PDA

View Full Version : Saddom-Afgan dossier. how is this not a discussed topic?


Iowanian
07-06-2006, 12:22 PM
This appears to have valid links, translations and explanations of siezed documents, connecting Iraq, Afganistan and terrorists, prior to 911.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199053,00.html

Bootlegged
07-06-2006, 12:28 PM
Duh?! Bush Lied People Died.

Brock
07-06-2006, 12:40 PM
Those documents are merely allegedly real.

Cochise
07-06-2006, 12:54 PM
I won't believe anything until I hear the REAL story from Mary Mapes.

Iowanian
07-06-2006, 01:08 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,202277,00.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,202271,00.html

Links to documents themselves for those not trusting the source.

Iowanian
07-06-2006, 01:09 PM
"Epilogue:

Let’s review what we have learned from the IIS notebook.

• We learned that in 1999 the IIS met with three significant leaders of Islamic jhad from Afghanistan: a warlord and Islamic jihadist; an Al Qaeda leader; and, a man known as the “Father of the Taliban.”

• The Saddam regime and Taliban leadership agreed to diplomatic ties and a secret intelligence service relationship. They discussed security cooperation with Hekmatyar’s Islamic Jihad group. The Taliban representative also agreed to support the Saddam regime in Pakistan’s North-West Frontier, a region sympathetic to and actively involved with the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and the world-wide Islamic jihad movement. An Islamist, most likely the Al Qaeda and Taliban affiliated Fazlur Rahman Khalil, promised the support of Bangladesh.

• We see a request to the Saddam regime for a training center in Baghdad or Tajikistan from a jihad leader accused by the U.S. State Department during the Clinton Administration of running Islamic extremist training camps.

• There is a discussion about transporting something into these centers, including a discussion that appears to mention surface-to-air missiles.

• And, we have numerous statements of Islamic fidelity between Afghani jihad leaders and the Saddam regime, with many statements of mutual animosity towards the United States and intent to cooperate.

This notebook thus provides significant evidence that the Saddam regime collaborated with and supported Islamic jihad elements in Afghanistan at a time when the Taliban and Al Qaeda were attacking United States citizens and their interests and plotting the 9/11 attacks.

In this notebook, we see a Saddam Hussein actively seeking to expand his sphere of influence in a region at the heart of the world-wide Islamic jihad movement.

This now-public relationship between Maulana Fazlur Rahman and Saddam Hussein deserves great scrutiny.

As we researched the Maulana, a picture came into focus that our team was not looking to find: The Maulana is a senior leader of an affiliation of Pakistani groups supportive of Islamic jihad. These groups include the JUI and the Jamaat Islami (JI). The JUI provided direct support to both the planner and paymaster of the 9/11 attacks. The Pakistani government accused the JI of working with Al Qaeda. The Maulana mediated an intelligence pact between the IIS and the Taliban.

Clearly, this evidence indicates that the Maulana was in a position to procure assistance from Iraq for the 9/11 attacks.
"

StcChief
07-06-2006, 01:22 PM
To libbies they will always be alleged true doc

alanm
07-06-2006, 02:02 PM
The Left response.

Iowanian
07-06-2006, 02:11 PM
With all the "diggin to the bottom for the truth" in everything, posting 20 threads on the front page this week, I'd think this is more than worthy of discussion.

I'm not sure what to make of it all yet, its alot to sort through, let alone absorb.

I do think, the puzzle will begin to be pieced together, making the picture a little clearer, when more of the intelligence that has been gathered is translated and put together.

Lurch
07-06-2006, 03:13 PM
Ah, this one is sooooo easy I can't believe no one has said it: FOXNews reported it. By definition, it is lies and propaganda.

SBK
07-06-2006, 03:27 PM
You could have a video of Saddam and Osama taking a bath together then strapping on bomb vests and blowing up a village of people and the left would still tell you that there was no evidence of an Iraq AQ link.

dirk digler
07-06-2006, 03:47 PM
I agree Iowa that this is a worthy topic. Here is what I think:

1. Did Iraq have anything to do with 9/11? No

2. Did Iraq and AQ meet? Yes

3. Did Iraq and AQ have ties? possibly

4. Do I care that Iraq and AQ had ties? No

5. Does Iran have ties with AQ? Yes
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/21/1053196639723.html

6. Why haven't we attacked Iran? Good question dirk. You would think that having ties to AQ and having weapons of mass destruction would lead to an invasion. Where have I heard that before?

7. Is/Was North Korea/Iran a much bigger threat to the US than Iraq? Well that answer is very apparent now.

mikey23545
07-06-2006, 03:52 PM
I agree Iowa that this is a worthy topic. Here is what I think:

1. Did Iraq have anything to do with 9/11? No

2. Did Iraq and AQ meet? Yes

3. Did Iraq and AQ have ties? possibly

4. Do I care that Iraq and AQ had ties? No

5. Does Iran have ties with AQ? Yes
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/21/1053196639723.html

6. Why haven't we attacked Iran? Good question dirk. You would think that having ties to AQ and having weapons of mass destruction would lead to an invasion. Where have I heard that before?

7. Is/Was North Korea/Iran a much bigger threat to the US than Iraq? Well that answer is very apparent now.

8. Do a lot of internet geniuses have damn near 20-15 Hindsight vision? You betcha.

Iowanian
07-06-2006, 03:57 PM
I think Iran is definitely dirty. They've outright supported attacks on the US since the bombing in Beruit, and they've largely been responsible for the manufactured Shape charges and EFPs that have been doing the serious damage in iraq.

Why we've never dealt with them, I'm not sure.

Hydrae
07-06-2006, 04:10 PM
In my very inexpert opinion from a not thorough reading of the links provided (have I qualified my response enough yet?), I see the Taliban appealing to Iraq for help in a variety of areas and I see the Iraq VP stating that he agrees with OBL that the US is the enemy. However I see much more implicating Pakistan as an involved party than Iraq. :shrug:

dirk digler
07-06-2006, 04:34 PM
8. Do a lot of internet geniuses have damn near 20-15 Hindsight vision? You betcha.

