Scott McClellan's new book on his tenure at the White House.

[SBrad001]

So what's your take on this? McClellan worked with Bush Jr since his time in Texas and now he writes this 'kiss'n'tell' book about his time in the White House. Some of these excerpts are horribly inflammatory, but if half his accusations are true, what does that say about GWB?

Here's a link. . .
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/05/mcclellans-grav.html

[ECKSJAY]

I'm shocked.

:anon:

[sleeperjeeper]

Not to mention that Bush's strategy for fighting forested fires was to rent national forests to lumber companies. If there are no trees, there will be less of a chance of a forest fire. Gotta love that logic.

I have long advocated that election candidates should were the logos of their sponsers like nascar drivers do. That way at least you know who your voting for.

[Darky]

Oh Noes!!!

So the president wanted to go to war "to transform the Middle East to ensure an enduring peace in the region"? Heinous! The bastard!! Come on folks...is this the best you can do in your attempts to come out with new reasons to justify your hatred of Bush? Is it such a bad thing to want to see peace brought into the Middle East?
As far as the blogger's comment on not having WMDs, the rest of the western world for the most part believed they were there. The Democrats believed it along with the Republicans. They knew it before Bush was ever in office. Bill Clinton knew it. His wife said it as well. If you want to use that, you'll have to indict more than just George W Bush.
I'm not trying to write this new book off as just liberal rhetoric or anything, I mean we don't even know what it said except for a couple excerpts taken by the blogger to prove his point.
:)

[ECKSJAY]

As far as the blogger's comment on not having WMDs, the rest of the western world for the most part believed they were there. The Democrats believed it along with the Republicans. They knew it before Bush was ever in office. Bill Clinton knew it. His wife said it as well. If you want to use that, you'll have to indict more than just George W Bush.


Sooo, where are they then? :anon:

[Darky]

Don't know, Saddam never let the inspectors in to search for em.

[ECKSJAY]

Don't know, Saddam never let the inspectors in to search for em.

But that's why we went, right? Or was it because Iraq was tied to 9/11? Or did they have a hand in a deal in Sudan for enriched uranium? Saddam had tea with Bin Laden?

It's all so confusing. :cry:

[Darky]

All I'm pointing out is if we take the word of this guy, then sure, maybe Bush mislead us into war with Iraq, but not for the reasons everyone always claims...
We could've gone to war to find and neutralize those WMDs only to get there and find out Saddam had already moved them or maybe he never had em and was just bluffing. Maybe he used up all of his mustard gas on the Kurds, who knows?

[ECKSJAY]

All I'm pointing out is if we take the word of this guy, then sure, maybe Bush mislead us into war with Iraq, but not for the reasons everyone always claims...
We could've gone to war to find and neutralize those WMDs only to get there and find out Saddam had already moved them or maybe he never had em and was just bluffing. Maybe he used up all of his mustard gas on the Kurds, who knows?

lol, Curveball

:roflmao:

[Darky]

.;)

[5-90]

Say what you will - I'd still rather have eight years of Bush than four years of Gore.

Bush Junior may not have been the best man for the job, but I'm inclined to think he was the best available at the time.

I do worry about who we're going to end up with next. Pity there isn't a "none of the above" option for President and for Congress/Senate. Why is it the phrase "baby with a hammer" comes to mind when I think about anything these clowns are doing? Throw in all the petty partisan bickering, and I honestly think all of them should be recalled.

Perhaps we should get the next crop from mental hospitals around the country (like Atascadero out here, or Logansport back home.) You'd be hard pressed to convince me that 95% of pols (or better!) shouldn't be put into mental wards anyhow...

"If you do what you've always done you'll always get what you always got. Erm, would that be nothin'?" -Steve Tyler, Get A Grip

[ehall]

But that's why we went, right? Or was it because Iraq was tied to 9/11? Or did they have a hand in a deal in Sudan for enriched uranium? Saddam had tea with Bin Laden?

It's all so confusing. :cry:
The facts are pretty simple to people who are able and willing to absorb them. Some people think it's cute to be ignorant though.

In simple terms, the consensus remains that the greatest threat to the US is that terrorist groups will obtain WMD capabilities and use them, and limiting the ability of hostile state sponsors is still the best way to reduce that threat. Given that, after 9/11 it was simply unacceptable to leave a genocidal tyrant in power who had engaged in direct attacks on US citizens and interests, who had used chemical and biological weapons in attacks on his enemies and his own people, and who had worked with Al Qaeda groups in the past.

What part of that is confusing to you?

There have also been numerous documented connections between Saddam's Iraq and Al Qaeda and aligned groups. That is not the same as material cooperation between Saddam and Bin Laden directly on attacks against US interests (one of the leftard favorite new goalposts). But you know, Saddam did use AQ groups like Abu Sayyaf in the Phillipines to attack US citizens and interests, and according to media reports during Clinton's presidency there were offers of cooperation that were unfulfilled. watch this ABC News report (http://www.mediaresearch.org/rm/cyber/2004/binladen061704/segment1.ram). Now that same media acts all surprised that anybody thinks there were any connections at all...

As for WMD there is the cease-fire agreement when Saddam was forced out of Kuwait (http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm), which demanded two key points:

8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:

(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities;

9. Decides, for the implementation of paragraph 8 above, the following:

(a) Iraq shall submit to the Secretary-General, within fifteen days of the adoption of the present resolution, a declaration of the locations, amounts and types of all items specified in paragraph 8 and agree to urgent, on-site inspection as specified below;

Pretty simple--they had fifteen days to declare their stocks, and to give up all production capabilities. Instead they strung out the inspectors for twelve years. Even at the last, Hans Blix himself tripped over chemical warheads on his last inspection (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/28/1043534034886.html?oneclick=true):

The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions.

Okay they did not find chem-bio ICMBs full of miniature jihadists aimed at NYC that the leftards have now set as the only acceptable threshold. But they did find loads of "related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities" which were not only prohibited by the cease-fire agreement, but are at root of the risk against us (that Saddam would provide the material and/or know-how to terrorists whom he had worked with in the past, not that he would attack us directly).

Seems pretty straightforward to me anyway. As to your confusion, it's not much of a surprise that you don't have any answers when you have not even demonstrated an ability to get the question right.

[Darky]

The facts are pretty simple to people who are able and willing to absorb them. Some people think it's cute to be ignorant though.

In simple terms, the consensus remains that the greatest threat to the US is that terrorist groups will obtain WMD capabilities and use them, and limiting the ability of hostile state sponsors is still the best way to reduce that threat. Given that, after 9/11 it was simply unacceptable to leave a genocidal tyrant in power who had engaged in direct attacks on US citizens and interests, who had used chemical and biological weapons in attacks on his enemies and his own people, and who had worked with Al Qaeda groups in the past.

What part of that is confusing to you?

There have also been numerous documented connections between Saddam's Iraq and Al Qaeda and aligned groups. That is not the same as material cooperation between Saddam and Bin Laden directly on attacks against US interests (one of the leftard favorite new goalposts). But you know, Saddam did use AQ groups like Abu Sayyaf in the Phillipines to attack US citizens and interests, and according to media reports during Clinton's presidency there were offers of cooperation that were unfulfilled. watch this ABC News report (http://www.mediaresearch.org/rm/cyber/2004/binladen061704/segment1.ram). Now that same media acts all surprised that anybody thinks there were any connections at all...

As for WMD there is the cease-fire agreement when Saddam was forced out of Kuwait (http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm), which demanded two key points:

8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:

(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities;

9. Decides, for the implementation of paragraph 8 above, the following:

(a) Iraq shall submit to the Secretary-General, within fifteen days of the adoption of the present resolution, a declaration of the locations, amounts and types of all items specified in paragraph 8 and agree to urgent, on-site inspection as specified below;

Pretty simple--they had fifteen days to declare their stocks, and to give up all production capabilities. Instead they strung out the inspectors for twelve years. Even at the last, Hans Blix himself tripped over chemical warheads on his last inspection (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/28/1043534034886.html?oneclick=true):

The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions.

Okay they did not find chem-bio ICMBs full of miniature jihadists aimed at NYC that the leftards have now set as the only acceptable threshold. But they did find loads of "related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities" which were not only prohibited by the cease-fire agreement, but are at root of the risk against us (that Saddam would provide the material and/or know-how to terrorists whom he had worked with in the past, not that he would attack us directly).

Seems pretty straightforward to me anyway. As to your confusion, it's not much of a surprise that you don't have any answers when you have not even demonstrated an ability to get the question right.
Well, you summarized that pretty well! :clap:

[ECKSJAY]

The facts are pretty simple to people who are able and willing to absorb them. Some people think it's cute to be ignorant though.

In simple terms, the consensus remains that the greatest threat to the US is that terrorist groups will obtain WMD capabilities and use them, and limiting the ability of hostile state sponsors is still the best way to reduce that threat. Given that, after 9/11 it was simply unacceptable to leave a genocidal tyrant in power who had engaged in direct attacks on US citizens and interests, who had used chemical and biological weapons in attacks on his enemies and his own people, and who had worked with Al Qaeda groups in the past.

What part of that is confusing to you?

There have also been numerous documented connections between Saddam's Iraq and Al Qaeda and aligned groups. That is not the same as material cooperation between Saddam and Bin Laden directly on attacks against US interests (one of the leftard favorite new goalposts). But you know, Saddam did use AQ groups like Abu Sayyaf in the Phillipines to attack US citizens and interests, and according to media reports during Clinton's presidency there were offers of cooperation that were unfulfilled. watch this ABC News report (http://www.mediaresearch.org/rm/cyber/2004/binladen061704/segment1.ram). Now that same media acts all surprised that anybody thinks there were any connections at all...

As for WMD there is the cease-fire agreement when Saddam was forced out of Kuwait (http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm), which demanded two key points:

8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:

(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities;

9. Decides, for the implementation of paragraph 8 above, the following:

(a) Iraq shall submit to the Secretary-General, within fifteen days of the adoption of the present resolution, a declaration of the locations, amounts and types of all items specified in paragraph 8 and agree to urgent, on-site inspection as specified below;

Pretty simple--they had fifteen days to declare their stocks, and to give up all production capabilities. Instead they strung out the inspectors for twelve years. Even at the last, Hans Blix himself tripped over chemical warheads on his last inspection (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/28/1043534034886.html?oneclick=true):

The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions.

Okay they did not find chem-bio ICMBs full of miniature jihadists aimed at NYC that the leftards have now set as the only acceptable threshold. But they did find loads of "related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities" which were not only prohibited by the cease-fire agreement, but are at root of the risk against us (that Saddam would provide the material and/or know-how to terrorists whom he had worked with in the past, not that he would attack us directly).

Seems pretty straightforward to me anyway. As to your confusion, it's not much of a surprise that you don't have any answers when you have not even demonstrated an ability to get the question right.

OMFG

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c370/ecksjay/misc%20stuff/b179a362.gif

It was sarcasm, Mr. Internetsizseriousbizniss

:roflmao:

[OBXJ]

So what's your take on this? McClellan worked with Bush Jr since his time in Texas and now he writes this 'kiss'n'tell' book about his time in the White House. Some of these excerpts are horribly inflammatory, but if half his accusations are true, what does that say about GWB?

Here's a link. . .
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/05/mcclellans-grav.html


I would say that the guy is unemployed and looking to sell a few million copies of his book to left-wing bush haters..

ironic thing is I wonder how many trees are going to be cut down to make the books that all the left-wing bush haters are going to buy and read and recommend to their friends so they can say that that the read the book and that even W's own buddies have turned on him... :paperwork

[sleeperjeeper]

Say what you will - I'd still rather have eight years of Bush than four years of Gore.

Bush Junior may not have been the best man for the job, but I'm inclined to think he was the best available at the time.

I do worry about who we're going to end up with next. Pity there isn't a "none of the above" option for President and for Congress/Senate. Why is it the phrase "baby with a hammer" comes to mind when I think about anything these clowns are doing? Throw in all the petty partisan bickering, and I honestly think all of them should be recalled.

Perhaps we should get the next crop from mental hospitals around the country (like Atascadero out here, or Logansport back home.) You'd be hard pressed to convince me that 95% of pols (or better!) shouldn't be put into mental wards anyhow...

"If you do what you've always done you'll always get what you always got. Erm, would that be nothin'?" -Steve Tyler, Get A Grip

You would rather have a oil mongering liar rather than the man who recently won the nobel peace prize?

And by the way, Bush knew there were no WMD's, we knew there were no WMD's. The whole war was about Oil. Irag being one of the largest oil producing nations, and the Bush Dynasty being one of the biggest oil families in the US. Not to mention that Bush only won the election by cheating, which happened in the same state that is brother was governer. Did you know that the net worth of his daddy went up about about 60 billion withing one year of declaring war? Meanwhile Bush took our budget which was in the black for the first time if probably 30+ years, and put us in the biggest deficit in our history. In case you don't know what that means, it means he sold the our county to china. I don't need any more reasons to hate bush. I have plenty. As for the writer of the book. He is just a punk trying to get his 15 minutes of fame.

[buschwhaked]

The facts are pretty simple to people who are able and willing to absorb them. Some people think it's cute to be ignorant though.

In simple terms, the consensus remains that the greatest threat to the US is that terrorist groups will obtain WMD capabilities and use them, and limiting the ability of hostile state sponsors is still the best way to reduce that threat.

Yes it is the greatest threat, but I guess that means we should invade and set a long term occupation of Iran, Syria, North Korea, and Pakistan as well? Hubris much? Guess we need to reinstate the draft. There are more comprehensive measures that can be taken in order to prevent the spread of WMD. I'm not saying we should remove military action from the table of options but it should never be the first.

Given that, after 9/11 it was simply unacceptable to leave a genocidal tyrant in power who had engaged in direct attacks on US citizens and interests, who had used chemical and biological weapons in attacks on his enemies and his own people, and who had worked with Al Qaeda groups in the past.

What part of that is confusing to you?

There have also been numerous documented connections between Saddam's Iraq and Al Qaeda and aligned groups. That is not the same as material cooperation between Saddam and Bin Laden directly on attacks against US interests (one of the leftard favorite new goalposts). But you know, Saddam did use AQ groups like Abu Sayyaf in the Phillipines to attack US citizens and interests, and according to media reports during Clinton's presidency there were offers of cooperation that were unfulfilled. watch this ABC News report (http://www.mediaresearch.org/rm/cyber/2004/binladen061704/segment1.ram). Now that same media acts all surprised that anybody thinks there were any connections at all...

There were no direct connections between Al Qaeda and Saddam. Saddam viewed them as a threat to his power. All three terrorists listed in that group were never once affiliated with Bin Laden. They were affiliated with the PLO led by Yassir Arafat. Using the "OMG he talked to them once before (aka 7 degrees of seperation)" logic we should invade Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Germany, Greece, Tunisia, France, Great Britian, UAE, Qatar, Israel, as well as Iraq. All were nations that hosted Yassir Arafat and the PLO during his lifetime. Are those terrorists nice guys that shouldn't go to jail? Hell no, but I say all this to point out the logical fallacy created by this kind of foreign policy.

