughters, cousins, fathers, mothers dead because of a President who took us to war because of "WMD". WMD was the first line. Then when that looked weak he took it to "Liberate Iraq". LOL gimmie a break already. Talk about flip flop. That guy was busy hopping from one foot to the next trying to keep it going.

Bush had to act....on Osama Bin Laden. Not Iraq. While he was playing grab ass with all his Saudi connections, and lining up corporate contracts for "rebuilding Iraq", Osama was strolling into Pakistan.

No SLCPUNK you are a little off he had 3 reasons to go into Iraq.

1) WMD
2) THey believed He was related to the 9/11
3) Liberate Iraq

So far he's failed 2 of the 3 and stirred up a civil war. We will have soldiers in Iraq in the year 2050. Its just the way it is. Soon as we pull out the best militiant group will take power and most of the strongest groups in Iraq hate us for invading them. Needless to say this world isnt a safer place for Americans. Anyone who believes we are safer now needs to go talk to the families of the 1,000 people who have lost their lives, if this keeps up we could loose 3,000 soldiers easily in the next 5 years over there and surpass the 9/11 # of victims. So no one can sit there and say the US is any safer with Saddam gone.

Well lets see:

4)? Secure corporate contracts to overbill the American tax payers and make corporate fat cats billions of dollars. The place is blown up on taxpayer money, only to be rebuilt with tax payer money. The winner? Haliburton and Carlyle group, and various defense contractors.

5)? Secure one of the largest oil reserves worldwide.

6)? Keeps all the Bush's domestic failures off the radar. Except for people who think the medicare "plan" was a something wonderful. Hell even my conservative Mother-in-law thought it sucked.

7)? Supported countries $$ wise that support our 'war' in Iraq. Poland was given 6 BILLION in taxpayer money. Poland then turns around and buys that amount of jets from Lockheed-Martin. Nice corporate contract there.

? Christian right (already planned to get Saddam before 9-11) needed to weaken? the Arab world to strengthen Sharon (Israel).  'On January 12, Bush acknowledged' "that he was mapping preparations to topple Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein as soon as he took office." (Source: Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Jan. 13, 2004).

9)? War keeps (hopefully) a nation in line and if that fails he can just use the color coded "terror" alerts in the meantime.

10) There is more, but I'm too tired right now.


Right now Iraq is a complete mess. It is really on the verge, if not engulfed in civil war. We have no exit strategy either....


"Mission Accomplished!"

[Metallifuck]

Ever heard of something called culture?
GW Bush hasn't obviously.

back that up.... I think he is a very cultured man...[/i]


Haha! That is golden.

[GnRNightrain]

I wasnt sure what thread to post this is, so I thought I would revive this one.

Via the right coast blogspot

Iraqi WMDs Reconsidered
By Ilya Somin

There's a lot to criticize about the Bush Administration's conduct of the Iraq War. But perhaps no other problem has been as damaging politically as the failure to find WMDs. As prominent liberal blogger Joshua Micah Marshall, puts it, "If a chamber of horrors had been found in Iraq's WMD factories, Americans would have judged the war a success even if the aftermath would have been as bloody and chaotic as it is today. For most, the necessity of the invasion would have been vindicated." For Marshall and many others, the failure to find WMDs has discredited what they see as the main rationale for the war.

This widely accepted conventional ignores two critical facts:

1) US forces DID find an active WMD development program that posed a serious longterm threat, even assuming there were no actual weapons stockpiles.

2) WMDs have in fact been found in Iraq, though in far smaller quantitites than was expected.

Let's take point 1 first. David Kay, head of the US government Iraq Survey Group created to investigate Iraqi WMD programs after the war, testified to Congress that "We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002." I won't go through all the details here, but see the link above for some of them. There is much more in the ISG report submitted to Congress in January, which unfortunately I have not been able to find online. The bottom line: Iraq was working on a wide enough range of WMDs that Kay - while fully acknowledging that the prewar intelligence was seriously "mistaken" - concluded that Saddam was "far more dangerous than even we anticipated."

Why should we care about WMD programs that had not (yet) been turned into actual weapons stockpiles? There are many reasons, but perhaps the most important is the fact that they could be turned into actual weapons whenever Saddam found it convenient to do so - especially if, as was likely to occur, the UN sanctions regime began to weaken under pressure from France and Russia. Furthermore, even simple R&D could potentially be transferred to terrorists in ways that would make it easier for them to make their own weapons. An active WMD program that can be converted into weapons in relatively short order is only marginally less dangerous than an already existing stockpile of WMDs.

Ironically (in view of Bush's prewar belief that the actual stockpiles were there), the point at which a rogue state has a WMD program but few or no actual WMDs may well be the best time to attack it, since an attack after WMDs have already been deployed creates a serious risk that the enemy will use them.

Point 2 is also significant. Although it was only briefly reported by the media, Coalition forces did in fact WMDs in Iraq on two separate occasions this year: In May, US troops found an artillery shell filled with sarin gas, and in June Polish forces found two shells filled with the deadlier cyclosarin. Even relatively small amounts of these nerve agents can be used to kill large numbers of people. More importantly - while the jury is still out, it is difficult to believe that Saddam's prewar stockpile was actually limited to these three weapons. If you were the Iraqi dictator, would you really get rid of all your other WMDs, but keep three artillery shells? Wouldn't you rather keep your last remaining cache of sarin (if it really was the last) in a more easily usable and/or more difficult to detect form?

The evidence from the ISG and the sarin finds by no means refutes all the many arguments against the war. But it does punch a big hole in the claim most often heard from war critics: that the failure to find WMDs shows that Saddam's WMD program was not a real threat.

The Bush administration bought into flawed intelligence and failed to adequately consider the possibility that we would find WMD programs in Iraq but few or no actual weapons. They deserve at least some of the resulting political damage. Unfortunately, however, there are far larger issues at stake than Bush's reputation, and that is why it is essential we put the WMD issue in proper perspective.