Thanks for the compliment. :)

I have stated many times prior to going into Iraq that I thought North Korea was the bigger threat.

Bush just picked the lesser of the 3 Axis of Evil when he should have dealt with Iran or North Korea.

dirk digler
07-06-2006, 04:36 PM
I think Iran is definitely dirty. They've outright supported attacks on the US since the bombing in Beruit, and they've largely been responsible for the manufactured Shape charges and EFPs that have been doing the serious damage in iraq.

Why we've never dealt with them, I'm not sure.

Yep totally 100% agree.

Chiefnj
07-06-2006, 04:51 PM
"Although 15 of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, federal prosecutors have alleged in court documents that it was Mohamed Atta of Egypt, Ziad Jarrah of Lebanon and Marwan Al-Shehhi of the United Arab Emirates who "formed and maintained an al-Qaida terrorist cell in Germany" in the late 1990s."


Why didn't we go to war against any of those countries?

the Talking Can
07-06-2006, 05:10 PM
"Although 15 of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, federal prosecutors have alleged in court documents that it was Mohamed Atta of Egypt, Ziad Jarrah of Lebanon and Marwan Al-Shehhi of the United Arab Emirates who "formed and maintained an al-Qaida terrorist cell in Germany" in the late 1990s."


Why didn't we go to war against any of those countries?

why do you hate America?

mlyonsd
07-06-2006, 05:16 PM
"Although 15 of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, federal prosecutors have alleged in court documents that it was Mohamed Atta of Egypt, Ziad Jarrah of Lebanon and Marwan Al-Shehhi of the United Arab Emirates who "formed and maintained an al-Qaida terrorist cell in Germany" in the late 1990s."


Why didn't we go to war against any of those countries?

Can you point to any evidence of the governments of those countries supporting the attackers with either money or safe havens?

the Talking Can
07-06-2006, 05:16 PM
Let me see...for the 3,000,001st time since 9/11 someone posts "the proof" that Sadaam was the mastermind of it all....3,000,000 times the information has turned out to be wrong and/or an outright lie....3,000,000 times the people who posted the information ran away and took no responsibility for it...no one - still - has held the President accountable for a single syllabe of his nonsense/lies...

and yet, we still have people "demanding an answer" to the latest pack of rehashed crap....sorry, no one is interested because we're tired of having slap fights with unprincipled people....accountability is a two way street...

ask Bush what he thinks about the latest Fox/Newsmax fantasy...he's the one who "owes" you an answer...an honest answer...

comedy become farce....

the Talking Can
07-06-2006, 05:18 PM
Can you point to any evidence of the governments of those countries supporting the attackers with either money or safe havens?

ROFL


no evidence that Saudi Arabia suported Al Queda?...or the madrassas fueling militant Islam???

someone shoot me please....

mlyonsd
07-06-2006, 05:28 PM
ROFL


no evidence that Saudi Arabia suported Al Queda?...or the madrassas fueling militant Islam???

someone shoot me please....

I'll ask again, have you any proof that the Saudi Arabian government (you know, the ones that show up at the UN and such) support AQ?

Because if you're talking about just groups within SA you're pissing up a rope.

BIG_DADDY
07-06-2006, 05:31 PM
"Although 15 of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, federal prosecutors have alleged in court documents that it was Mohamed Atta of Egypt, Ziad Jarrah of Lebanon and Marwan Al-Shehhi of the United Arab Emirates who "formed and maintained an al-Qaida terrorist cell in Germany" in the late 1990s."


Why didn't we go to war against any of those countries?

Lets see, Iraq has the worlds 2nd largest oil reserve right in the center of the middle east where there is all kinds of potential future problems. We spend as much on our military as the rest of the world combined and it only works with oil. This oil supply is also strategically placed in an ideal spot for other potential world conflics including Europe and China.

So answer a question for me now. Are you really that stupid or do you just like wearing the dunce cap?

mlyonsd
07-06-2006, 05:32 PM
Let me see...for the 3,000,001st time since 9/11 someone posts "the proof" that Sadaam was the mastermind of it all....3,000,000 times the information has turned out to be wrong and/or an outright lie....3,000,000 times the people who posted the information ran away and took no responsibility for it...no one - still - has held the President accountable for a single syllabe of his nonsense/lies...



And for the 3,000,002nd time show us the quotes from any administration official stating Iraq was responsible for 911.

Your blog reading must have you confused.

Lurch
07-06-2006, 07:49 PM
someone shoot me please....

Don't tempt us.

dirk digler
07-06-2006, 09:35 PM
And for the 3,000,002nd time show us the quotes from any administration official stating Iraq was responsible for 911.

Your blog reading must have you confused.

It can't get any clearer than the POTUS own words.

Bush's letter to Congress formally announcing the commencement of hostilities against Iraq (3/18/03) explained that the use of force would be directed against "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." In his "Mission Accomplished" speech aboard the U.S.S. Lincoln (5/1/03), Bush declared that the invasion of Iraq had "removed an ally of Al Qaeda."

And during an interview on NBC 's Meet the Press (9/14/03), when Vice President Dick Cheney was asked if he was "surprised" that so many Americans connected Iraq to the 9/11 attacks, Cheney responded:

"No. I think it's not surprising that people make that connection.... You and I talked about this two years ago. I can remember you asking me this question just a few days after the original attack. At the time I said no, we didn't have any evidence of that. We've learned a couple of things. 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 [biological weapons and chemical weapons], 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."

Clearly, Cheney was describing exactly the sort of "collaborative relationship" that the September 11 commission now says that Iraq did not have with Al Qaeda, and stating that this relationship makes it "not surprising" that people would connect Iraq with the September 11 attacks.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html

FringeNC
07-06-2006, 09:53 PM
I'll ask again, have you any proof that the Saudi Arabian government (you know, the ones that show up at the UN and such) support AQ?

Because if you're talking about just groups within SA you're pissing up a rope.

Saudi Arabia has tons of princes that share in the oil wealth and form the government. Many if not most are pro-Western. Many, unfortunately, are not. And even some that are pro-Western pay bribe money to the Wahhabists.