As for WMD there is the cease-fire agreement when Saddam was forced out of Kuwait (http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm), which demanded two key points:

8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:

(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities;

9. Decides, for the implementation of paragraph 8 above, the following:

(a) Iraq shall submit to the Secretary-General, within fifteen days of the adoption of the present resolution, a declaration of the locations, amounts and types of all items specified in paragraph 8 and agree to urgent, on-site inspection as specified below;

Pretty simple--they had fifteen days to declare their stocks, and to give up all production capabilities. Instead they strung out the inspectors for twelve years. Even at the last, Hans Blix himself tripped over chemical warheads on his last inspection (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/28/1043534034886.html?oneclick=true):

The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions.

Okay they did not find chem-bio ICMBs full of miniature jihadists aimed at NYC that the leftards have now set as the only acceptable threshold. But they did find loads of "related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities" which were not only prohibited by the cease-fire agreement, but are at root of the risk against us (that Saddam would provide the material and/or know-how to terrorists whom he had worked with in the past, not that he would attack us directly).

Seems pretty straightforward to me anyway. As to your confusion, it's not much of a surprise that you don't have any answers when you have not even demonstrated an ability to get the question right.

About the UN: How hypocritical does it look for us to enforce "international law" without following it ourselves? We chose to enforce the resolution without going through the neccessary steps as required by "international law" to invade another nation-state. That argument doesn't hold water as well.

They only found a "few" 122mm rockets (no accurate number given). These do not pose a threat to the United States and were subsequently confiscated by the UN. What happened to the follow up testing on those rockets? Nobody knows. In the hands of Al Qaeda? Maybe, but once again, no ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Nevertheless, they were confiscated and no more were ever found.

Why would Saddam not want to facilitate the US's desire to clear the WMD issue? The Middle East is a rough neighborhood and street cred' is everything. He was walking a tight rope after the '91 Gulf War. If he proved to the United States that he had no WMD then surrounding nations (like Iran, the Iran-Iraq war ended in an armistance, they were still techinically at war with each other) would know and he feared they would invade. His Army was essentially non-existant after the Gulf War and instead of using the illegal funds he ciphoned off from the Oil-for-Food program to rebuild it, he built more palaces. From Saddam's POV, it was either be invaded by the US or be invaded by his neighbors. So he just went into a stalling pattern that couldn't last forever.

The intelligence we used to invade Iraq was flawed from the get-go. The Bush administration chose to pick the intel reports that fit into his theories instead of drawing well thought out conclusions from the body of evidence available. Thats the equivalent of a scientist picking evidence to prove his theory instead of having the evidence speak for itself. Patient comes in with high blood pressure, cholestoral, and high heart rate. The Doctor wants the problem to be genetic. The evidence points to that when taken out whole picture. But the whole picture shows that he is in fact 300lbs overweight and hasn't seen the outdoors since the family outing to Yellowstone in the 70's. The doctor is an idiot. In my opinion, so is Bush.

The three terrorists the ABC report mentioned are cited here. Oh, BTW, Saddam had one of them off'd.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Nidal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_the_jackal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Zaidan (Abu Abbas)

[JNickel101]

But that's why we went, right? Or was it because Iraq was tied to 9/11? Or did they have a hand in a deal in Sudan for enriched uranium? Saddam had tea with Bin Laden?

It's all so confusing. :cry:

Syria. They were Russian supplied weapons, but not paid for. Once we invaded, Russia sent in troops to move the weapons out ASAP, by way of Syria.

Look at my location and ask me how I know...

[JNickel101]

You would rather have a oil mongering liar rather than the man who recently won the nobel peace prize?

And by the way, Bush knew there were no WMD's, we knew there were no WMD's. The whole war was about Oil. Irag being one of the largest oil producing nations, and the Bush Dynasty being one of the biggest oil families in the US. Not to mention that Bush only won the election by cheating, which happened in the same state that is brother was governer. Did you know that the net worth of his daddy went up about about 60 billion withing one year of declaring war? Meanwhile Bush took our budget which was in the black for the first time if probably 30+ years, and put us in the biggest deficit in our history. In case you don't know what that means, it means he sold the our county to china. I don't need any more reasons to hate bush. I have plenty. As for the writer of the book. He is just a punk trying to get his 15 minutes of fame.

Read my previous post regarding WMDs. Quit getting your "facts" from ABC/CNN/MSNBC news...

You're an idiot if you think Gore deserved a Nobel Prize.

Talk about cheating? How about Democrats registering horses and dead people to up their vote count.

60 Billion huh? Funny...didnt see him on that list with Warren Buffet or Bill Gates...hmmm...whats that list called, Forbes something....:doh:

Iraq is not one of the biggest oil producing nations - most of their oil is sour, not "light sweet crude". Its very poor quality and very difficult/expensive to refine. We get most of our oil from Canada, Mexico, Venezuela and Russia. Saudi Arabia is on that list too (#4 I believe). You'd think if it was all about oil, we'd have invaded one of those places....

Try again hippy...

[5-90]

You would rather have a oil mongering liar rather than the man who recently won the nobel peace prize?

And by the way, Bush knew there were no WMD's, we knew there were no WMD's. The whole war was about Oil. Irag being one of the largest oil producing nations, and the Bush Dynasty being one of the biggest oil families in the US. Not to mention that Bush only won the election by cheating, which happened in the same state that is brother was governer. Did you know that the net worth of his daddy went up about about 60 billion withing one year of declaring war? Meanwhile Bush took our budget which was in the black for the first time if probably 30+ years, and put us in the biggest deficit in our history. In case you don't know what that means, it means he sold the our county to china. I don't need any more reasons to hate bush. I have plenty. As for the writer of the book. He is just a punk trying to get his 15 minutes of fame.

And the Nobel has been becoming a political stalking horse of late as well. Slowly, and not very obvious, but everything is heading that way.

Let's see - Gore sez that we're causing global warming. We may be augmenting it somewhat - but note that climates tend to run in cycles, and we're on an uptick anyhow. The slope of the curve increased about 150 years ago (coincident with the Industrial Age,) but it's been on the way up. IIRC, Ice Ages follow a cycle of 35,000-40,000 years, and it's been something like 17,000-18,000 since the last one (don't hold me to those as "hard" numbers - I've been working on other things of late.)

Gore's most popular lie - he "invented" the Internet. Maybe it wasn't him what said it, but he's not come out to try to debunk it. The Internet grew out of DARPANet, after Universities were added to DARPANet to increase information content. The core of the Internet has been around since the late 1950's/early 1960's.

Gore "has the solution" to global warming. Really? Let's see him put it into place. The "solution" would require two things: 1) a global approach to a global issue. 2) It's actually a significant problem to begin with, and not an uptick in a known climatologicial cycle.

Also, Gore is a statist Democrat (worst sort,) who wishes to push the welfare state on everyone. You want to do worse than a statist Democrat? Fine - elect a Socialist - there's not much difference between the two.

I never said that W is the "best man for the job." I will go on record as saying that we haven't had a "best man for the job" in the last 50-60 years - although I envision the "best man" as a combination of Truman, Reagan, JFK, and Theodore Roosevelt - without a career in politics behind him or aspirations to political power (as I've said so often, the ideal man for wielding political power is someone who does not want it..) I don't even think I'm the best man for the job - but that wouldn't stop me from taking a good solid swing at it if the opportunity presented itself. I haven't backed down from anything in years, and I see no reason to start now. I may fail at something, but it won't be for a lack of effort.

I haven't heard of a "good" Democrat in office since JFK - at least he understood what an Armed Force was for, and how it should be used (hint: it ain't the damned Peace Corps. We already have one of those. If you want infrastructure, call them. If you want to take over, call the Army.)

Ideally, the President should be a man who:

Does not have a "career in politics" behind him.
Does not actually want the job.
Can set aside the idea of "net worth" - at least while he's in office.
Does not want to retire from politics
Has some work as a stable journey-level or master-level tradesman. If prior military, he should have some time as an enlisted man, even if he topped out an officer (don't start me with comparisions to Hitler. The best way to learn to give orders is to take them for a while.)
Can set aside the "cause" of his own ego in deference to the greater good. And can admit when he's wrong, and learn from the mistake.


Interesting that you should bring up "cheating" in the election - as I recall, techs at Votermatic (makers of the ballot-punching machines) said that the only way they could duplicate the "swinging" or "hanging" chad was to punch several ballots at once - like four or five. Also, there was an election official who got busted driving around with ballot-punchers and cases of ballots in his POV when he wasn't supposed to have them. He happened to be a registered Democrat...

If you want to blame someone for the trade deficit we have with the Pacific Rim, take it to Congress. They're responsible for passing laws governing trade - and they can work to fix the trade imbalance issue, but they haven't. It's a fairly easy fix: all we need to do is trade on a quid pro quo basis (+/- 1-2% of net value) for a few years, and that should free up the capital to pay assorted creditors off.

Hey - you want something to get fixed? Have Congress run the national budget like a household budged, instead of all this "deficit spending" rot. The President isn't responsible for the budget - the House of Representatives is. It's in the Constitution, and that makes it simple logic (why does fiscal responsibility reside in the House? Because Representatives are assigned according to population, which gives a more "equitable" distribution than two Senators per state. At least, that's the theory - but the Founders were more publicly-minded than the current batch of arseholes we have in office.)

And, if the war is about oil, why haven't we gone after Venezuela? Chavez has been making a great deal of threatening noises down there, and he's just gotten himself elected "President-for-life," so doesn't that count as a threat to supply? Hmmm....

[JNickel101]

Not to mention that Bush's strategy for fighting forested fires was to rent national forests to lumber companies. If there are no trees, there will be less of a chance of a forest fire. Gotta love that logic.

I have long advocated that election candidates should were the logos of their sponsers like nascar drivers do. That way at least you know who your voting for.

You need to go take a forestry lesson. The natural life cycle of a forest includes forest fires. In fact, your state's precious Redwoods NEED fire in order for their seed pods to open up and germinate.

Loggers go in and clear out the old growth trees - dead and/or old trees that would burn faster. Dense forest = hotter, faster moving fire. Try it sometime man - build yourself two small fires - on one, throw a young, green log. On the other, throw a bunch of dried, dead logs. See which one gets roaring and hot first.

Your simplified election advertising campaign would work great for you and your fellow Democrats! I know you people need to keep it simple so you can understand. But...maybe if you really saw the big picture and what your candidates stood for, you might think twice about voting for them.

Keep voting for the tree huggers who dont want loggers to do their job. Then bitch and complain when you have more and more fires chasing you from your Hollywood mansions.

[JNickel101]

And the Nobel has been becoming a political stalking horse of late as well. Slowly, and not very obvious, but everything is heading that way.

Let's see - Gore sez that we're causing global warming. We may be augmenting it somewhat - but note that climates tend to run in cycles, and we're on an uptick anyhow. The slope of the curve increased about 150 years ago (coincident with the Industrial Age,) but it's been on the way up. IIRC, Ice Ages follow a cycle of 35,000-40,000 years, and it's been something like 17,000-18,000 since the last one (don't hold me to those as "hard" numbers - I've been working on other things of late.)

Gore's most popular lie - he "invented" the Internet. Maybe it wasn't him what said it, but he's not come out to try to debunk it. The Internet grew out of DARPANet, after Universities were added to DARPANet to increase information content. The core of the Internet has been around since the late 1950's/early 1960's.

Gore "has the solution" to global warming. Really? Let's see him put it into place. The "solution" would require two things: 1) a global approach to a global issue. 2) It's actually a significant problem to begin with, and not an uptick in a known climatologicial cycle.

Also, Gore is a statist Democrat (worst sort,) who wishes to push the welfare state on everyone. You want to do worse than a statist Democrat? Fine - elect a Socialist - there's not much difference between the two.

I never said that W is the "best man for the job." I will go on record as saying that we haven't had a "best man for the job" in the last 50-60 years - although I envision the "best man" as a combination of Truman, Reagan, JFK, and Theodore Roosevelt - without a career in politics behind him or aspirations to political power (as I've said so often, the ideal man for wielding political power is someone who does not want it..) I don't even think I'm the best man for the job - but that wouldn't stop me from taking a good solid swing at it if the opportunity presented itself. I haven't backed down from anything in years, and I see no reason to start now. I may fail at something, but it won't be for a lack of effort.

I haven't heard of a "good" Democrat in office since JFK - at least he understood what an Armed Force was for, and how it should be used (hint: it ain't the damned Peace Corps. We already have one of those. If you want infrastructure, call them. If you want to take over, call the Army.)

Ideally, the President should be a man who:

Does not have a "career in politics" behind him.
Does not actually want the job.
Can set aside the idea of "net worth" - at least while he's in office.
Does not want to retire from politics
Has some work as a stable journey-level or master-level tradesman. If prior military, he should have some time as an enlisted man, even if he topped out an officer (don't start me with comparisions to Hitler. The best way to learn to give orders is to take them for a while.)
Can set aside the "cause" of his own ego in deference to the greater good. And can admit when he's wrong, and learn from the mistake.
Interesting that you should bring up "cheating" in the election - as I recall, techs at Votermatic (makers of the ballot-punching machines) said that the only way they could duplicate the "swinging" or "hanging" chad was to punch several ballots at once - like four or five. Also, there was an election official who got busted driving around with ballot-punchers and cases of ballots in his POV when he wasn't supposed to have them. He happened to be a registered Democrat...

If you want to blame someone for the trade deficit we have with the Pacific Rim, take it to Congress. They're responsible for passing laws governing trade - and they can work to fix the trade imbalance issue, but they haven't. It's a fairly easy fix: all we need to do is trade on a quid pro quo basis (+/- 1-2% of net value) for a few years, and that should free up the capital to pay assorted creditors off.

Hey - you want something to get fixed? Have Congress run the national budget like a household budged, instead of all this "deficit spending" rot. The President isn't responsible for the budget - the House of Representatives is. It's in the Constitution, and that makes it simple logic (why does fiscal responsibility reside in the House? Because Representatives are assigned according to population, which gives a more "equitable" distribution than two Senators per state. At least, that's the theory - but the Founders were more publicly-minded than the current batch of arseholes we have in office.)

And, if the war is about oil, why haven't we gone after Venezuela? Chavez has been making a great deal of threatening noises down there, and he's just gotten himself elected "President-for-life," so doesn't that count as a threat to supply? Hmmm....

Great minds think alike :cheers:

One more thing...lets go ask Tim Berners-Lee what he thinks of Owl-Gorilla's Internet claim :D

[5-90]

Great minds think alike :cheers:

One more thing...lets go ask Tim Berners-Lee what he thinks of Owl-Gorilla's Internet claim :D

It could also be said as "Small Minds Seldom Differ" (just to make the other side happy. I shan't go into results of the last comprehensive psych workup I had - I don't want to embarass anyone... :lecture:)

Tim Berners-Lee? I'll have to look him up, but I think he was involved in some of the early RFCs that codified the Internet, no? (Again, not "invented" per se - more like "formalised." Taking it from a semi-classified government project information-sharing tool to a publicly-available tool that didn't need a Cray to be accessed...)

I'm just strange. I like to form my own opinions. I like to have information when I try to form an opinion - if I don't have information, I don't have an opinion until I do. People look at me funny when I say, "I don't know enough to form an opinion" on something, but it's just the way I are. Probably too many classes in Logic and too many years on the debate team in school...

[sleeperjeeper]

You need to go take a forestry lesson. The natural life cycle of a forest includes forest fires. In fact, your state's precious Redwoods NEED fire in order for their seed pods to open up and germinate.