Saudi Arabia is a huge problem. Saudi money is "Wahhabizing" mosques all over the world, not to mention funding the Madrassas in Pakistan.


....but that doesn't mean regime change in Iraq was a bad thing. If something is not done in the Middle East, with all that oil money and radical Islam all over the place, at some point, WMDs will get into the hands of terrorists.

Trying to civilize the Middle East (make no mistake, that's what we are trying to do) seems like a humane step rather than just saying **** it, and turning it into a parking lot.

It used to be your enemy had to have a functioning society to be a threat...had to have an industrial base to produce tanks, etc...not anymore...oil money + state providing a safe haven + a rogue Pakistani scientist = nuke....

There are signs that the regime change, and democratic government is Iraq is causing the stirrings of an enlightment in the Middle East. Give it time. The policy was perhaps the best of a bunch of unpalatable options.

Chiefnj
07-06-2006, 10:08 PM
I'll ask again, have you any proof that the Saudi Arabian government (you know, the ones that show up at the UN and such) support AQ?

Because if you're talking about just groups within SA you're pissing up a rope.

Would you believe the US Navy??

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Al-Qaida
From: Country Reports on Terrorism, 2004. United States Department of State, April 2005.

Comments on the content of the material should be sent to the U.S. Department of State

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other Names
Usama Bin Ladin Organization


Description
Al-Qa’ida was established by Usama Bin Ladin in 1988 with Arabs who fought in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union. Helped finance, recruit, transport, and train Sunni Islamic extremists for the Afghan resistance. Goal is to unite Muslims to fight the United States as a means of defeating Israel, overthrowing regimes it deems "non-Is-lamic," and expelling Westerners and non-Muslims from Muslim countries. Eventual goal would be establishment of a pan-Islamic caliphate throughout the world. Issued statement in February 1998 under the banner of "The World Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders" saying it was the duty of all Muslims to kill US citizens, civilian and military, and their allies everywhere. Merged with al-Jihad (Egyptian Islamic Jihad) in June 2001, renaming itself "Qa’idat al-Jihad." Merged with Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi’s organization in Iraq in late 2004, with al-Zarqawi’s group changing its name to "Qa’idat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn" (al-Qa’ida in the Land of the Two Rivers).

Activities
In 2004, the Saudi-based al-Qa’ida network and associated extremists launched at least 11 attacks, killing over 60 people, including six Americans, and wounding more than 225 in Saudi Arabia. Focused on targets associated with US and Western presence and Saudi security forces in Riyadh, Yanbu, Jeddah, and Dhahran. Attacks consisted of vehicle bombs, infantry assaults, kidnappings, targeted shootings, bombings, and beheadings. Other al-Qa’ida networks have been involved in attacks in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In 2003, carried out the assault and bombing on May 12 of three expatriate housing complexes in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, that killed 30 and injured 216. Backed attacks on May 16 in Casablanca, Morocco, of a Jewish center, restaurant, nightclub, and hotel that killed 33 and injured 101. Probably supported the bombing of the J.W. Marriott Hotel in Jakarta, Indonesia, on August 5, that killed 12 and injured 149. Responsible for the assault and bombing on November 9 of a housing complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, that killed 17 and injured 122. The suicide bombers and others associated with the bombings of two synagogues in Istanbul, Turkey, on November 15 that killed 20 and injured 300 and the bombings in Istanbul of the British Consulate and HSBC Bank on November 20 that resulted in 41 dead and 555 injured had strong links to al-Qa’ida. Conducted two assassination attempts against Pakistani President Musharraf in December 2003. Was involved in some attacks in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In 2002, carried out bombing on November 28 of a hotel in Mombasa, Kenya, killing 15 and injuring 40. Probably supported a nightclub bombing in Bali, Indonesia, on October 12 by Jemaah Islamiya that killed more than 200. Responsible for an attack on US military personnel in Kuwait on October 8 that killed one US soldier and injured another. Directed a suicide attack on the tanker M/V Limburg off the coast of Yemen on October 6 that killed one and injured four. Carried out a firebombing of a synagogue in Tunisia on April 11 that killed 19 and injured 22. On September 11, 2001, 19 al-Qa’ida suicide attackers hijacked and crashed four US commercial jets -- two into the World Trade Center in New York City, one into the Pentagon near Washington, DC, and a fourth into a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania -- leaving nearly 3,000 individuals dead or missing. Directed the attack on the USS Cole in the port of Aden, Yemen, on October 12, 2000, killing 17 US Navy sailors and injuring another 39.

Conducted the bombings in August 1998 of the US Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, that killed at least 301 individuals and injured more than 5,000 others. Claims to have shot down US helicopters and killed US servicemen in Somalia in 1993 and to have conducted three bombings that targeted US troops in Aden, Yemen, in December 1992.

Al-Qa’ida is linked to the following plans that were disrupted or not carried out: to bomb in mid-air a dozen US trans-Pacific flights in 1995, and to set off a bomb at Los Angeles International Airport in 1999. Also plotted to carry out terrorist operations against US and Israeli tourists visiting Jordan for millennial celebrations in late 1999 (Jordanian authorities thwarted the planned attacks and put 28 suspects on trial). In December 2001, suspected al-Qa’ida associate Richard Colvin Reid attempted to ignite a shoe bomb on a trans-Atlantic flight from Paris to Miami. Attempted to shoot down an Israeli chartered plane with a surface-to-air missile as it departed the Mombasa, Kenya, airport in November 2002.

Strength
Al-Qa’ida’s organizational strength is difficult to determine in the aftermath of extensive counterterrorist efforts since 9/11. However, the group probably has several thousand extremists and associates worldwide inspired by the group’s ideology. The arrest and deaths of mid-level and senior al-Qa’ida operatives have disrupted some communication, financial, and facilitation nodes and interrupted some terrorist plots. Al-Qa’ida also serves as a focal point or umbrella organization for a worldwide network that includes many Sunni Islamic extremist groups, including some members of Gama’a al-Islamiyya, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, and the Harakat ul-Mujahidin.