Loggers go in and clear out the old growth trees - dead and/or old trees that would burn faster. Dense forest = hotter, faster moving fire. Try it sometime man - build yourself two small fires - on one, throw a young, green log. On the other, throw a bunch of dried, dead logs. See which one gets roaring and hot first.

Your simplified election advertising campaign would work great for you and your fellow Democrats! I know you people need to keep it simple so you can understand. But...maybe if you really saw the big picture and what your candidates stood for, you might think twice about voting for them.

Keep voting for the tree huggers who dont want loggers to do their job. Then bitch and complain when you have more and more fires chasing you from your Hollywood mansions.

Clear cutting national forests is not the same a prunning them.

I don't have a hollywood mansion and I'm not a hippie and I don't vote. All the candidates are corrupt. If they weren't, they wouldn't be in politics.

[5-90]

Clear cutting national forests is not the same a prunning them.

I don't have a hollywood mansion and I'm not a hippie and I don't vote. All the candidates are corrupt. If they weren't, they wouldn't be in politics.

Heh. Now there's something you and I can agree upon!

The ideal person to be in charge is someone who doesn't want the job. Actively campaigning for office should result in instant disqualification...

[ehall]

You would rather have...
I'd rather have Dick Cheney for President than any of the scum-sucking traitor democrats who have willfully traded national security interests for a few more votes from America-hating pinko nutjobs

[sleeperjeeper]

And the Nobel has been becoming a political stalking horse of late as well. Slowly, and not very obvious, but everything is heading that way.

Ideally, the President should be a man who:

Does not have a "career in politics" behind him.
Does not actually want the job.
Can set aside the idea of "net worth" - at least while he's in office.
Does not want to retire from politics
Has some work as a stable journey-level or master-level tradesman. If prior military, he should have some time as an enlisted man, even if he topped out an officer (don't start me with comparisions to Hitler. The best way to learn to give orders is to take them for a while.)
Can set aside the "cause" of his own ego in deference to the greater good. And can admit when he's wrong, and learn from the mistake.
If you want to blame someone for the trade deficit we have with the Pacific Rim, take it to Congress. They're responsible for passing laws governing trade - and they can work to fix the trade imbalance issue, but they haven't. It's a fairly easy fix: all we need to do is trade on a quid pro quo basis (+/- 1-2% of net value) for a few years, and that should free up the capital to pay assorted creditors off.


Your ideas for a president are definitely idealistic, but we don't live in that world anymore. Power and Money is what its about now. As far as blaming congress for the deficit, I think it was Bush's administration that asked to 420 billion about every year so he could run his dad's war. All the while cutting funding for schools and veterans.

Gotta love his no child left behind policy. Meet these standards or we will cut your federal funding. Then we can use that money for war.

[buschwhaked]

I thought this thread was about Iraq? What, nobody wants to take my posit on? J-Nickel, found any WMD's globe trotting with the AF lately? ;) 5-90, wanna take something retarded I've said in my life and harp on it? Ignore scientific fact lately? BTW, Gore doesn't have a "solution" for Global Warming. He simply advocates preparing for the climate changes that ARE coming and attempting to mitigate the damage where we can. Doesn't sound that unreasonable.

Anyway, since the Iraq war wasn't started over WMD's, Al Qaeda, or Saddam being an ass, or instilling true democracy in the Middle East, what was it about? Seriously, I would like to know. Was it oil? Was it corruption? Was it stupidity? Was it boredom? What?

[SBrad001]

I thought this thread was about Iraq? What, nobody wants to take my posit on? J-Nickel, found any WMD's since in Air Force globe trotting lately? ;) 5-90, wanna take something retarded I've said in my life and harp on it? Ignore scientific fact lately? BTW, Gore doesn't have a "solution" for Global Warming. He simply advocates preparing for the climate changes that ARE coming and attempting to mitigate the damage where we can. Doesn't sound that unreasonable.

Anyway, since the Iraq war wasn't started over WMD's, Al Qaeda, or Saddam being an ass, or instilling true democracy in the Middle East, what was it about? Seriously, I would like to know. Was it oil? Was it corruption? Was it stupidity? Was it boredom? What?

I also would like to know the answer to that question. But who's going to answer it?

Seriously guys, if Bush is guilty of a tenth of the crap that the left has accused him of then why haven't we impeached the guy? We impeached Clinton for a hell of lot less. All he did was lie about getting a blowjob from an intern! If Bush's administration purposefully deceived the public and our government representatives about the justification for invading Iraq, then I think that it is a criminal act that should be prosecuted.

That and I can't stand people with IQ's below 60 as our president. :P

[ehall]

I guess that means we should invade and set a long term occupation of Iran, Syria, North Korea, and Pakistan as well?
Well if you "guess that" then you have built a poor strawman, given that none of them have a history of attacking US interests, working with jihadists to do so, or using WMD against their neighbors. Perhaps you need to work on the question again before you spout wrong answers

no direct connections between Al Qaeda and Saddam
Pay attention to what people say--there are loads of direct connections between Saddam's Iraq and terrorist groups, including AQ affiliates. NOBODY of consequence has said that there is an absolute link between Saddam and Bin Laden in regards to attacks against US persons or interests. Yet he did in fact work with Abu Sayyaf in the Philipines to attack US interests (multiple times); he provided shelter to Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal and the ANO, and Carlos the Jackal; Ramzi Yousef (the '93 WTC bombing leader and an AQ operative) came from Iraq and ran back to Iraq afterwards; etc. Oh but since he did not actually have an extended cooperative tete-a-tete with Bin Laden Himself then he must not be a threat!

About the UN: How hypocritical does it look for us to enforce "international law" without following it ourselves? We chose to enforce the resolution without going through the neccessary steps as required by "international law" to invade another nation-state. That argument doesn't hold water as well.
That argument doesn't hold water because it is nonsense. The US did not need explicit approval to act like you think. First of all, resolution 678 granted all member states the authority to use any force necessary to uphold the resolutions:

2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;

Obviously the US is "a member state" and obviously the cease-fire agreement in resolution 678 is a "subsequent relevant resolution" which the US (under both Clinton and Bush) felt needed to be enforced.

Second, Saddam's Iraq was provably in violation of the terms of the cease-fire, as demonstrated already, and as UNANIMOUSLY agreed to and stated as fact in resolution 1441:

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

So if the US is pre-authorized to use "all necessary means" to "enforce [...] subsequent resolutions" which 1441 explicitly stated was the case, then what kind of additional authority do you fantasize was necessary? Show me a resolution that limited the authority please?

They only found a "few" 122mm rockets
So you agree they were in violation of the cease-fire, thanks

[buschwhaked]

I also would like to know the answer to that question. But who's going to answer it?

Seriously guys, if Bush is guilty of a tenth of the crap that the left has accused him of then why haven't we impeached the guy? We impeached Clinton for a hell of lot less. All he did was lie about getting a blowjob from an intern! If Bush's administration purposefully deceived the public and our government representatives about the justification for invading Iraq, then I think that it is a criminal act that should be prosecuted.

That and I can't stand people with IQ's below 60 as our president. :P

This may sound insensetive but impeaching Bush is the political equivalent of punching your mentally handicaped cousin in the glasses because he was annoying you. You really look like an a*hole afterwards.

[ehall]

Anyway, since the Iraq war wasn't started over WMD's, Al Qaeda, or Saddam being an ass, or instilling true democracy in the Middle East, what was it about? Seriously, I would like to know. Was it oil? Was it corruption? Was it stupidity? Was it boredom? What?
Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

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;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

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;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS

(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.

[sleeperjeeper]

Anyway, since the Iraq war wasn't started over WMD's, Al Qaeda, or Saddam being an ass, or instilling true democracy in the Middle East, what was it about? Seriously, I would like to know. Was it oil? Was it corruption? Was it stupidity? Was it boredom? What?He was just finishing what his dad started. Unfortunately it turned out a little harder and more costly than he thought it would be.

[5-90]

He was just finishing what his dad started. Unfortunately it turned out a little harder and more costly than he thought it would be.

The problem with Storm I was that we didn't finish the job from the off. "The worst thing you can do to a mortal enemy is almost kill him."

We had assets in place, we had intel, we should have brought Saddam back then (or just his head, if that's all that could be managed.) SEAL Six and DELTA had assets in place, SEAL Two was ready as well. Given the "Go" order, we would have had Saddam's head (as a minimum) inside of sixty hours.

Why didn't we? Politics, I'm sure. Politicians don't have the sense to stand back out of the way during a war. We usually go to war because they screwed up, but they keep trying to run things...

[sleeperjeeper]

The problem with Storm I was that we didn't finish the job from the off. "The worst thing you can do to a mortal enemy is almost kill him."

We had assets in place, we had intel, we should have brought Saddam back then (or just his head, if that's all that could be managed.) SEAL Six and DELTA had assets in place, SEAL Two was ready as well. Given the "Go" order, we would have had Saddam's head (as a minimum) inside of sixty hours.

Why didn't we? Politics, I'm sure. Politicians don't have the sense to stand back out of the way during a war. We usually go to war because they screwed up, but they keep trying to run things...

you are probably right. we should have done it right the first time. But the mistake everyone over looks is thinking that the middle east wants to be "saved" and wants "democracy" and "peace", etc. They have been killing each other for millennia. I don't know why we stuck our nose into that hornets nest in the first place.

[Ironmen77]

Seriously guys, if Bush is guilty of a tenth of the crap that the left has accused him of then why haven't we impeached the guy? We impeached Clinton for a hell of lot less. All he did was lie about getting a blowjob from an intern! If Bush's administration purposefully deceived the public and our government representatives about the justification for invading Iraq, then I think that it is a criminal act that should be prosecuted.

If he was I believe the democrats would impeach him. Or maybe they are afraid what the citizens might learn from a trial, about them.

That and I can't stand people with IQ's below 60 as our president. :P

Below 60? That's pretty low and still he beat all his opponents. Wow his opponents must have been socialists.

[SBrad001]

Below 60? That's pretty low and still he beat all his opponents. Wow his opponents must have been socialists.

Yeah, I know. That's why I didn't vote for Kerry or Gore, and why I'm voting for Ron Paul this time around. :P

[Ironmen77]

Yeah, I know. That's why I didn't vote for Kerry or Gore, and why I'm voting for Ron Paul this time around. :P

I think he would be a good choice.:cheers:

[garr]

Tag for refrence!

[Gritts]

It is not that Mr. Bush isn't qualified to be the President. He simply doesn't pay attention. Not Interested. And he is/was surrounded by people whose motives for their actions are self-serving. You know--off the scale greedy. As far as George W, I personally think he is a good man. Unfortunately it takes being more than a good man (or woman) to be a good president. I mean can you imagine where we all would be if he had been president during the Cuban missle crisis???? God help us.:scared:

[buschwhaked]

Well if you "guess that" then you have built a poor strawman, given that none of them have a history of attacking US interests, working with jihadists to do so, or using WMD against their neighbors. Perhaps you need to work on the question again before you spout wrong answers

Iran, Syria, North Korea, and Pakistan hasn't worked with Jihadists? Iran is directly responsible for the death of 6 members of my unit in Iraq, and the wounding of 27 others. Two killed are good friends of mine. Another is getting his skull put back in at Walter Reid currently. Ever heard of Sadr? What about the hostages in the 1970's? Syria actively funded and supplied the factions in Beruit during the Marine's stint there. Syria and N. Korea have colluded on nuclear weapons technology using a Pakistani nuclear scientist. North Korea has had and probably will have an active NUCLEAR weapons program. Oh, what about the Korean war? Pakistan's foreign minister warned Bin Laden about incoming American cruise missles. Pakistan has WMD's. Pakistan refuses to actively engage AQ in their western border region. Pakistan was the starting point for all of the 9/11 hijackers trek to Afghanistan.


Pay attention to what people say--there are loads of direct connections between Saddam's Iraq and terrorist groups, including AQ affiliates. NOBODY of consequence has said that there is an absolute link between Saddam and Bin Laden in regards to attacks against US persons or interests. Yet he did in fact work with Abu Sayyaf in the Philipines to attack US interests (multiple times); he provided shelter to Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal and the ANO, and Carlos the Jackal; Ramzi Yousef (the '93 WTC bombing leader and an AQ operative) came from Iraq and ran back to Iraq afterwards; etc. Oh but since he did not actually have an extended cooperative tete-a-tete with Bin Laden Himself then he must not be a threat!

And 19 of the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, miss our target a little to the North? The hijackers were in the US for months prior to the attack. Is the US at fault for that as well? A bad guy residing in your country doesn't make your leader a 'sponsor' of terror. We're the most powerful country in the world and we can't control access through our borders. Many of those countries listed above have done more to sponsor terror than Saddam ever did. So back to my original question, should we just invade them all?


That argument doesn't hold water because it is nonsense. The US did not need explicit approval to act like you think. First of all, resolution 678 granted all member states the authority to use any force necessary to uphold the resolutions:

2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;

Obviously the US is "a member state" and obviously the cease-fire agreement in resolution 678 is a "subsequent relevant resolution" which the US (under both Clinton and Bush) felt needed to be enforced.

Sure, enforce it all you want. But it had been relatively successfully 'enforeced' for 12 years prior to the invasion.

Second, Saddam's Iraq was provably in violation of the terms of the cease-fire, as demonstrated already, and as UNANIMOUSLY agreed to and stated as fact in resolution 1441:

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

So if the US is pre-authorized to use "all necessary means" to "enforce [...] subsequent resolutions" which 1441 explicitly stated was the case, then what kind of additional authority do you fantasize was necessary? Show me a resolution that limited the authority please?

The resolutions required Saddam allow inspectors from the UN and the IAEA to verify weapons disposal. In late 2002 Saddam did allow weapons inspectors back in. They didn't find any weapons. But Bush was SO convinced they were there, he invaded anyway. He manufactured an impossible situation for Saddam: if he doesn't have weapons then he's lying , if he does then he's in violation of the resolutions. Bush wanted a war no matter what. He got one.


So you agree they were in violation of the cease-fire, thanks

I highly doubt Saddam even realized he had those 122mm rkts left. Hell, the Air Force 'lost' some nuclear bombs for a few hours a while back. And having personal experience with the Iraqi way of governing, I doubt they knew which end was up. Besides, we've been there for five years, where are the WMD's Saddam was hiding?

[SBrad001]

. . . I mean can you imagine where we all would be if he had been president during the Cuban missle crisis???? God help us.:scared:

X2!!!!

[ehall]

Iran, Syria, North Korea, and Pakistan hasn't worked with Jihadists? Iran is directly responsible for the death of 6 members of my unit in Iraq, and the wounding of 27 others. Two killed are good friends of mine. Another is getting his skull put back in at Walter Reid currently. Ever heard of Sadr? What about the hostages in the 1970's? Syria actively funded and supplied the factions in Beruit during the Marine's stint there. Syria and N. Korea have colluded on nuclear weapons technology using a Pakistani nuclear scientist. North Korea has had and probably will have an active NUCLEAR weapons program. Oh, what about the Korean war? Pakistan's foreign minister warned Bin Laden about incoming American cruise missles. Pakistan has WMD's. Pakistan refuses to actively engage AQ in their western border region. Pakistan was the starting point for all of the 9/11 hijackers trek to Afghanistan.