Location/Area of Operation
Al-Qa’ida has cells worldwide and is reinforced by its ties to Sunni extremist networks. It was based in Afghanistan until Coalition forces removed the Taliban from power in late 2001. Al-Qa’ida has dispersed in small groups across South Asia, Southeast Asia, the Middle East and Africa, and probably will attempt to carry out future attacks against US interests.

External Aid
Al-Qa’ida maintains moneymaking front businesses, solicits donations from like-minded supporters, and illicitly siphons funds from donations to Muslim charitable organizations. US and international efforts to block al-Qa’ida funding have hampered the group’s ability to obtain money.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an official U.S. Navy web site

Iowanian
07-07-2006, 09:06 AM
The Saudi Govt has been killing Al Queda regularly since 911 and was boxing with them prior to it.

There are alot of extremists, Medrassas, Wahabi asswipes and terrorists in Saudi....A large percentage of their population are huge, goitered assholes....but the saudi govt is pretty cooperative with the US.

Iowanian
07-07-2006, 09:12 AM
Let me see...for the 3,000,001st time since 9/11 someone posts "the proof" that Sadaam was the mastermind of it all....3,000,000 times the information has turned out to be wrong and/or an outright lie....3,000,000 times the people who posted the information ran away and took no responsibility for it...no one - still - has held the President accountable for a single syllabe of his nonsense/lies...

and yet, we still have people "demanding an answer" to the latest pack of rehashed crap....sorryfarce....

Speaking of rehashed crap....You're still crying into a kleenex from 2000.

This wasn't thrown up as "proof" of anything. It appears to be pdfs of documents seized in Iraq and Afganistan, that have been translated, and are being used to help paint the picture of what was happening over there.

If, for political reasons, you're unable to look at the stuff for what it is, thats on you sport.

As many articles as Jiz passes off on this forum as news, that you don't call bullshit on, I'd think this would be a very worthy topic.

If you've got a problem with specifics or the analysis....fine, but be sure to notice that alot of the links and sources also have a cnn web link before you pull the "faux news" card on this one.


Its very interesting to take note of how many people "interested in the real truth" don't have time to discuss issues like this when there are links to the documents themselves.

Logical
07-07-2006, 10:15 AM
Speaking of rehashed crap....You're still crying into a kleenex from 2000.

This wasn't thrown up as "proof" of anything. It appears to be pdfs of documents seized in Iraq and Afganistan, that have been translated, and are being used to help paint the picture of what was happening over there.

If, for political reasons, you're unable to look at the stuff for what it is, thats on you sport.

As many articles as Jiz passes off on this forum as news, that you don't call bullshit on, I'd think this would be a very worthy topic.

If you've got a problem with specifics or the analysis....fine, but be sure to notice that alot of the links and sources also have a cnn web link before you pull the "faux news" card on this one.


Its very interesting to take note of how many people "interested in the real truth" don't have time to discuss issues like this when there are links to the documents themselves.

Just curious are those document linked on any other news source than Fox. More than one source would add to their credibility.

Iowanian
07-07-2006, 10:59 AM
I think fox is running the show(paying the translators and former Military Intelligence guys...its explained in the first of the series). There are multiple links in the reports, that go to articles from CNN and other news outlets. There are also links to see the entire documents that were translated in pdf form.

the Talking Can
07-07-2006, 11:04 AM
Speaking of rehashed crap....You're still crying into a kleenex from 2000.

This wasn't thrown up as "proof" of anything. It appears to be pdfs of documents seized in Iraq and Afganistan, that have been translated, and are being used to help paint the picture of what was happening over there.

If, for political reasons, you're unable to look at the stuff for what it is, thats on you sport.

As many articles as Jiz passes off on this forum as news, that you don't call bullshit on, I'd think this would be a very worthy topic.

If you've got a problem with specifics or the analysis....fine, but be sure to notice that alot of the links and sources also have a cnn web link before you pull the "faux news" card on this one.


Its very interesting to take note of how many people "interested in the real truth" don't have time to discuss issues like this when there are links to the documents themselves.


this place has been jam packed with evidence of Bush's lies about Iraq for SEVERAL ****ING YEARS...I haven't seen you around to explain any of it...or to even suggest that Commander in Chief is accountable...for anything...

you want answers? ask Bush...he's the guy that owes you an explanation...he's the President in case you forgot....

Iowanian
07-07-2006, 11:14 AM
You've got some spittle in the corners of your mouth.

I'm far from a Bush lackey, I've spelled out in detail more than once issues I have with the sitting president. If you haven't seen it, its not my problem.

Keep stamping your feet though, I'm sure when jiz and dense start in, you'll sound like a herd of Clydesdales doing the riverdance. Apparently looking at the information and discussing what it means is too difficult.

morphius
07-07-2006, 11:31 AM
this place has been jam packed with evidence of Bush's lies about Iraq for SEVERAL ****ING YEARS...I haven't seen you around to explain any of it...or to even suggest that Commander in Chief is accountable...for anything...

you want answers? ask Bush...he's the guy that owes you an explanation...he's the President in case you forgot....
Some people are so damn bitter, wow.

One would think that Saddam had followed the treaty to not kick his ass from the first gulf war to the letter...

banyon
07-07-2006, 11:33 AM
And for the 3,000,002nd time show us the quotes from any administration official stating Iraq was responsible for 911.

Your blog reading must have you confused.

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/

That's pretty f***ing close. The implied connotation is clear.

BIG_DADDY
07-07-2006, 11:35 AM
You've got some spittle in the corners of your mouth.

I'm far from a Bush lackey, I've spelled out in detail more than once issues I have with the sitting president. If you haven't seen it, its not my problem.

Keep stamping your feet though, I'm sure when jiz and dense start in, you'll sound like a herd of Clydesdales doing the riverdance. Apparently looking at the information and discussing what it means is too difficult.

Hell I can't even get anyone to discuss the real reasons we are there. As soon as you bring up the real reasons all you get is:

1. Bush lied people died.
2. So where are these weapons of mass destruction.
3. Bush is a war criminal.

Or some other variety of assorted rhetorical horseshit.

BIG_DADDY
07-07-2006, 11:37 AM
Some people are so damn bitter, wow.

One would think that Saddam had followed the treaty to not kick his ass from the first gulf war to the letter...

Even worse they would leave all our chips on the table just to get at the right and gain some power. It's pathetic.

Logical
07-07-2006, 11:38 AM
The document, apparently written before the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks (javascript:siteSearch('Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks');),

The training manual warns, in stark how-to terms, of the dangers of "information leaks," and instructs Arab operatives inside Afghanistan (javascript:siteSearch('Afghanistan');)

While the training manual revealed today by Fox News does not mention the IIS agent's notebook, the manual does suggest an Arab regime, most likely Saddam, may have provided the military help requested by the Taliban (javascript:siteSearch('Taliban');) and Al Qaeda (javascript:siteSearch('Al Qaeda');)

Hardly impressive factual evidence. More like a lot of speculation from what I am seeing.

Logical
07-07-2006, 11:40 AM
Hell I can't even get anyone to discuss the real reasons we are there. As soon as you bring up the real reasons all you get is:

1. Bush lied people died.
2. So where are these weapons of mass destruction.
3. Bush is a war criminal.

Or some other variety of assorted rhetorical horseshit.

You have a link to the administration admitting the real reasons. If so I would love to see it. We can all speculate why but I would like to see the administration be honest about it.

morphius
07-07-2006, 12:01 PM
You have a link to the administration admitting the real reasons. If so I would love to see it. We can all speculate why but I would like to see the administration be honest about it.
Well, they are not going to come out and say, "We are tired of patrolling their damn skies, tired of them wasting our time, and tired of them waiting for American's to grow bored with issue and ask why we are there.".

As to anyone who says anything about N Korea, N Korea has China on their side, and until we can get China to stop defending them we are pretty much at a stale mate. Iran didn't sign a treaty with us after we stomped them in a war saying they would follow these rules, only to have the UN come out with hearing after hearing with everyone agreeing that they were not living up to their part.

As for honesty, if they would come out with all the reasons, nobody would believe them now anyway, so why f'n bother.

Iowanian
07-07-2006, 12:05 PM
I've seen you post about "The real reasons" several times, without really getting into it.

I've seen it, and posted similar that there are also alterior advantages to victory in Iraq. Establishing a friendly govt in that region is obviously one, for many reasons, including oil availability and transportation, military access and influence in a region full of the biggest shitbags in the world. Establishing a democratic and stable govt(in theory) in Iraq, would ideally spread across the boaders and influence a govt change in Iran...

Outside of those two, I'm not sure what you keep fishing for on this topic?

I've made it very clear on more than one occasion that the reasons most often listed as the reasons to take Saddom down are irrelevant to me.....the repeatedly violated the Agreement that took our foot off of their throat after GWI. They repeatedly fired on US planes in the UN mandated no-fly zones, which is an act of war.


Hell I can't even get anyone to discuss the real reasons we are there. As soon as you bring up the real reasons all you get is:

1. Bush lied people died.
2. So where are these weapons of mass destruction.
3. Bush is a war criminal.

Or some other variety of assorted rhetorical horseshit.

BIG_DADDY
07-07-2006, 12:08 PM
You have a link to the administration admitting the real reasons. If so I would love to see it. We can all speculate why but I would like to see the administration be honest about it.

When it comes to real world power issues the government it can rarely be honest as our society has become to pussified and passive. That applies on many levels as you well know.

You know as well as I that the media and the government are never where to get real sources of information are. To find out what is really going on you have to follow the money. That comes from some of the greatest financial minds of all time who prove over and over that if you do that there is a lot of money to be made.

What kills me about you Jim is I know you already know this and now you have resorted to nothing more than so many others do on this BB with media cut an paste and rhetorical BS to try an push an agend. What a waste of time. You of all people here I thought would want to cut through the BS. Put yourself in Bush's shoes for just a moment. Would you be honest about why we are there? Could you be honest? Let me ask you another question would you be honest if you firmly believed it would not be in the best interest of our country?

I didn't agree with us going in there but I understand why we did. Now that we have so much on the table I also understand how completely moronic it would be to just pull out. What is so pathetic is the dems know exactly how disasterous this would be for our citizens and country if we just come out of there with nothing more than billions in debt and loss of American lives. They support it anyway for the personal political power it would give them. Kind of reminds me of the Dems session at the state capital a few years back where they thought is was a closed door session but it wasn't. They went on an on about bankrupting the state and blaming it on the Republicans for the personal political power that would give them. To hell with the good tax paying citizens of our state if there is something in it for them personally. That is total and complete corruption. We are just seeing it on a national level now.

BIG_DADDY
07-07-2006, 12:33 PM
I've seen you post about "The real reasons" several times, without really getting into it.

I've seen it, and posted similar that there are also alterior advantages to victory in Iraq. Establishing a friendly govt in that region is obviously one, for many reasons, including oil availability and transportation, military access and influence in a region full of the biggest shitbags in the world. Establishing a democratic and stable govt(in theory) in Iraq, would ideally spread across the boaders and influence a govt change in Iran...

Outside of those two, I'm not sure what you keep fishing for on this topic?

I've made it very clear on more than one occasion that the reasons most often listed as the reasons to take Saddom down are irrelevant to me.....the repeatedly violated the Agreement that took our foot off of their throat after GWI. They repeatedly fired on US planes in the UN mandated no-fly zones, which is an act of war.

That strategic placement of the worlds 2nd largest oil reserve smack dab in the middle of 2 other potentially huge future global problems being Europe and China is HUGE. Why do you think the real reasons Germany, France and Russia were so upset we were going in there? They were already cutting deals under the table and trying to establish relations in the area for very obvious reason. It was a power play on a MASSIVE scale and IMO much for interesting to talk about than rehashing if Bush has lied and where the weapons of mass destruction are for the bizzillionth time. Maybe it's just me.

patteeu
07-07-2006, 01:08 PM
It can't get any clearer than the POTUS own words.



http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html

Apparently it wasn't clear enough for you though. There's nothing in what you provided that shows the administration saying that Iraq was responsible for 9/11.

ct
07-07-2006, 01:13 PM
That strategic placement of the worlds 2nd largest oil reserve smack dab in the middle of 2 other potentially huge future global problems being Europe and China is HUGE. Why do you think the real reasons Germany, France and Russia were so upset we were going in there? They were already cutting deals under the table and trying to establish relations in the area for very obvious reason. It was a power play on a MASSIVE scale and IMO much for interesting to talk about than rehashing if Bush has lied and where the weapons of mass destruction are for the bizzillionth time. Maybe it's just me.