Those are all good points but AGAIN none of those countries meet all of the criteria that Iraq DID MEET. Iran is bad, and yes they ARE jihadists who attack US interests but they DO NOT HAVE A HISTORY of supplying WMD to those agents. No doubt they will do so, which is why they are at the top of the shit list and will have to be dealt with firmly and finally at some point soon but they still do not yet rise to the level that Saddam actually met. That is why your strawman falls down before you get to knock it over--Iran is not Iraq, not yet. The other countries are important concerns but are not even at the same level. The argument that "oh we did X so we have to Y and Z too" is absurd, especially when they are nothing alike, don't you agree

And 19 of the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia
And was SA a state sponsor??? Quite being so ******* childish.

The resolutions required Saddam allow inspectors from the UN and the IAEA to verify weapons disposal. In late 2002 Saddam did allow weapons inspectors back in. They didn't find any weapons.
Dude, HANS BLIX TRIPPED OVER THE PROHIBITED WEAPONS

[SBrad001]

Those are all good points but AGAIN none of those countries meet all of the criteria that Iraq DID MEET. Iran is bad, and yes they ARE jihadists who attack US interests but they DO NOT HAVE A HISTORY of supplying WMD to those agents. No doubt they will do so, which is why they are at the top of the shit list and will have to be dealt with firmly and finally at some point soon but they still do not yet rise to the level that Saddam actually met. That is why your strawman falls down before you get to knock it over--Iran is not Iraq, not yet. The other countries are important concerns but are not even at the same level. The argument that "oh we did X so we have to Y and Z too" is absurd, especially when they are nothing alike, don't you agree


And was SA a state sponsor??? Quite being so f*****g childish.


Dude, HANS BLIX TRIPPED OVER THE PROHIBITED WEAPONS

Dude, YOU TRIPPED AND FELL INTO THE KoolAid POOL! jk :D

Some of your points are valid, BUT those points were after thoughts for the Administration. Iraq ties to state sponsored terrorism are ludicrous at best and out right lies at worst for the justification for invading Iraq.

PS, watch the naughty words. They may up set 'someone', and we'll all be punished. :D

[buschwhaked]

Those are all good points but AGAIN none of those countries meet all of the criteria that Iraq DID MEET. Iran is bad, and yes they ARE jihadists who attack US interests but they DO NOT HAVE A HISTORY of supplying WMD to those agents. No doubt they will do so, which is why they are at the top of the shit list and will have to be dealt with firmly and finally at some point soon but they still do not yet rise to the level that Saddam actually met. That is why your strawman falls down before you get to knock it over--Iran is not Iraq, not yet. The other countries are important concerns but are not even at the same level. The argument that "oh we did X so we have to Y and Z too" is absurd, especially when they are nothing alike, don't you agree


And was SA a state sponsor??? Quite being so ******* childish.


Dude, HANS BLIX TRIPPED OVER THE PROHIBITED WEAPONS

Who did Iraq supply WMD to? Terrorists? Nope.

Pakistan, who actually has proven ties to both AQ and the Taliban, has, through A.Q. Khan their cheif nuclear scientist, supplied WMD technology to Libya, Iran, and N. Korea. North Korea has supplied nuclear weapons technology to Syria, a state sponsor of terror and key supporter of Hamas. Thankfully, the Israeli's blew it up. North Korea brutally represses it's people. North Korea, has the ability to directly threaten America and American interests in the Pacific. Kim Jong Il is an a*hole too. Do they meet the criteria?

Saudi Arabian Prince's have been directly tied to charities which financially support AQ. These people receive their pay from the Saudi Arabian gov't. QED, they are a state sponsor of terror.

He tripped over the weapons and subsequently confiscated them. He never found anymore. See my previous post about Iraqi's ability to organize and govern themselves.

So this doesn't go on forever, let's just agree to disagree. You make some excellent points and have really forced me to reexamine some of my thinking. I spent 15 months in Baghdad during the surge and I'm proud to have served. Bottom line, I personally think it was a mistake to have invaded, and now that the surge is over there is nothing more militarily we can accomplish there and should safely withdraw. My country asked me to go, and no matter what I thought about the war, I took an oath and I am proud to have fullfilled it to the best of my ability. We performed flawlessly and accomplished every task that was asked of us during the surge. Iraq is a better place than when we left it, but now it is up to the Iraqi's to step up and take over.

[ehall]

Some of your points are valid, BUT those points were after thoughts for the Administration. Iraq ties to state sponsored terrorism are ludicrous at best and out right lies at worst for the justification for invading Iraq.
ROFL where did you get that from? I seem to have what is apparently the UNIQUE ABILITY TO READ congressional and UN resolutions, such as the congressional authorization of force:

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

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;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

... or perhaps you meant Bush, who laid out his justifications in a speech to the IAE in 2002:

In Iraq, a dictator is building and hiding weapons that could enable him to dominate the Middle East and intimidate the civilized world -- and we will not allow it. (Applause.) This same tyrant has close ties to terrorist organizations, and could supply them with the terrible means to strike this country -- and America will not permit it. The danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away. The danger must be confronted. We hope that the Iraqi regime will meet the demands of the United Nations and disarm, fully and peacefully. If it does not, we are prepared to disarm Iraq by force. Either way, this danger will be removed. (Applause.)

The safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat. Acting against the danger will also contribute greatly to the long-term safety and stability of our world. The current Iraqi regime has shown the power of tyranny to spread discord and violence in the Middle East. A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region, by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions. America's interests in security, and America's belief in liberty, both lead in the same direction: to a free and peaceful Iraq. (Applause.)

oh well, those are just documented points of record, nothing that can stand up to your opinion

[ehall]

Who did Iraq supply WMD to? Terrorists? Nope.
Saddam used them himself, what more evidence of willingness do you need

Pakistan, who actually has proven ties to both AQ and the Taliban, has, through A.Q. Khan their cheif nuclear scientist, supplied WMD technology to Libya, Iran, and N. Korea.
None of them have used them or provided them to terrorist groups. Moreover, Bush policies led to Libya and NoKo abandoning their programs, and Pakistan has shutdown Khan's network, yet you keep propping up the strawman that since pressure and diplomacy did not work for Saddam then we have to go invade those other countries where it did work. Absurd.

North Korea has supplied nuclear weapons technology to Syria, a state sponsor of terror and key supporter of Hamas. Thankfully, the Israeli's blew it up. North Korea brutally represses it's people. North Korea, has the ability to directly threaten America and American interests in the Pacific. Kim Jong Il is an a*hole too. Do they meet the criteria?
NoKo is a bad actor, no doubt about it, but they are not the same as Iraq. For one thing they have not demonstrated a willingness to use WMD, nor have they demonstrated a willingness to attack US interests and citizenry around the world, nor have they demonstrated any direct ties to terrorist groups who would do either of those things. Saddam did all of those and much more.

However I will say that NoKo shares one important attribute with Iraq, which is that they continue to exist in a state of war with the US, and as such we can go after them whenever we wish without needing any kind of special approval.

Saudi Arabian Prince's have been directly tied to charities which financially support AQ. These people receive their pay from the Saudi Arabian gov't. QED, they are a state sponsor of terror.
No dumbass, a "state sponsor" is a country that provides direct assistance to known terrorists. That is what Saddam did. The government of Saudi Arabia does not, to our knowledge.

He tripped over the weapons and subsequently confiscated them.
Which was all that was needed to prove that Saddam was in continual violation of the cease-fire agreement. It's true that some parties (like France) wanted to give Saddam YET ANOTHER CHANCE to not get caught but that was irrelevant. And has already been pointed out, post-invasion inspections did uncover ongoing research and development activities which were also prohibited and which were as much of a threat as any kind of weaponized results. Do you really think AQ wanted missile systems? or did they want the knowledge and production capability?

As for your service, I thank you for that. My brother is in the Marines so I have a dog in the fight. I supported Clinton's efforts at containing Saddam and I support this administration's efforts as well. I am happy when we don't have to use military force but the simple reality is that after 9/11 "putting up with Saddam" was no longer an option.

[SBrad001]

. . . but the simple reality is that after 9/11 "putting up with Saddam" was no longer an option.

So what exactly did Saddam have do with 9/11?

Get a grip, that retard of a president got us involved in a quagmire in Iraq without finishing the job in Afghanistan.

Additionally, your proof that you offer up in the resolution presented to the US by the president is exactly what I question. At this point I don't believe 99% of what this Administration put forth. We supplied the UN that intelligence. We made our case to go to war. They bought, so did we(the public). I would like to know how accurate that information was. I have a vested interest in that knowledge having lost a nephew over in the Sandbox and have a very close friend finishing his flight school this year. So maybe I'm a little bitter, maybe I'm a little jaded.

And please stop getting so fricking worked up, it's the interweb, and this is a retard fight. Stop being a 'tard and keep it civil.

[ECKSJAY]

Get a grip, that retard of a president got us involved in a quagmire in Iraq without finishing the job in Afghanistan.
Nail on the head, thar. ;)

Additionally, your proof that you offer up in the resolution presented to the US by the president is exactly what I question. At this point I don't believe 99% of what this Administration put forth. We supplied the UN that intelligence. We made our case to go to war. They bought, so did we. I would like to know how accurate that information was. I have a vested interest in that knowledge having lost a nephew over in the Sandbox and have a very close friend finishing his flight school this year. So maybe I'm a little bitter, maybe I'm a little jaded.


Tossed a Curveball, that's what. ;) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_%28informant%29

[JNickel101]

J-Nickel, found any WMD's globe trotting with the AF lately? ;) BTW, Gore doesn't have a "solution" for Global Warming.

You and I both know the AF has the best Intel :D

And Gore doesnt have a solution, because, yet again, it isn't caused by anything we do here on Earth.

[GSequoia]

Everybody.

It is possible to have a discussion, even on the Internet, without name calling and getting red in the face.

Please help keep this thread from getting deleted, okay?

[JNickel101]

Clear cutting national forests is not the same a prunning them.

I don't have a hollywood mansion and I'm not a hippie and I don't vote. All the candidates are corrupt. If they weren't, they wouldn't be in politics.

You still have a lot to learn about forestry. Yes, clearcutting 100 years ago was destructive at times....but today, with regulations and proper planning, it has a purpose (actually, lots of purposes) - again, related to the life cycle of the forest, or changing the structure of a forest to make it BETTER. Sure, you can let a forest grow and die naturally, and then deal with all of the treehuggers complaining when their houses burn down - nothing satisfies them. They want to hear themselves talk/bitch/complain about something.

Let loggers do their job - UNLESS you want to completely eliminate wood/paper products from your life.

[Mudderoy]

But that's why we went, right? Or was it because Iraq was tied to 9/11? Or did they have a hand in a deal in Sudan for enriched uranium? Saddam had tea with Bin Laden?

It's all so confusing. :cry:

We went into Iraq because of Saddam didn't allow the inspectors to inspect. He lead everyone to believe he had something to hide. He didn't follow the UN sanctions(?) that were leveled against Iraq. The reason we went into Iraq was Saddam. Saddam was an idiot and died because of it.

I still say if you think a country is a threat it helps to have a couple of hundred thousand troops in the neighboring country.

Oh and it's hard to sell a book that has one page saying "Yep, he was a great guy."

I'm glad we finally got a president that stood up to the rest of the world (see my other post about this nation turning into sheep).

1. Kennedy - Stood up to the Russians (good)
2. Johnson - Wimped out then quit
3. Nixon - Really did a good job, got caught doing something bad
4. Carter - OMG! Smart man, likable man, horrible president. Let American hostages sit in captivity in Iran.
5. Regan - Great speaker - Got the hostages released - Actually used our military successfully - We didn't hear anything from Qaddafi for years after this.
6. Bush - Wow! Actually stood up and ran Saddam out of a country. Showed the world what we've been doing since Viet Nam. Very proud to be an American. Thought he should have finished it then.
7. Clinton - The dark times - The poster child of do nothing, well nothing militarily. Used his position to meet chicks! That's pretty cool, I just didn't like the part where he lied to me about it (we never speak now)
8. Bush - Ex-Texas Governor (gave us the right to carry handguns) - Got pissed off about 911 and put some hurt on the most logical parts of the world. Sent a message to the other parts we didn't attack (Iraq, North Korea) that we wouldn't put up with SH*T like this and if it happened again we will hunt you down kill you, or worse. With the exception of his stance on border security and how he and congress spent money like drunken sailors, everything else was fine by me.

[ehall]

. . but the simple reality is that after 9/11 "putting up with Saddam" was no longer an option.So what exactly did Saddam have do with 9/11?
Where did I say he had anything to do with 9/11?? Oh wait I didn't

Instead I have repeatedly pointed out that the great risk is that terrorists will get their hands on WMD capability, that Saddam had demonstrated a history of working with and directly supporting terrorist agents, a willingness to attack US interests and citizenry, a willingness to use WMD against his enemies, and a refusal to relinquish his stocks and R&D capability.

Now see if you can figure out what that has to do with "after 911"

[Mudderoy]

Everybody.

It is possible to have a discussion, even on the Internet, without name calling and getting red in the face.

Please help keep this thread from getting deleted, okay?

I love this one...

http://muckleroy.com/images/Internet Argument.jpg

[GSequoia]

I prefer this one:

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

[Mudderoy]

I prefer this one:

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

That's great!

[Mudderoy]

Where did I say he had anything to do with 9/11?? Oh wait I didn't

Instead I have repeatedly pointed out that the great risk is that terrorists will get their hands on WMD capability, that Saddam had demonstrated a history of working with and directly supporting terrorist agents, a willingness to attack US interests and citizenry, a willingness to use WMD against his enemies, and a refusal to relinquish his stocks and R&D capability.

Now see if you can figure out what that has to do with "after 911"

Correct! I don't care if they found WMD or not. I do care that a country full of people are no longer under a dictatorship, and have a CHANCE to be free.

I believe that if our troops weren't fighting in Iraq, you and I would be fighting in the US to defend our homes and families. God bless our troops!

[JNickel101]

We went into Iraq because of Saddam didn't allow the inspectors to inspect. He lead everyone to believe he had something to hide. He didn't follow the UN sanctions(?) that were leveled against Iraq. The reason we went into Iraq was Saddam. Saddam was an idiot and died because of it.

I still say if you think a country is a threat it helps to have a couple of hundred thousand troops in the neighboring country.

Oh and it's hard to sell a book that has one page saying "Yep, he was a great guy."

I'm glad we finally got a president that stood up to the rest of the world (see my other post about this nation turning into sheep).

1. Kennedy - Stood up to the Russians (good)
2. Johnson - Wimped out then quit
3. Nixon - Really did a good job, got caught doing something bad
4. Carter - OMG! Smart man, likable man, horrible president. Let American hostages sit in captivity in Iran.
5. Regan - Great speaker - Got the hostages released - Actually used our military successfully - We didn't hear anything from Qaddafi for years after this.
6. Bush - Wow! Actually stood up and ran Saddam out of a country. Showed the world what we've been doing since Viet Nam. Very proud to be an American. Thought he should have finished it then.
7. Clinton - The dark times - The poster child of do nothing, well nothing militarily. Used his position to meet chicks! That's pretty cool, I just didn't like the part where he lied to me about it (we never speak now)
8. Bush - Ex-Texas Governor (gave us the right to carry handguns) - Got pissed off about 911 and put some hurt on the most logical parts of the world. Sent a message to the other parts we didn't attack (Iraq, North Korea) that we wouldn't put up with SH*T like this and if it happened again we will hunt you down kill you, or worse. With the exception of his stance on border security and how he and congress spent money like drunken sailors, everything else was fine by me.