Definitely not just you. It's just more fun for most regulars in this forum to "party on".

patteeu
07-07-2006, 01:26 PM
Would you believe the US Navy??

Can we be honest for a minute? You blowtards who criticize the current administration's approach to the GWoT would find just as many reasons to criticize them if they had attacked Saudi Arabia and Pakistan (or Iran and North Korea) instead of Iraq. Your criticisms strike me as insincere.

BTW, I didn't see anything in that article about the US Navy saying that the Saudi government supports al Qaeda.

dirk digler
07-07-2006, 01:34 PM
Apparently it wasn't clear enough for you though. There's nothing in what you provided that shows the administration saying that Iraq was responsible for 9/11.

This was a letter to Congress authorizing him to use force in Iraq. Why else would he put in the letter

including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

when talking about Iraq.


Hello - commatard on the loose

patteeu
07-07-2006, 01:40 PM
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/

That's pretty f***ing close. The implied connotation is clear.

It can't be clear when it's completely ambiguous. The words themselves could have meant that Iraq was literally the home country of all the people involved in 9/11 hijackings but since we know that's not the case it's not reasonable to interpret it to mean such a thing. But the reality is that it means that Iraq is in the heart of the Middle East which is the region from which anti-western, radical jihadist thought (and not a small number of jihadists) eminates.

BIG_DADDY
07-07-2006, 01:53 PM
Definitely not just you. It's just more fun for most regulars in this forum to "party on".

And the trend will continue. It would be nice if there was just a few of us who would talk about real things.

1. Was this a good choice?
2. Will we be able to secure this country and it's supply? If so how long will it take?
3. When will alternative fuel sources enable us to use other provinces in the area to help secure our interest?
4. What other alliances are possible in this area of the world over the next decade and how do we go about that? Will that even be necessary?
5. How many people really believe this one world government is a direction we want to consider going?

ect, ect

I feel like the sheer volume of people posting in this forum that want to just "party on".[/QUOTE] have sucked in some posters who would usually bring so much more to the table. Oh well, what are you going to do?

banyon
07-07-2006, 01:54 PM
It can't be clear when it's completely ambiguous. The words themselves could have meant that Iraq was literally the home country of all the people involved in 9/11 hijackings but since we know that's not the case it's not reasonable to interpret it to mean such a thing. But the reality is that it means that Iraq is in the heart of the Middle East which is the region from which anti-western, radical jihadist thought (and not a small number of jihadists) eminates.

I don't think it can be read as generally as you try. I know it's your hero, the "Dick", but he said "base". That can't mean anything in this context other than "that's where they stay".

patteeu
07-07-2006, 01:55 PM
This was a letter to Congress authorizing him to use force in Iraq. Why else would he put in the letter



when talking about Iraq.


Hello - commatard on the loose

President Bush clearly sees the Iraqi conflict as an integral part of the GWoT. But in answer to your question, those aren't his words, he got that language directly from the Congressional Resolution. I think the way you should read that is that "including" means "including but not limited to" rather than "consisting completely and only of."

patteeu
07-07-2006, 02:04 PM
I don't think it can be read as generally as you try. I know it's your hero, the "Dick", but he said "base". That can't mean anything in this context other than "that's where they stay".

It's common knowledge that that's not where the 9/11 hijackers stayed so it would be absurd to say such a thing. By extension, I think it's absurd to interpret it that way. If you believe, as I do, that the administration's strategy to win the GWoT is to drain the ME swamp where radical jihadists are spawned, it makes sense that they see Iraq as an advantageous geographic location from which to breach the dam. They also see the Israeli/Palestinian situation as a key to this war and Saddam had been egging that conflict on.

dirk digler
07-07-2006, 02:06 PM
President Bush clearly sees the Iraqi conflict as an integral part of the GWoT. But in answer to your question, those aren't his words, he got that language directly from the Congressional Resolution. I think the way you should read that is that "including" means "including but not limited to" rather than "consisting completely and only of."

I disagree. He is stating to the Speaker that it his determination and then he lists his points. Focus on the part of the sentence that says I determine that:

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 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 terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

Eye Patch
07-07-2006, 02:12 PM
The Saddam-Osama Connection: The Terrorist Testimony
By Mark Eichenlaub
FrontPageMagazine.com | July 7, 2006

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23264

One of the pillars of the argument that there were “no links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda” is that the captured/defected members from both sides have denied any relationship existed. (The Left makes this claim even though most of the detainees’ interrogation logs remain classified and their contents remain on a need-to-know basis.) This “no connection” claim has been made a number of times, and those making it generally receive favorable media attention; they’re rarely if ever confronted with testimony that conflicts with their argument. I will not argue on behalf of the truthfulness of former Ba’athists and al-Qaeda members, but if their testimony is going to admitted, shouldn’t critics also hear the testimony of those in custody who tell a different story?

There are more than a few former Iraqi officials and captured al-Qaeda affiliates who have revealed examples of cooperation between Saddam’s Iraq and Osama’s terrorist assets.

· “Abu Mohammed,” a former colonel of Saddam Hussein’s Fedayeen fighters, told reporters long ago that Iraq was training terrorists, including al-Qaeda.

Gwynne Roberts, Sunday Times, July 14, 2002

· Iraqi soldiers, captured during the early phases of the war on Iraq in 2003, revealed that al-Qaeda terrorists were present inside Iraq fighting alongside Iraqi troops

Gethin Chamberlain, The Scotsman, 10-28-03

· Hamsiraji Sali, Commander of the al-Qaeda affiliate Abu Sayyaf, admitted receiving $20,000 dollars a year from Iraq.