Awesome post!!! :cheers:

[SBrad001]

Where did I say he had anything to do with 9/11?? Oh wait I didn't

Instead I have repeatedly pointed out that the great risk is that terrorists will get their hands on WMD capability, that Saddam had demonstrated a history of working with and directly supporting terrorist agents, a willingness to attack US interests and citizenry, a willingness to use WMD against his enemies, and a refusal to relinquish his stocks and R&D capability.

Now see if you can figure out what that has to do with "after 911"

And how is that risk posed by Iraq greater than that posed by Iran supplying arms to insurgents in Iraq(how many US military personal are dead because of them?) or provided weapons to Hezbolah in Jordan and Palestine. Or Korea supplying ballistic missile, and nuclear tech to Iran and Syria? Both Syria and Iran have HUGE ties to terrorist organizations and have pursued WMDs in force over the last thirty years. And you're going to try and tell me that Iraq was a bigger threat? That the flowed intel on Saddam that was the basis for the resolutions that you keep posting was enough to justify my family losing someone? To justify NOT pursuing in force, catch and bringing those responsible for 9/11 to justice?

Dude, yer funny. :laugh2:

[DrMoab]

Nominated!!!
You would rather have a oil mongering liar rather than the man who recently won the nobel peace prize?

And by the way, Bush knew there were no WMD's, we knew there were no WMD's. The whole war was about Oil. Irag being one of the largest oil producing nations, and the Bush Dynasty being one of the biggest oil families in the US. Not to mention that Bush only won the election by cheating, which happened in the same state that is brother was governer. Did you know that the net worth of his daddy went up about about 60 billion withing one year of declaring war? Meanwhile Bush took our budget which was in the black for the first time if probably 30+ years, and put us in the biggest deficit in our history. In case you don't know what that means, it means he sold the our county to china. I don't need any more reasons to hate bush. I have plenty. As for the writer of the book. He is just a punk trying to get his 15 minutes of fame.

[JNickel101]

Agreed...

[ehall]

And how is that risk posed by Iraq greater than that posed by ...

I already answered that--Iraq is the only one that has a demonstrated willingness to use WMD. Could you pay attention instead of running down your talking point sheets?

[TRNDRVR]

Damn! Page 5.

http://www.clipartof.com/images/emoticons/xsmall2/1974_eating_popcorn.gif

Carry on!

[SBrad001]

I already answered that---

So my family is just another talking point? I don't believe you have answered the question of whether or not those 'resolutions' were justified. Saddam's willingness? Seriously, tow that party line.

[Mudderoy]

Anyone else see Scott McClellan's interview on Good Morning America this morning?

He spoke fondly of President Bush. He said President Bush is smart enough to be president. He said Bush made decisions "from the hip".

Basically he thinks there were some bad decisions in retrospect. DAH! Everyone makes mistakes, but you do the best at the time.

I have NOT read the book, but I'd say that this guy got a book deal that is burning a bunch of bridges. He'll need to make as much money as he can because he won't be doing PR for anyone else.

The Lefties are trying to make a big deal of of this because of their hatred of President Bush. I'm sure they'll be able to skew it that way in their own minds, but I see this as a sad attempt of a friend of President Bush to make a little scratch. Really sad.

[Mudderoy]

You would rather have a oil mongering liar rather than the man who recently won the nobel peace prize?

Nobel prize? Do you mean Gore?!?!?! I bet he got it for inventing the Internet.

Hey does anyone else think Super Dave Osborne and Al Gore are the same person?


http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:z0cb9-Gi71oJ:www.tommcmahon.net/images/superdave2.jpg http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:SlzDO-thaWAJ:www.solarnavigator.net/media/media_images/Al_Gore_Vice_President_of_the_United_States_offici al_portrait_1994.jpg

[fscrig75]

Don't forget good old Al's house creates more carbon then some small towns. But he is good, he bought carbon credits. Now he can run his heated driveway, heated indoor swimming pool and ride around in his big wastefull limo and private jet.

[Mudderoy]

Don't forget good old Al's house creates more carbon then some small towns. But he is good, he bought carbon credits. Now he can run his heated driveway, heated indoor swimming pool and ride around in his big wastefull limo and private jet.


Oooo I bet his nobel prize is heated tooo. No more chills when he is hugging it.

[Boatwrench]

I already answered that--Iraq is the only one that has a demonstrated willingness to use WMD. Could you pay attention instead of running down your talking point sheets?

Wrong---The US has also demonstrated the willingness to use WMD, just ask Japan.

BTW Let's be clear about this, we went to war in Iraq for one reason: "They tried to kill my dad!" -G.W.Bush.

On the original question, the book is written by a small man with penis envy attempting to get a piece of history.

[JNickel101]

BTW Let's be clear about this, we went to war in Iraq for one reason: "They tried to kill my dad!" -G.W.Bush.


Funny enough, saying that makes more sense than saying we went there b/c of OIL.

:roflmao:

[Mudderoy]

Funny enough, saying that makes more sense than saying we went there b/c of OIL.

:roflmao:


I know, that is how I thought that sentence would end. :patriot:

[ehall]

BTW Let's be clear about this, we went to war in Iraq for one reason: "They tried to kill my dad!" -G.W.Bush.
Well it certainly was one of the reasons

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

[sleeperjeeper]

As one of my favorite comedian's, Bill Hicks, put it.

"How do you know Iraq has weapon's of mass destruction?"

"because we looked at the receipt."

[Darky]

We used the A-Bombs over 60 yrs ago now while at war, to end the war. We also probably didn't have a complete grasp as to the effect they'd have on people years down the road. Remember, we had people watching the tests from within ranges and distances that we now know were way too close to be safe. We also rebuilt Japan afterwards. Saddam himself authorized the usage of Mustard gas and Sarin gas on his own people within the last 20 yrs, because they were the wrong ethnic background. I have no doubt that had he had an opportunity, he would've sent some "presents" our way.

[Mudderoy]

We used the A-Bombs over 60 yrs ago now while at war, to end the war. We also probably didn't have a complete grasp as to the effect they'd have on people years down the road. Remember, we had people watching the tests from within ranges and distances that we now know were way too close to be safe. We also rebuilt Japan afterwards. Saddam himself authorized the usage of Mustard gas and Sarin gas on his own people within the last 20 yrs, because they were the wrong ethnic background. I have no doubt that had he had an opportunity, he would've sent some "presents" our way.

Whether you are left, right, or in the middle, you have to admit that this has shown the world that the US will retaliate, and will see the fight through. GW Bush didn't do what those that attacked us expected, just take the safe political route. Talk big, do nothing...

The world is safer, at the moment.

[Ecomike]

You would rather have a oil mongering liar rather than the man who recently won the nobel peace prize?

And by the way, Bush knew there were no WMD's, we knew there were no WMD's. The whole war was about Oil. Irag being one of the largest oil producing nations, and the Bush Dynasty being one of the biggest oil families in the US. Not to mention that Bush only won the election by cheating, which happened in the same state that is brother was governer. Did you know that the net worth of his daddy went up about about 60 billion withing one year of declaring war? Meanwhile Bush took our budget which was in the black for the first time if probably 30+ years, and put us in the biggest deficit in our history. In case you don't know what that means, it means he sold the our county to china. I don't need any more reasons to hate bush. I have plenty. As for the writer of the book. He is just a punk trying to get his 15 minutes of fame.

X2 X2 X2!!!!!

Wow, I was starting to think I had wandered into the twilight zone here, finaly someone that can see and type the truth!!!! And to think that I once was a loyal Texican Republican back in his fathers days! At least his father new what the hell he was doing overseas, and knew his limitations, I can't help but wonder if GWB wasn't the milk mans fault!:rolleyes:

[Ecomike]

Oh Noes!!!

So the president wanted to go to war "to transform the Middle East to ensure an enduring peace in the region"? Heinous! The bastard!! Come on folks...is this the best you can do in your attempts to come out with new reasons to justify your hatred of Bush? Is it such a bad thing to want to see peace brought into the Middle East?
As far as the blogger's comment on not having WMDs, the rest of the western world for the most part believed they were there. The Democrats believed it along with the Republicans. They knew it before Bush was ever in office. Bill Clinton knew it. His wife said it as well. If you want to use that, you'll have to indict more than just George W Bush.
I'm not trying to write this new book off as just liberal rhetoric or anything, I mean we don't even know what it said except for a couple excerpts taken by the blogger to prove his point.
:)

I was never fooled. I was astounded at the cowardice everyone displayed including the news media when Bush was working on declaring war on Saddam. Personally I think everyone was scared by the Patriot Act, a very popular president, american hawkish sentiment and was afraid to stand up and say this BS. Obama was one of the few with enough guts to stand up and say this is BS. Bush Senior also told his son to stay out of Iraq, but as most kids do, they never listen to their parents, and they learn the hard way instead.

The only WMDs Saddam ever had were the ones Bush senior (and Reagan) sold him during and before the Iran-Iraq War in the 80s to use on the Iranians! No wonder the Iranians hate us. Our own CIA created Saddam to keep Iran and Syria in check. He was our allie until he invaded Kuwait.

[Mudderoy]

I was astounded at the cowardice everyone displayed including the news media when Bush was working on declaring war on Saddam.

What would you call the "cut and run" attitude of the liberals and democrats?

BTW guys no hard feelings, I'm glad we can all speak our minds here. We just see things differently.

BTW, I predict McCain will win. Middle America is not going to want a young, inexperienced person, with a Islamic name fighting the war on terror. It just won't happen. Hilary losing this race is the best thing that can happen for her run for the whitehouse. We'll never hear from Obama again, presidential race wise.

Not to worry, though, McCain is a Democrat in Republican clothing. :looney:

[Ecomike]

What would you call the "cut and run" attitude of the liberals and democrats?


A return to sanity? :D

Frankly I think we should let Bush run things for 4 more years. :roflmao:

Bush has already bankrupted the US treasury trying to win a war that he declared as mission accomplished just weeks after it started, sold the USA to the Chinese (they own more US treasury notes now than we do!), Bankrupted US goodwill overseas, created the Housing bubble that is crashing the US economy right now, helped big oil boost the price of world crude up from $10 to nearly $130 a barrel with his disasterous policies, helped push gas and diesel prices up by 400%, and Natural gas prices up by as much as 1,600 % (peak about 18 months ago, and its on the rise again).

I fact he has screwed things up so well, I doubt he could do much more damage in another 4 years. :laugh2:

BTW guys no hard feelings, I'm glad we can all speak our minds here. We just see things differently.

BTW, I predict McCain will win. Middle America is not going to want a young, inexperienced person, with a Islamic name fighting the war on terror. It just won't happen. Hilary losing this race is the best thing that can happen for her run for the whitehouse. We'll never hear from Obama again, presidential race wise.

Not to worry, though, McCain is a Democrat in Republican clothing. :looney:

I don't know who is going to win, but if a Hillary/Obama combo ticket gets selected, I suspect Mccain will be lucky to get 1/3 of the (un)popular vote. Their are just too many pissed of americans that had enough of the Republicans for a while.

Back to the cut and run comment, from what I have seen and heard and read (including all the double talk), none of the three remaining candidates is currently saying they will cut and run if elected. What they differ on is whether or not we should have gotten mixed up in it in the first place and whether or not we should plan on staying there forever.

Personally I think we should go back to the way Reagan handled it. He sold the Iraq and Iranian leaders weapons (including WMDs) for oil, kept us out of the mess, and kept the arabs busy killing each other, like they have been doing for the last 1000 years.

[TRNDRVR]

Their are just too many pissed off americans that had enough of the Republicans for a while.:party: :party: :party:

[Ecomike]

I already answered that--Iraq is the only one that has a demonstrated willingness to use WMD. Could you pay attention instead of running down your talking point sheets?

That is not true, Iran used WMDs on Iraq during the Iran Iraq war. The US, Britain, Germany, and France used mustard gas (now illegal chemical WMD) in WWII. Britain and the US used chemcial WMDs on an entire city, Hamburg Germany in WWII.

I assume you mean chemical WMD weapons when you say WMDs, since Iraq never had and never used Nuclear or Biological WMDs. Just a thought, but even that defination (Chemical WMDs) is a bit unyieldy and broad, as one could consider using napal on an entire city (Hamburg Germany, WWII, IIRC) the use of chemical WMDs. Google "fire storm, Hamburg Germany WWII". IN fact all convential weapons (except maybe knives) are chemical!!!

The Russians used illegal chemical nerve agents just a few years ago during the GWB administration against a group of their own people (who were holding hostages at the time, Croatians I think?).

Interesting that we classify our own depleted uranium artillary and anti-tank shells as convential weapons, yet we send in the nuclear hazmat teams to clean up the mess they leave behind.

And the GW Bush administration is the first in US history to switch to a first strike with nuclear missiles option at a time of their choosing, should they believe the circumstance warrants their use. So much for MAD, (mutually Assured Destruction) the pollicy we used successfully for 50 years to avoid WWIII and to contain the cold war to non-nuclear conflicts.

In case you people don't realize it, it was in part because of our own beligerance throughout the world after WWII and our prior use of nuclear weapons that we ended up in a nuclear arms race with the Russians (USSR at the time) that nearly destroyed all human life on the planet. Running around the world using our military to kick ass anytime we please, or anytime a US president gets pissed off and decides to act on his own initiative (like GWB did in Iraq), is all these little countires like Iran need to justify arming themselves with Nukes!

Better to do like Teddy Roosevelt, "Walk Softly and Carry a Big SticK". No need to use the stick, just carry it and display it.

Right now we are so mired down and stuck in Iraq, we are no lomger considered a viable thread on the ground (too many of our limited number of ground troops are already committed, and the rest of the world will no longer support our troops with their troops becuase of GWBs failures and excesses) by many other countries, as we are currently way over committted ground troop wise in Iraq because of the mistakes GWB made in Iraq. In fact we are so over committed in Iraq that we have let the Taliban retake parts of Afganistan.

How can any of you seriously try to defend GWBs failures and mistakes as success stories?

[Ecomike]

Well it certainly was one of the reasons

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

I don't recall Suddam ever trying to assasinate Bush senior, nor do I ever recall Iraq attacking the USA directly (except in words). I do recall Bush senior openly suggesting that the Iraq people should assasinate Saddam after the Gulf War ended! Even GWB sanctioned assasination attempts on Saddam.

The engagements you refer too were started by US forces months after the Gulf war ended when Saddam was using his remaining air forces to kill Iraq rebels (not US troops) that he was fighting with to retain power, just like we are now fighting some of those same rebel forces in Iraq. Eventually Saddam's people started shooting back at us after we shot at them.

Don't get me wrong, Saddam and some of his cronnies had to go, or at least be contained. The mistake was to move in and try to occupy Iraq so we could scare the Iranians and threaten them directly from their own border.