Marc Lerner, Washington Times, 3-4-03

· Salah Suleiman, revealed that he was a former Iraqi Intelligence officer, captured on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border shuttling between Iraq and Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Janes Foreign Report, 9-19-01

· Jamal al-Qurairy, a former General in Iraq’s Mukhabarat, who defected years ago, said “that [is] ours” immediately after seeing 9/11 attacks.

David Rose, Vanity Fair, Feb. 2003, and David Rose, The Observer, 3-16-03

· Abbas al-Janabai, a personal assistant to Uday Hussein for 15 years, has repeatedly stated that there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden that included training terrorists at various camps in Iraq.

CNN, 7-23-2003

Gwynne Roberts, Sunday Times, July 14,2002

Richard Miniter, TechCentralStation, 9-25-03

· Two Moroccan associates of Osama bin Laden, arrested in Rabat in Nov 98, confirmed that Col Khairallah al-Tikriti, the brother of Iraq’s top Intelligence official (Mukhabarat), was the case officer in charge of operations with al-Qaeda in Kashmir and Manila

Jacquard, Roland, In the Name of Osama Bin Laden, Duke University Press, 2002, pg.112

· Wali Khan Amin Shah, an al-Qaeda operative in custody, told the FBI that Abu

Hajer al-Iraq had good contacts with Iraq Intelligence Services (reported to Senate Intelligence Committee)

Stephen Hayes, Thomas Joscelyn, Weekly Standard, 7-18-05

· Farouk Hijazi, former #3 in Saddam Hussein’s Mukhabarat, although he denies the well documented reports of his later meetings with bin Laden, Hijazi admits that he met with Osama bin Laden to discuss antiship mines and terror training camps in Iraq during the mid-90’s.

9-11 Commission, Staff Statement 15

· Abdul Rahman al-Shamari, who served in Saddam Hussein’s Mukhabarat from 1997-2002, says that he worked to link Saddam Hussein regime with Ansar al Islam and al-Qaeda.

Preston Mendenhall, MSNBC, "War Diary"

Jonathan Schanzer, Weekly Standard, 3-1-04

· Mohamed Gharib, Ansar al Islam’s Media chief, later admitted that the group took assistance from Saddam Hussein’s regime.

Scott Peterson, Christian Science Monitor, 10-16-03

· Mohamed Mansour Shahab, aka Muhammad Jawad, is a smuggler who claims to have been hired by Iraq to bring weapons to al-Qaeda in Afghanistan

Jeffrey Goldberg, New Yorker, 3-25-02

Scott Peterson, Christian Science Monitor, 4-03-02

Richard Miniter, TechCentralStation, 9-25-03

· Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi is a senior al-Qaeda operative. Although he has changed his story, he initially told his captors that his mission was to travel to Iraq to acquire poisons and gases from Iraqi Intelligence after impressing them with al-Qaeda’s attack on the USS Cole

Stephen Hayes, Weekly Standard, 11-24-03

· An “enemy combatant” being held at Guantanamo Bay, who was also a former Iraqi Army officer, admits that he served as a liaison between Osama bin Laden and Iraqi Intelligence. He was arrested in Pakistan before completing joint IIS/al-Qaeda mission to blow up U.S. and British embassies

Associated Press, 3-30-05

Stephen Hayes, Thomas Joscelyn. Weekly Standard. 7-18-05

· Abu Hajer al-Iraqi (aka Mahmdouh Mahmud Salim) told prosecutors that he was bin Laden’s best friend and in charge of trying and procure WMD materials from Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

Andrew C. McCarthy, National Review, 6-17-04

Stephen Hayes, Weekly Standard, 11-24-03

· A “Former Senior (Iraqi) Intelligence Officer” has told U.S. officials that a flurry of activity between Saddam Hussein’s regime and al-Qaeda took place in early and late 1998, the meeting point was Baghdad’s Intelligence station in Pakistan

Stephen Hayes, Weekly Standard, 11-24-03

· Wafiq al-Sammarrai, former head of Iraq’s Military Intelligence before defecting in 1994, stated that Saddam Hussein has agents “inside” al-Qaeda

Laurie Mylroie, “Study of Revenge”

· Khidir Hamza, Saddam Hussein’s former top WMD official, says that Saddam had connections to al-Qaeda

CNN, 10-15-01

PBS Frontline "Gunning For Saddam"

· Abu Zeinab al-Qurairy , a former high-ranking officer in Iraq’s Mukhabarat, told PBS Frontline and the New York Times that the September 11 attackers were trained in Salman Pak, as were other members of al-Qaeda

PBS Frontline "Gunning For Saddam"

· Sabah Khodada, a former Captain in Iraq’s Army, told PBS Frontline and the New York Times that the terrorist training camp at Salman Pak included the training of al-Qaeda members airplane hijacking

PBS Frontline "Gunning For Saddam"

· An “Iraqi Defector,” who spent 16 years working for Iraq’s Mukhabarat, told the Iraqi National Congress that Saddam Hussein’s illegal oil revenues helped fund al-Qaeda (story later corroborated by Claudia Rosett )

Radio Free Europe 9-29-2002

· Khalil Ibrahim Abdallah, a captured senior Iraqi official, said that IIS agents had met with bin Laden until the middle of 1999

Stephen Hayes, Weekly Standard, 11-24-03

· Qassem Hussein Mohamed, who served in Iraq’s Mukhabarat for 20 years, told reporters that Saddam Hussein has been secretly aiding, arming and funding Ansar al Islam and al-Qaeda for several years

Scott Peterson, Christian Science Monitor, 4-2-02

Jeffrey Goldberg, New Yorker, 3-25-02

· Dr. Mohammed al-Masri, a known al-Qaeda spokesman, told the Sunday Times that Saddam Hussein contacted the “Arab Afghans” (al-Qaeda) in 2001. Al-Masri also said that Saddam even went so far as to fund the movement of some al-Qaeda members into Iraq and then later supplied them with arms caches and money, later to be used in insurgent attacks. Abdel Bari Atwan, Sunday Times, 2-26-06 via Thomas Joscelyn, "Saddam, the Insurgency, and the Terrorists, 3-28-06