Now that Iran, and AlQuida have us exactly where they want us in Iraq, they are doing the same thing to us that Communists did to us in the Vietnam war (which nearly started a civil war in this country), and the same things we did to the Russians when they got bogged down in Afganistan during the 1980s Russian occupation of Afganistan (which by the way bankrupted the USSR and lead to its eventual downfall in 1990-91). In fact our own CIA created Osama Ben Ladin, trained and equiped him, and sent him from Saudia Arabia in the 1980s to Afganistan to train the Taliban how to fight the Russians who were occupying Afganistan at the time.

Are any of you old enough to remember the Shaw of Iran! The dictator we set up and supported in Iran from the end of WWII till his fall in the mid 1970's? He was another US puppet dictator that we created, and supported in return for his supporting us durring the cold war with the Russians. History says he was just as blood thirsty a dictator as Saddam was, but he was our dictator, just like Saddam was until he invaded Kuwait!

[ehall]

The US, Britain, Germany, and France used mustard gas (now illegal chemical WMD) in WWII.
I love this argument, it's like the US is supposed to invade the US

People are completely missing the point about all this--after 9/11, the threat that terrorist groups would use WMD in attacks against the US became extremely real. The Saddam regime had a history of working with terrorist groups (including AQ aligned groups), had a history of actually using WMD in attacks against his enemies, and had a history of attacking US citizenry and interests.

Playing little games like "oh the US used them 60 years ago too" is just a way of sticking your head in the sand and avoiding the actual threat.

[ehall]

I don't recall Suddam ever trying to assasinate Bush senior, nor do I ever recall Iraq attacking the USA directly (except in words).

Clinton bombs Iraq in retaliation for assassination attempt (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/timeline/062793.htm)

U.S. Strikes Iraq for Plot to Kill Bush
By David Von Drehle and R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, June 27, 1993; Page A01

U.S. Navy ships launched 23 Tomahawk missiles against the headquarters of the Iraqi Intelligence Service yesterday in what President Clinton said was a "firm and commensurate" response to Iraq's plan to assassinate former president George Bush in mid-April.

The attack was meant to strike at the building where Iraqi officials had plotted against Bush, organized other unspecified terrorist actions and directed repressive internal security measures, senior U.S. officials said.

Clinton, speaking in a televised address to the nation at 7:40 last night, said he ordered the attack to send three messages to the Iraqi leadership: "We will combat terrorism. We will deter aggression. We will protect our people."

Clinton said he ordered the attack after receiving "compelling evidence" from U.S. intelligence officials that Bush had been the target of an assassination plot and that the plot was "directed and pursued by the Iraqi Intelligence Service."

"It was an elaborate plan devised by the Iraqi government and directed against a former president of the United States because of actions he took as president," Clinton said. Bush led the coalition that drove Iraq from Kuwait in the 1991 Persian Gulf War. "As such, the Iraqi attack against President Bush was an attack against our country and against all Americans," Clinton said.

[...]

Clinton was persuaded to act by three kinds of evidence, a senior intelligence official said last night. First, key suspects in the plot confessed to FBI agents in Kuwait. Second, FBI bomb experts painstakingly linked the captured car bomb to previous explosives made in Iraq. Third, unspecified intelligence assessments concluded that Saddam meant seriously the threats he has made against Bush. Other classified intelligence sources supported this analysis, the official said.

The combination made the CIA "highly confident that the Iraqi government, at the highest levels, directed its intelligence service to assassinate former president Bush," said the intelligence official.

Iraqi ties to Abu Sayyaf bombings of US targets (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/southeast/02/18/philippines.iraq.ap/)

Iraqi link to two Abu Sayyaf bomb plots: report

Tuesday, February 18, 2003 Posted: 10:26 PM EST (0326 GMT)

MANILA, Philippines (AP) -- A cell phone used by a member of the Abu Sayyaf Muslim extremist group to call an Iraqi diplomat was later employed in a failed attempt to trigger a bomb, according to a confidential Philippine intelligence report.

Iraqi Consul Husham Husain was expelled last week after the report claimed he received a call from an Abu Sayyaf member on October 3 last year, a day after a bomb in southern Zamboanga city killed a U.S. soldier and two other people. [...]

Six days after the contact was made, the caller's cell phone was used to try to set off another bomb in Zamboanga's San Roque district, near the military's Southern Command headquarters, but it failed to go off, according to the intelligence report, obtained by The Associated Press.

Police later recovered the bomb and the cell phone, a security official said. The cell phone listed contacts for Hamsiraji Sali, one of five Abu Sayyaf leaders on a U.S. wanted list.

Sali, believed to be hiding on southern Basilan island, has threatened to launch terror attacks in Manila and other Philippine cities if the United States attacks Iraq, the intelligence report says.

Last week, Philippine Foreign Secretary Blas Ople confronted Iraqi Charge d'Affaires Samir A-Masih Bolus with the intelligence report linking Husain to the Abu Sayyaf.

There's plenty more out there if you are interested in actually learning about the documented history.

[Ecomike]

People are completely missing the point about all this--after 9/11, the threat that terrorist groups would use WMD in attacks against the US became extremely real. The Saddam regime had a history of working with terrorist groups (including AQ aligned groups), had a history of actually using WMD in attacks against his enemies, and had a history of attacking US citizenry and interests.



I disagree, I think the highest threat point was just before 9/11 when the republicans weren't paying enough attention to the real threat. In fact they (Condalisa Rice IIRC) fired the one man that was close to figuring out the conspiracy and stopping the 9/11 attack just weeks before the attack happened.

I was a Local Emergency Planning Committee chairman for 15 years here, and back in 1990 I was saying the biggest threat was having a plane drop out of the sky (for any reason) onto the local refinery complexes around Houston. :doh:

It would make Phopal look like a joy ride. Since 9/11 we have been much more focused and alert and watching out for such threats, and yet the Republicans have done nothing to properly guard our ports from such attacks, not anything like what they did with airport security. In fact they nearly sold our US ports and nearly turned over US port security to a bunch of Arabs in the UAI recently!!!

Everything I have heard and read has disputed that, saying there has never been any connection betwen terrorists (meaning AlQuida!!!) an Saddam, in fact the terrorists hated Saddam as much we did! Where are you get this from? The Bush manufactured lies to sell the war?

So you are saying we went to war for 5 years, because some two bit despotic dictator that we tried to knock off unsucesfully, tried to bump off the retired president that had previously ordered or sanctioned a hit on him?

Saudia Arabia, Iran, rebels in Afganistan, Syria, North Korea, Russia (up until 1990-91), Libya for years, various elements in Pakistan, and palestinians in Lebonon, all had far more to do with supporting terrorism that Saddam ever had. Saddam did not bother with terrorism he was too busy fighting wars with Iran and us. If we had followed your thinking the last 30 years, we would be at war with half the planet by now.

[ehall]

Everything I have heard and read has disputed that, saying there has never been any connection betwen terrorists (meaning AlQuida!!!) an Saddam, in fact the terrorists hated Saddam as much we did! Where are you get this from? The Bush manufactured lies to sell the war?

ROFL there is a documented history that precedes the Bush administration. Indeed, under the Clinton administration it was an accepted fact. Now we are told that it was all a Bush fabrication, as if time started on his inaugriation day.

For starters, the 9/11 Commission found evidence of Saddam and AQ trying to work together:

Bin Ladin was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq, even though Iraq’s dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist agenda—save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against "Crusaders" during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army. To protect his own ties with Iraq, Turabi reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad’s control. In the late 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Ladin’s help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.

With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request. As described below, the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections. There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported to have received a significant response. According to one report, Saddam Hussein’s efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin. In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December. Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’ hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.

A little more info about it

Just days after Operation Desert Fox [a four-day bombing strike launched by Clinton against Iraq] concluded one of Saddam's most loyal and trusted intelligence operatives, Faruq Hijazi, was dispatched to Afghanistan. He met with senior leaders from the Taliban and then with bin Laden and his cohorts on December 21.

While we cannot be sure what transpired at this meeting, we can be sure that it was not some benign event. In fact, within days of the meeting bin Laden loudly declared his opposition to the U.S.-led missile strikes on Iraq and called on all Muslims to strike U.S. and British targets, including civilians, around the world. According to press accounts at the time, bin Laden explained, "The British and the American people loudly declared their support for their leaders' decision to attack Iraq." He added that the citizens' support for their governments made it "the duty of Muslims to confront, fight, and kill" them.

Bin Laden's words sounded alarm bells around the world. Countless media outlets scurried to uncover the details of the relationship between Saddam's regime and al Qaeda. Dozens of news outlets--foreign and domestic--reported on the growing relationship and its ominous implications. When assessing any news account the reader must take all of the information with a grain of salt. But the sheer weight of the evidence reported from so many different sources paints a disturbing picture.

reporting from ABC News in January 1999 about the meetings (http://www.mediaresearch.org/rm/cyber/2004/binladen061704/segment1.ram) which has dropped into the memory hole

Oh and I guess you've forgotten that the Clinton administration bombed a chemical plant in Sudan because they thought there was proof positive of Iraqi-Al Qaeda joint VX production

For nearly two years, starting in 1996, the CIA monitored the al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan. The plant was known to have deep connections to Sudan's Military Industrial Corporation, and the CIA had gathered intelligence on the budding relationship between Iraqi chemical weapons experts and the plant's top officials. The intelligence included information that several top chemical weapons specialists from Iraq had attended ceremonies to celebrate the plant's opening in 1996. And, more compelling, the National Security Agency had intercepted telephone calls between Iraqi scientists and the plant's general manager.

Iraq also admitted to having a $199,000 contract with al Shifa for goods under the oil-for-food program. Those goods were never delivered. While it's hard to know what significance, if any, to ascribe to this information, it fits a pattern described in recent CIA reporting on the overlap in the mid-1990s between al Qaeda-financed groups and firms that violated U.N. sanctions on behalf of Iraq.

The clincher, however, came later in the spring of 1998, when the CIA secretly gathered a soil sample from 60 feet outside of the plant's main gate. The sample showed high levels of O-ethylmethylphosphonothioic acid, known as EMPTA, which is a key ingredient for the deadly nerve agent VX. A senior intelligence official who briefed
reporters at the time was asked which countries make VX using EMPTA. "Iraq is the only country we're aware of," the official said. "There are a variety of ways of making VX, a variety of recipes, and EMPTA is fairly unique."

That briefing came on August 24, 1998, four days after the Clinton administration launched cruise-missile strikes against al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan and Sudan (Osama bin Laden's headquarters from 1992-96), including the al Shifa plant. The missile strikes came 13 days after bombings at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania killed 257 people--including 12 Americans--and injured nearly 5,000. Clinton administration officials said that the attacks were in part retaliatory and in part preemptive. U.S. intelligence agencies had picked up "chatter" among bin Laden's deputies indicating that more attacks against American interests were imminent.

So yeah there is a pretty well established documented history here that pretty much destroys your theory that "in fact the terrorists hated Saddam as much we did" and that it was all manufactured by the Bush administration.

Whatever. You have made a little cocoon for yourself, no reality allowed. S'alright.

[Ecomike]

Pentagon Report on Saddam's Iraq Censored?
ABC News Tuesday 12 March 2008
ABC News' Jonathan Karl Reports: The Bush Administration apparently does not want a U.S. military study that found no direct connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda to get any attention. This morning, the Pentagon cancelled plans to send out a press release announcing the report's release and will no longer make the report available online.
The report was to be posted on the Joint Forces Command website this afternoon, followed by a background briefing with the authors. No more. The report will be made available only to those who ask for it, and it will be sent via U.S. mail from Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Virginia.
It won't be emailed to reporters and it won't be posted online.
Asked why the report would not be posted online and could not be emailed, the spokesman for Joint Forces Command said: "We're making the report available to anyone who wishes to have it, and we'll send it out via CD in the mail."
Another Pentagon official said initial press reports on the study made it "too politically sensitive."
ABC News obtained the comprehensive military study of Saddam Hussein's links to terrorism on Tuesday. Read the report's executive summary HERE.
The study, which was due to be released Wednesday, found no "smoking gun" or any evidence of a direct connection between Saddam's Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist organization.
The report is based on the analysis of some 600,000 official Iraqi documents seized by US forces after the invasion. It is also based on thousands of hours of interrogations of former top officials in Saddam's government who are now in U.S. custody.
Others have reached the same conclusion, but no previous study has had access to so much information. Further, this is the first official acknowledgement from the U.S. military that there is no evidence Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda.

The primary target, however, of Saddam's terror activities was not the United States, and not Israel. "The predominant targets of Iraqi state terror operations were Iraqi citizens, both inside and outside of Iraq." Saddam's primary aim was self preservation and the elimination of potential internal threats to his power.
Bush administration officials have made numerous attempts to link Saddam Hussein and the Al Qaeda terror group in their justification for waging war against Iraq.
"What I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al Qaida terrorist network," former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell told the United Nations February 5, 2003.

"But the cost is far less than it will be if we get hit, for example, with a weapon that Saddam Hussein might provide to al-Qaeda, the cost to the United States of what happened on 9/11 with billions and billions of dollars and 3,000 lives. And the cost will be much greater in a future attack if the terrorists have access to the kinds of capabilities that Saddam Hussein has developed," Cheney said.

------
I can't help but wonder how that potential cost would have compared to the real latest cost of the war in Iraq, add up the 1 trillion or so we have spent on the war already, the dead and injured US troops, loss of goodwill worldwide, I just don't see the numbers, in fact if we had spent that trillion dollars on securing the US borders, ports and inteligence gathering efforts, we would be far more secure than we are now. Right now we have several million really pissed off arabs running around with far more reason to hate us then they ever had. In fact, we probably would have 100,000 fewer casualties, and 3000 fewer dead troops if we had not invaded Iraq.

--------

Link the news above"

http://www.truthout.org/article/pentagon-report-saddams-iraq-censored



But the report of the commission's staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation. In yesterday's hearing of the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, a senior FBI official and a senior CIA analyst concurred with the finding.
The staff report said that bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq" while in Sudan through 1996, but that "Iraq apparently never responded" to a bin Laden request for help in 1994. The commission cited reports of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda after bin Laden went to Afghanistan in 1996, adding, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

Clarke also tells CBS News Correspondent Lesley Stahl that White House officials were tepid in their response when he urged them months before Sept. 11 to meet to discuss what he saw as a severe threat from al Qaeda.

"Frankly," he said, "I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know."

Clarke went on to say, "I think he's done a terrible job on the war against terrorism." Clarke says that as early as the day after the attacks, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was pushing for retaliatory strikes on Iraq, even though al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan.

Clarke suggests the idea took him so aback, he initally thought Rumsfeld was joking.

Clarke is due to testify this week before the special panel (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/27/politics/main602767.shtml) probing whether the attacks were preventable. Clarke helped shape U.S. policy on terrorism under President Reagan and the first President Bush. He was held over by President Clinton to be his terrorism czar, then held over again by the current President Bush.

In the 60 Minutes interview and the book, Clarke tells what happened behind the scenes at the White House before, during and after Sept. 11.

When the terrorists struck, it was thought the White House would be the next target, so it was evacuated. Clarke was one of only a handful of people who stayed behind. He ran the government's response to the attacks from the Situation Room in the West Wing.

After the president returned to the White House on Sept. 11, he and his top advisers, including Clarke, began holding meetings about how to respond and retaliate. As Clarke writes in his book, he expected the administration to focus its military response on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. He says he was surprised that the talk quickly turned to Iraq.

"Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said to Stahl. "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.

"Initially, I thought when he said, 'There aren't enough targets in-- in Afghanistan,' I thought he was joking.

"I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection, but the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there saying we've looked at this issue for years. For years we've looked and there's just no connection."

Clarke says he and CIA Director George Tenet told that to Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Clarke then tells Stahl of being pressured by Mr. Bush.

"The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this.

"I said, 'Mr. President. We've done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection.'

"He came back at me and said, "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report."

Clarke continued, "It was a serious look. We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts. We wrote the report. We sent the report out to CIA and found FBI and said, 'Will you sign this report?' They all cleared the report. And we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor or Deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer. ... Do it again.'

"I have no idea, to this day, if the president saw it, because after we did it again, it came to the same conclusion. And frankly, I don't think the people around the president show him memos like that. I don't think he sees memos that he doesn't-- wouldn't like the answer."

Clarke was the president's chief adviser on terrorism, yet it wasn't until Sept. 11 that he ever got to brief Mr. Bush on the subject. Clarke says that prior to Sept. 11, the administration didn't take the threat seriously.

"We had a terrorist organization that was going after us! Al Qaeda. That should have been the first item on the agenda. And it was pushed back and back and back for months.

"There's a lot of blame to go around, and I probably deserve some blame, too. But on January 24th, 2001, I wrote a memo to Condoleezza Rice asking for, urgently -- underlined urgently -- a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with the impending al Qaeda attack. And that urgent memo-- wasn't acted on.

"I blame the entire Bush leadership for continuing to work on Cold War issues when they back in power in 2001. It was as though they were preserved in amber from when they left office eight years earlier. They came back. They wanted to work on the same issues right away: Iraq, Star Wars. Not new issues, the new threats that had developed over the preceding eight years."

Clarke finally got his meeting about al Qaeda in April, three months after his urgent request. But it wasn't with the president or cabinet. It was with the second-in-command in each relevant department.

For the Pentagon, it was Paul Wolfowitz.

Clarke relates, "I began saying, 'We have to deal with bin Laden; we have to deal with al Qaeda.' Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, said, 'No, no, no. We don't have to deal with al Qaeda. Why are we talking about that little guy? We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism against the United States.'

"And I said, 'Paul, there hasn't been any Iraqi terrorism against the United States in eight years!' And I turned to the deputy director of the CIA and said, 'Isn't that right?' And he said, 'Yeah, that's right. There is no Iraqi terrorism against the United States."

Clarke went on to add, "There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever."

When Stahl pointed out that some administration officials say it's still an open issue, Clarke responded, "Well, they'll say that until hell freezes over." By June 2001, there still hadn't been a Cabinet-level meeting on terrorism, even though U.S. intelligence was picking up an unprecedented level of ominous chatter.

The CIA director warned the White House, Clarke points out. "George Tenet was saying to the White House, saying to the president - because he briefed him every morning - a major al Qaeda attack is going to happen against the United States somewhere in the world in the weeks and months ahead. He said that in June, July, August."

Clarke says the last time the CIA had picked up a similar level of chatter was in December, 1999, when Clarke was the terrorism czar in the Clinton White House.

Clarke says Mr. Clinton ordered his Cabinet to go to battle stations-- meaning, they went on high alert, holding meetings nearly every day.

That, Clarke says, helped thwart a major attack on Los Angeles International Airport, when an al Qaeda operative was stopped at the border with Canada, driving a car full of explosives.

Clarke harshly criticizes President Bush for not going to battle stations when the CIA warned him of a comparable threat in the months before Sept. 11: "He never thought it was important enough for him to hold a meeting on the subject, or for him to order his National Security Adviser to hold a Cabinet-level meeting on the subject."

Finally, says Clarke, "The cabinet meeting I asked for right after the inauguration took place-- one week prior to 9/11."

In that meeting, Clarke proposed a plan to bomb al Qaeda's sanctuary in Afghanistan, and to kill bin Laden. The president's new campaign ads highlight his handling of Sept. 11 -- which has become the centerpiece of his bid for re-election.

"You are writing this book in the middle of this campaign," Stahl tells Clarke. "The timing, I'm sure, you will be questioned about and criticized for. Why are you doing it now?"

"Well, I'm sure I'll be criticized for lots of things," says Clarke. "And I'm sure they'll launch their dogs on me."

Does a person who works for the White House owe the president his loyalty?

"Yes ... Up to a point. When the president starts doing things that risk American lives, then loyalty to him has to be put aside," says Clarke. "I think the way he has responded to al Qaeda, both before 9/11 by doing nothing, and by what he's done after 9/11 has made us less safe. Absolutely."

Hadley staunchly defended the president to Stahl: "The president heard those warnings. The president met daily with ... George Tenet and his staff. They kept him fully informed and at one point the president became somewhat impatient with us and said, 'I'm tired of swatting flies. Where's my new strategy to eliminate al Qaeda?'"

Hadley says that, contrary to Clarke's assertion, Mr. Bush didn't ignore the ominous intelligence chatter in the summer of 2001.

"All the chatter was of an attack, a potential al Qaeda attack overseas. But interestingly enough, the president got concerned about whether there was the possibility of an attack on the homeland. He asked the intelligence community: 'Look hard. See if we're missing something about a threat to the homeland.'

"And at that point various alerts went out from the Federal Aviation Administration to the FBI saying the intelligence suggests a threat overseas. We don't want to be caught unprepared. We don't want to rule out the possibility of a threat to the homeland. And therefore preparatory steps need to be made. So the president put us on battle stations."

Hadley asserts Clarke is "just wrong" in saying the administration didn't go to battle stations.

As for the alleged pressure from Mr. Bush to find an Iraq-9/11 link, Hadley says, "We cannot find evidence that this conversation between Mr. Clarke and the president ever occurred."

When told by Stahl that 60 Minutes has two sources who tell us independently of Clarke that the encounter happened, including "an actual witness," Hadley responded, "Look, I stand on what I said."

Hadley maintained, "Iraq, as the president has said, is at the center of the war on terror. We have narrowed the ground available to al Qaeda and to the terrorists. Their sanctuary in Afghanistan is gone; their sanctuary in Iraq is gone. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are now allies on the war on terror. So Iraq has contributed in that way in narrowing the sanctuaries available to terrorists."Does Clarke think that Iraq, the Middle East and the world is better off with Saddam Hussein out of power?

"I think the world would be better off if a number of leaders around the world were out of power. The question is what price should the United States pay," says Clarke. "The price we paid was very, very high, and we're still paying that price for doing it."

"Osama bin Laden had been saying for years, 'America wants to invade an Arab country and occupy it, an oil-rich Arab country. He had been saying this. This is part of his propaganda," adds Clarke.

"So what did we do after 9/11? We invade an oil-rich and occupy an oil-rich Arab country which was doing nothing to threaten us. In other words, we stepped right into bin Laden's propaganda. And the result of that is that al Qaeda and organizations like it, offshoots of it, second-generation al Qaeda have been greatly strengthened."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda

Two main questions have been raised regarding the alleged connection between the Saddam Hussein's government and al-Qaeda. The first asks whether the Iraqi regime and al-Qaeda had a cooperative relationship, and the second whether Saddam Hussein's government supported the September 11, 2001 attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11%2C_2001_attacks).[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]

The intelligence community (CIA, NSA, DIA, etc) view, confirmed by the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission Report (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission_Report) and the Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Report_of_Pre-war_Intelligence_on_Iraq), is that there was not a cooperative effort between the two and that Saddam did not support the 9/11 attacks. According to this view, the difference in ideology between Saddam and al-Qaeda made cooperation in any terrorist attacks very unlikely.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda#cite_note-5) The Senate Report discussed the possibility of Saddam offering al-Qaeda training and safe-haven, but confirmed the CIA's conclusion that there was no evidence of operational cooperation between the two.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda#cite_note-6)
The Bush administration view, as defined by the Colin Powell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Powell) speech before the UN, postulated that there might have been a cooperative relationship, but that Saddam was not supportive of the 9/11 attacks. Powell presented several credible intelligence reports vetted by the Intelligence Community showing contacts between Iraq's Intelligence Service and al-Qaeda. Powell pointed out that Saddam had already supported Islamic Jihad, a radical Islamist group and that there was no reason for him not to support al-Qaeda. Powell discussed concerns that Saddam may provide al-Qaeda with chemical or biological weapons. The Bush Administration view was influenced in part by the "false flag" view of Laurie Mylroie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurie_Mylroie), whose answers to the questions followed along the lines that not only did Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda have a cooperative relationship, but also that the Iraqi regime supported the 9/11 attacks as well. Very few people share Mylroie's view but her book on the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center was very influential among several top Bush Administration officials. Mylroie maintains that the existence of a Saddam-9/11 link has been confirmed by evidence uncovered since Saddam's overthrow.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda#cite_note-7)[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda#cite_note-8) Dr. Robert S. Leiken of the Nixon Center noted that Mylroie "also believes Saddam perpetrated 9-11 in spite of the fact that the joint FBI-INS-police PENTBOM investigation, the FBI program of voluntary interviews and numerous other post-9-11 inquiries, together comprising probably the most comprehensive criminal investigation in history—chasing down 500,000 leads and interviewing 175,000 people -- has turned up no evidence of Iraq's involvement; nor has the extensive search of post-Saddam Iraq by the Kay and Duelfer commission and US troops combing through Saddam’s computers."[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda#cite_note-9) While some contacts between agents of Saddam's government and members of al-Qaeda have been alleged, the consensus of experts and analysts has held that those contacts never led to an "operational" relationship. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concluded that there was only one actual meeting between representatives of the Baathist regime and representatives of al-Qaeda. This single meeting took place in the Sudan in 1995, and the Iraqi representative, who is in custody and has been cooperating with investigators, said that after the meeting he "received word from his IIS chain-of-command that he should not see bin Laden again." The Panel found evidence of only two other instances in which there was any communication between Saddam's regime and al-Qaeda members. On the other two occasions, the Committee concluded, Saddam Hussein rebuffed meeting requests from an al-Qaeda operative. The Intelligence Community has not found any other evidence of meetings between al-Qaeda and Iraq."

[ehall]

In regards to your cites that there is no evidence of a "direct connection between Saddam's Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist organization", please point out where somebody with standing has stated otherwise. I was responding to your claim that "there has never been any connection betwen terrorists (meaning AlQuida!!!) an Saddam, in fact the terrorists hated Saddam as much we did!" and that any such claim was a Bush fabrication, both of which I proved to be complete bull.

"never been any connection" is also COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from whether or not they had operational cooperation. Nobody of any standing has claimed the latter to my knowledge.

It's also irrelevant, since (1) AQ is not the only terrorist group in the world with an interest in striking the US, and (2) Saddam has a demonstrated history of working with other groups at the operational level to attack US interests (and that includes AQ aligned groups such as Abu Sayyaf in the Phillipines)

[ehall]

Well thanks for the dupe post I guess

[Ecomike]

It's also irrelevant, since (1) AQ is not the only terrorist group in the world with an interest in striking the US,

and (2) Saddam has a demonstrated history of working with other groups at the operational level to attack US interests

It is relevant as the 9/11 attack was the excuss we used to attack Iraq, and there has never been any proof found that Iraq was involved with the 9/11 attack which was orchestrated by AlQuida, not Saddam.

And by the way, IIRC Saddam was executed, so it's past tense now, had not has.

[Ecomike]

Well thanks for the dupe post I guess

There are some terrorist gremlins loose in the NAXJA server this weekend. Duplicate has been deleted.

[ehall]

It is relevant as the 9/11 attack was the excuss we used to attack Iraq, and there has never been any proof found that Iraq was involved with the 9/11 attack which was orchestrated by AlQuida, not Saddam.

I'll ask you again, please point out where somebody with standing has stated that Saddam had a direct involvement in 9/11?

[SBrad001]

"We did have reporting that was public, that came out shortly after the 9/11 attack, provided by the Czech government, suggesting there had been a meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker, and a man named al-Ani (Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani), who was an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague, at the embassy there, in April of '01, prior to the 9/11 attacks. . . that was the one that possibly tied the two together to 9/11." - Transcript of Interview with Vice President Dick Cheney, Rocky Mountain News

"I continue to believe. I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government. We've discovered since documents indicating that a guy named Abdul Rahman Yasin, who was a part of the team that attacked the World Trade Center in '93, when he arrived back in Iraq was put on the payroll and provided a house, safe harbor and sanctuary. That's public information now. So Saddam Hussein had an established track record of providing safe harbor and sanctuary for terrorists. . . . I mean, this is a guy who was an advocate and a supporter of terrorism whenever it suited his purpose, and I'm very confident that there was an established relationship there." - Dick Cheney, Morning Edition, NPR (1/22/2004)



You mention Al Qaida, 9/11 and Iraq enough times in the same sentence and people are going to begin to think that they all are connected. It's a clever word game that worked beautifully since SO many people still believe that Iraq was connected and/or responsible for those attacks.

[ehall]

"We did have reporting that was public, that came out shortly after the 9/11 attack, provided by the Czech government, suggesting there had been a meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker, and a man named al-Ani (Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani), who was an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague, at the embassy there, in April of '01, prior to the 9/11 attacks. . . that was the one that possibly tied the two together to 9/11." - Transcript of Interview with Vice President Dick Cheney, Rocky Mountain News
"that was the one that possibly tied the two together" is not a declarative statement that Saddam was involved in 9/11.

"I continue to believe. I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government.
That is not a statement of operational coordination on 9/11 either, it is a statement that AQ and Iraq had connections which has been documented as true.

You mention Al Qaida, 9/11 and Iraq enough times in the same sentence and people are going to begin to think that they all are connected. It's a clever word game that worked beautifully since SO many people still believe that Iraq was connected and/or responsible for those attacks.
What's funny is that judging from the number of stramwan posts crying that there was no connection, when nobody of any standing ever made the claim, it's the lefties who are confused about it.

[SBrad001]

What's funny is that judging from the number of stramwan posts crying that there was no connection, when nobody of any standing ever made the claim, it's the lefties who are confused about it.

That's funny. No really, it's comedy gold.

It's called culpable responsibility. If 'I' lend material support to someone who in turn uses that support to commit a crime, 'I' must show that 'I' had reasonable belief that 'my' help would not be used in the commission of a crime.

You have gone to great lengths to point to the alleged connection between Iraq and Al Qaida. It reasonable to believe then that Iraq had a hand in some sort of support in 9/11.

[Ecomike]

I'll ask you again, please point out where somebody with standing has stated that Saddam had a direct involvement in 9/11?

That is not the same question you asked before. This is what you asked before!

"In regards to your cites that there is no evidence of a "direct connection between Saddam's Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist organization", please point out where somebody with standing has stated otherwise."

"In September 2003, Cheney said Iraq under Saddam had been "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.""

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/12/kerry.powell.iraq/index.html

[ehall]

You have gone to great lengths to point to the alleged connection between Iraq and Al Qaida. It reasonable to believe then that Iraq had a hand in some sort of support in 9/11.
If that were the case everybody would say it. Instead we have a minority who raise the strawman over and over and over for the sole apparent reason that they like to knock it over.

[ehall]

That is not the same question you asked before. This is what you asked before!

"In regards to your cites that there is no evidence of a "direct connection between Saddam's Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist organization", please point out where somebody with standing has stated otherwise."

I was referring to an ongoing operational relationship between Saddam and AQ proper. I don't believe anybody with standing ever said there was that kind of relationship either, much less coordinated involvement with 9/11.

Instead I was specifically addressing your claim (which you have not yet rescinded) that "there has never been any connection betwen terrorists (meaning AlQuida!!!) an Saddam, in fact the terrorists hated Saddam as much we did" and that Bush made it all up.

"In September 2003, Cheney said Iraq under Saddam had been "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.""

He was making the point that Iraq is the "geographic" center of the terrorists who attacked us, which seems a fair point given that it is almost equidistant between Afghanistan and Egypt albeit closer to Saudi Arabia. The argument there is if you are going to bring democratic reforms, might as well pick the place in the middle.

[buschwhaked]

I was referring to an ongoing operational relationship between Saddam and AQ proper. I don't believe anybody with standing ever said there was that kind of relationship either, much less coordinated involvement with 9/11.


Ok, I said I wouldn't get back into this, but support of AQ means you are involved with 9/11 to almost every American. That was one of the main selling points of the war. He did make a case for it, and it was a lie. Here is a list of quotes he and Dicky stated both before and after the invasion.

George W. Bush

2002

"The regime has longstanding and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are Al Qaida terrorists inside Iraq." - George W. Bush Delivers Weekly Radio Address, White House (9/28/2002) - BushOnIraq.com

"We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases." - President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House (10/7/2002) - Whitehouse.gov

"I think they're both equally important, and they're both dangerous. And as I said in my speech in Cincinnati, we will fight if need be the war on terror on two fronts. We've got plenty of capacity to do so. And I also mentioned the fact that there is a connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. The war on terror, Iraq is a part on the war on terror. And he must disarm." - President Condems Attack in Bali, White House (10/14/2002) - Whitehouse.gov

"This is a man who has got connections with Al Qaida. Imagine a terrorist network with Iraq as an arsenal and as a training ground, so that a Saddam Hussein could use this shadowy group of people to attack his enemy and leave no fingerprint behind. He's a threat." - Remarks by the President in Texas Welcome, White House (11/4/2002) - Whitehouse.gov

"He's a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaida. In my Cincinnati speech I reminded the American people, a true threat facing our country is that an Al Qaida-type network trained and armed by Saddam could attack America and leave not one fingerprint." - President Outlines Priorities, White House (11/7/2002) - BushOnIraq.gov

"He's had contacts with Al Qaida. Imagine the scenario where an Al Qaida-type organization uses Iraq as an arsenal, a place to get weapons, a place to be trained to use the weapons. Saddam Hussein could use surrogates to come and attack people he hates." - Remarks by the President at Arkansas Welcome, White House (11/4/2002) - BushOnIraq.com

2003

"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help develop their own." - President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003) - Whitehouse.gov

"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses, and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other planes -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known." - President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003) - Whitehouse.gov

"Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner." - President Bush: "World Can Rise to This Moment", White House (2/6/2003) - Whitehouse.gov

Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraq intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in aquiring poisons and gases. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner." - President's Radio Address, White House (2/8/2003) - BushOnIraq.com

"He has trained and financed al Qaeda-type organizations before, al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations." - President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference, White House (3/6/2003) - BushOnIraq.com

"The regime . . . has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda. The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other." President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours, White House (3/17/2003) -BushOnIraq.com

"The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more." - President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003) - BushOnIraq.com

"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men -- the shock troops of a hateful ideology -- gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the 'beginning of the end of America.' By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed." - President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003) - BushOnIraq.com


Dick Cheney

2002

"In Afghanistan we found confirmation that bin Laden and the al-Qaeda network were seriously interested in nuclear and radiological weapons, and in biological and chemical agents. We are especially concerned about any possible linkup between terrorists and regimes that have or seek weapons of mass destruction." - Vice President Delivers Remarks to the National Academy of Home Builders, White House (6/6/2002) - BushOnIraq.com

"His regime has had high-level contacts with al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to al Qaeda terrorists." - Remarks by the Vice President at the Air National Guard Senior Leadership Conference, White House (12/2/2002) - BushOnIraq.com

"There is also a grave danger that al Qaeda or other terrorists will join with outlaw regimes that have these weapons to attack their common enemy, the United States of America. That is why confronting the threat posed by Iraq is not a distraction from the war on terror." - Remarks by the Vice President at the Air National Guard Senior Leadership Conference, White House (12/2/2002) - BushOnIraq.com

2003

"His regime aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. He could decide secretly to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against us." - Vice President's Remarks at 30th Political Action Conference, White House (1/30/2003) - BushOnIraq.com

"And Saddam Hussein becomes a prime suspect in that regard because of his past track record and because we know he has, in fact, developed these kinds of capabilities, chemical and biological weapons. . . We know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the al-Qaeda organization." - Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, NBC (3/16/2003) - BushOnIraq.com

"I have argued in the past, and would again, if we had been able to pre-empt the attacks of 9/11 would we have done it? And I think absolutely. We have to be prepared now to take the kind of bold action that's being contemplated with respect to Iraq in order to ensure that we don't get hit with a devastating attack when the terrorists' organization gets married up with a rogue state that's willing to provide it with the kinds of deadly capabilities that Saddam Hussein has developed and used over the years." - Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, NBC (3/16/2003) - BushOnIraq.com

"If we're successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it's not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it's not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." - Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, NBC (9/14/2003) - BushOnIraq.com

"(Since September 11) We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization." - Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, NBC (9/14/2003) - BushOnIraq.com

"And the reason we had to do Iraq, if you hark back and think about that link between the terrorists and weapons of mass destruction, Iraq was the place where we were most fearful that that was most likely to occur, because in Iraq we've had a government -- not only was it one of the worst dictatorships in modern times, but had oftentimes hosted terrorists in the past . . . but also an established relationship with the al Qaeda organization . . . ." - Vice President Dick Cheney Remarks at Luncheon for Congressman Jim Gerlach, White House (10/3/2003) - BushOnIraq.com

"(I)f we had not paid any attention to the fact that al Qaeda was being hosted in Northeastern Iraq, part of poisons network producing ricin and cyanide that was intended to be used in attacks both in Europe, as well as in North Africa and ignored it, we would have been derelict in our duties and responsibilities." - Vice President Dick Cheney Remarks at Luncheon for Congressman Jim Gerlach, White House (10/3/2003) - BushOnIraq.com

"He cultivated ties to terror, hosting the Abu Nidal organization, supporting terrorists, making payments to the families of suicide bombers in Israel. He also had an established relationship with al Qaeda, providing training to al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons, gases, making conventional bombs." - Remarks by Vice President Dick Cheney at the Heritage Foundation, White House (10/10/2003) - BushOnIraq.com

"Saddam Hussein had a lengthy history of reckless and sudden aggression. He cultivated ties to terror -- hosting the Abu Nidal organization, supporting terrorists, and making payments to the families of suicide bombers. He also had an established relationship with Al Qaida -- providing training to Al Qaida members in areas of poisons, gases and conventional bombs. He built, possessed, and used weapons of mass destruction." - Richard B. Cheney Delivers Remarks at the James A. Baker, III, Institute for Public Policy, White House (10/18/2003) - BushOnIraq.com

2004

"We'll find ample evidence confirming the link, that is the connection if you will between al Qaida and the Iraqi intelligence services. They have worked together on a number of occasions." - Transcript of interview with Vice President Dick Cheney, Rocky Mountain News (1/9/2004) - BushOnIraq.com

"We did have reporting that was public, that came out shortly after the 9/11 attack, provided by the Czech government, suggesting there had been a meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker, and a man named al-Ani (Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani), who was an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague, at the embassy there, in April of '01, prior to the 9/11 attacks. It has never been -- we've never been able to collect any more information on that. That was the one that possibly tied the two together to 9/11." - Transcript of Interview with Vice President Dick Cheney, Rocky Mountain News (1/9/2004) - BushOnIraq.com

"Saddam Hussein had a lengthy history of reckless and sudden aggression. His regime cultivated ties to terror, including the al Qaeda network, and had built, possessed, and used weapons of mass destruction." - Richard B. Cheney Delivers Remarks to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council, White House (1/14/2004) - BushOnIraq.com

"Saddam Hussein had a lengthy history of reckless and sudden aggression. His regime cultivated ties to terror, including the al Qaeda network, and had built, possessed, and used weapons of mass destruction." - Richard B. Cheney Delivers Remarks to Veterans at the Arizona Wing Museum, White House (1/15/2004) - BushOnIraq.com

"I continue to believe. I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government. We've discovered since documents indicating that a guy named Abdul Rahman Yasin, who was a part of the team that attacked the World Trade Center in '93, when he arrived back in Iraq was put on the payroll and provided a house, safe harbor and sanctuary. That's public information now. So Saddam Hussein had an established track record of providing safe harbor and sanctuary for terrorists. . . . I mean, this is a guy who was an advocate and a supporter of terrorism whenever it suited his purpose, and I'm very confident that there was an established relationship there." - Dick Cheney, Morning Edition, NPR (1/22/2004) - BushOnIraq.com


From the White House website, Bush's comments about Saddam Hussein
(Campaign speeches only. For period of October 10 - November 04.)

OCT 28 Remarks by the President at New Mexico Welcome
"This is a person who has had contacts with al Qaeda."

OCT 28 Remarks by the President in Colorado Welcome
"He's got connections with al Qaeda."

OCT 31 Remarks by the President at South Dakota Welcome
"This is a guy who has had connections with these shadowy terrorist networks."

NOV 01 Remarks by the President at New Hampshire Welcome
"We know he's got ties with al Qaeda."

NOV 02 Remarks by the President in Florida Welcome
"We know that he's had connections with al Qaeda."

NOV 02 Remarks by the President in Atlanta, Georgia Welcome
"He's had connections with shadowy terrorist networks like al Qaeda."

NOV 02 Remarks by the President at Tennessee Welcome
"We know that he has had contacts with terrorist networks like al Qaeda."

NOV 03 Remarks by the President in Minnesota Welcome
"This is a man who has had contacts with al Qaeda."

NOV 04 Remarks by the President at Missouri Welcome
"This is a man who has had al Qaeda connections."

NOV 04 Remarks by the President at Arkansas Welcome
"He's had contacts with al Qaeda."

NOV 04 Remarks by the President in Texas Welcome
"This is a man who has got connections with al Qaeda."

Plus this speculation:

OCT 14 Remarks by the President in Michigan Welcome
"... we need to think about Saddam Hussein using al Qaeda to do his dirty work, to not leave fingerprints behind."

NOV 03 Remarks by the President in South Dakota Welcome
"And, not only that, he is -- would like nothing better than to hook-up with one of these shadowy terrorist networks like al Qaeda, provide some weapons and training to them, let them come and do his dirty work, and we wouldn't be able to see his fingerprints on his action. "

NOV 03 Remarks by the President at Illinois Welcome
"He is a man who would likely -- he is a man who would likely team up with al Qaeda. He could provide the arsenal for one of these shadowy terrorist networks. He would love to use somebody else to attack us, and not leave fingerprints behind. "

[Boatwrench]

Since 9/11 we have been much more focused and alert and watching out for such threats, and yet the Republicans have done nothing to properly guard our ports from such attacks, not anything like what they did with airport security. In fact they nearly sold our US ports and nearly turned over US port security to a bunch of Arabs in the UAI recently!!!


Takes time to build up that sort of (airport) security.

The Coast Guard is working on it, trust me, it's been my job since 9/14.

but like I said in the earlier post this war is being fought for one reason "he tried to kill my dad!"

[Ecomike]

Takes time to build up that sort of (airport) security.

The Coast Guard is working on it, trust me, it's been my job since 9/14.

but like I said in the earlier post this war is being fought for one reason "he tried to kill my dad!"

Glad to hear that we are not totally asleep at the wheel again! But seriously, the amount of money going into port security (and into the Coast Guard budget) is a joke compared to the scale of the problem ( unless you add in the all the easedropping budget $$s the NSA spends), and compared to the money waisted in Iraq, it is shameful what they expect of the Coast Guard. You guys need a lot more authority and lot a more money in my opinion.

Second point (and I don't disaqgree with you on it) If that is, was true, why are we still fighting over there, since Sadam and many of his crew are dead now?

[ehall]

Here is a list of quotes he and Dicky stated both before and after the invasion.

Which of those quotes do you think shows Bush stating that Saddam was involved with 9/11 or definitively stated that they had an ongoing tactical relationship?

Don't overwhelm me with bullshit, POINT IT OUT

[buschwhaked]

...definitively stated that they had an ongoing tactical relationship?


This is just one of quotes I found that directly answered that question. There are more. It doesn't take that long to read either. Chill out BTW.

"His regime has had high-level contacts with al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to al Qaeda terrorists." - Remarks by the Vice President at the Air National Guard Senior Leadership Conference, White House (12/2/2002) - BushOnIraq.com

[SBrad001]

. . . Don't overwhelm me with bullshit, POINT IT OUT

um, didn't you do that with your list of Where As's and Resolutions?

Why don't you try reading it, it shouldn't be too overwhelming for someone of your intelligence.

[ehall]

This is just one of quotes I found that directly answered that question. There are more. It doesn't take that long to read either. Chill out BTW.
First of all, I don't need somebody who goes around screaming that BUSH LIED!!11one to tell me to calm down.

Second, the quote you provided does not state that they had a operational relationship, it states ACCURATELY that Saddam and AQ had high-level CONTACTS during the past:

"His regime has had high-level contacts with al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to al Qaeda terrorists." - Remarks by the Vice President at the Air National Guard Senior Leadership Conference, White House (12/2/2002) - BushOnIraq.com

That has been documented already in this thread, including in the 9/11 Commission report excerpt which stated the same thing:

With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request. As described below, the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections. There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported to have received a significant response. According to one report, Saddam Hussein’s efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin. In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December. Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’ hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.

I will have to look through my archives about the extent of any training that Saddam's regime may have provided to AQ terrorists directly, if you want to challenge it.

[ehall]

um, didn't you do that with your list of Where As's and Resolutions?
Somebody asked for the reasons we went to war, those are the reasons

[Ecomike]

Bush knew no Iraq link pre-9/11: report

November 23, 2005 - 1:06PM

US President George W Bush was informed 10 days after the September 11, 2001 attacks that US intelligence had no proof of links between Iraq and this act of terror, The National Journal reported today. Citing government documents as well as past and present Bush administration officials, the magazine said the president was briefed on September 21, 2001 that evidence of cooperation between Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist network was insufficient.
Bush was also informed that there was some credible information about contacts between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda that showed that the Iraqi dictator had tried to establish surveillance over the group, according to the report.
Saddam Hussein believed the radical Islamic network represented a threat for his secular regime.
Little additional evidence has emerged over the past four years that could contradict the CIA conclusion about a lack of a collaborative relationship between al-Qaeda and Iraq, the Journal quotes a high-level government official as saying.
The magazine believes the evidence raises yet more questions about the administration's use of intelligence in the run up to the war in Iraq.



Source:



http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/bush-knew-no-iraq-link-pre911-report/2005/11/23/1132703230171.html

[ehall]

US President George W Bush was informed 10 days after the September 11, 2001 attacks that US intelligence had no proof of links between Iraq and this act of terror
Well then it's a good thing he never stated otherwise, don't you agree