· Hudayfa Azzam, the son of bin Laden’s former mentor, told reporters in 2004, “Saddam Hussein's regime welcomed them with open arms and young al-Qaeda members entered Iraq in large numbers, setting up an organization to confront the occupation.” AFP, 8-30-04 Thomas Joscelyn, "What Else Did Hudayfa Azzam Have To Say About Al-Qaeda In Iraq?” 4-3-06

· Hudayfa Azzam, the son of bin Laden’s mentor Abdullah Azzam, has said Iraq’s government worked closely with al-Qaeda before the war and welcomed a number of members in after they left Afghanistan and armed and funded them Thomas Joscelyn citing AFP, 8-30-04

· Dr. Mohammed al-Masri, a known al-Qaeda spokesman, told the Sunday Times that Saddam Hussein contacted the “Arab Afghans” (al-Qaeda) in 2001. Abdel Bari Atwan, Sunday Times, 2-26-06 via Thomas Joscelyn, “Saddam, the Insurgency, and the Terrorists,” 3-28-06

· Haqi Ismail, a Mosul native with relatives at the top of Iraq’s Mukhabarat and spent time in al-Qaeda/al Ansar camps in Afghanistan and Northern Iraq before being caught by Kurdish security, indicated that he was working for Saddam Hussein’s Intelligence Service (Mukhabarat)

Jeffrey Goldberg, New Yorker, 3-25-02

· Moammar Ahmad Yussef, a captured deputy of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, told officials that Iraq provided money, weapons, fake passports, safe haven and training to al-Qaeda members

Dan Darling, Winds of Change, 11-21-03

· A “top Saddam Hussein official,” who was also a senior Intelligence official, says that Iraq made a secret pact with Ayman al-Zawahiri’s Egyptian Islamic Jihad and later al-Qaeda. Secret meetings between the two sides began in 1992.

Stephen Hayes, Weekly Standard, 11-24-03

· Abu Zubaydah, a high ranking al-Qaeda operative in U.S. custody, has said that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi had good contacts with Iraqi Intelligence Services

Thomas Joscelyn, Weekly Standard, December 2, 2005

· Abu Iman al-Baghdadi, a 20-year veteran of Iraqi intelligence, told BBC news that Saddam Hussein is funding and arming Ansar al-Islam to fend off anti-Saddam Kurds

Jim Muir, BBC, July 24, 2002


Surely, much more detail is locked away in the classified interrogation logs of other captured al-Qaeda fighters and former Baathists in custody. (I have filed an FOIA request for a few.) Those who may have some answers would be the big name al-Qaeda fighters who were caught in Iraq and the captured Baathists in custody caught after the war terrorizing with Zarqawi and his affiliates. But what we know already should make us discount the “no connection” argument made by partisans denying reality.

patteeu
07-07-2006, 02:14 PM
I disagree. He is stating to the Speaker that it his determination and then he lists his points. Focus on the part of the sentence that says I determine that:

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 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 terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

What do you disagree with? The part where I said he took that language directly from the Congressional Resolution or the part where I suggested an interpretation of the word "including?"

If it's the former:

http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf

If it's the latter, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

dirk digler
07-07-2006, 02:22 PM
What do you disagree with? The part where I said he took that language directly from the Congressional Resolution or the part where I suggested an interpretation of the word "including?"

If it's the former:

http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf

If it's the latter, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

I was wrong. I am the commatard now. I didn't realize the letter he wrote was copied from the resolution. I stand corrected.

Logical
07-07-2006, 03:08 PM
When it comes to real world power issues the government it can rarely be honest as our society has become to pussified and passive. That applies on many levels as you well know.

You know as well as I that the media and the government are never where to get real sources of information are. To find out what is really going on you have to follow the money. That comes from some of the greatest financial minds of all time who prove over and over that if you do that there is a lot of money to be made.

What kills me about you Jim is I know you already know this and now you have resorted to nothing more than so many others do on this BB with media cut an paste and rhetorical BS to try an push an agend. What a waste of time. You of all people here I thought would want to cut through the BS. Put yourself in Bush's shoes for just a moment. Would you be honest about why we are there? Could you be honest? Let me ask you another question would you be honest if you firmly believed it would not be in the best interest of our country?

I didn't agree with us going in there but I understand why we did. Now that we have so much on the table I also understand how completely moronic it would be to just pull out. What is so pathetic is the dems know exactly how disasterous this would be for our citizens and country if we just come out of there with nothing more than billions in debt and loss of American lives. They support it anyway for the personal political power it would give them. Kind of reminds me of the Dems session at the state capital a few years back where they thought is was a closed door session but it wasn't. They went on an on about bankrupting the state and blaming it on the Republicans for the personal political power that would give them. To hell with the good tax paying citizens of our state if there is something in it for them personally. That is total and complete corruption. We are just seeing it on a national level now.

I first and foremost do not believe we can achieve the goal so therefore it is not worth wasting more money and more lives. Second I don't really believe they have a strategy behind this that I can support. IMO their goal is to use this area as a staging area for more incursions and that is not something we should be getting ourselves into long term. Third we are not taking advantage of the oil situation so if that was a strategy we are failing miserably in that area. If the goal was profiteering for companies like Haliburton, then maybe we are succeeding but is that what we want to be sacrificing our tax dollars and soldiers lives for in the short or long term.

Finally everyone believed that pulling out of Vietnam would be a disaster for this country and in the end that turned out not to be true. I am unconvinced that pulling out of Iraq would have any worse effects than Vietnam.

BIG_DADDY
07-07-2006, 03:18 PM
I first and foremost do not believe we can achieve the goal so therefore it is not worth wasting more money and more lives. Second I don't really believe they have a strategy behind this that I can support. IMO their goal is to use this area as a staging area for more incursions and that is not something we should be getting ourselves into long term. Third we are not taking advantage of the oil situation so if that was a strategy we are failing miserably in that area. If the goal was profiteering for companies like Haliburton, then maybe we are succeeding but is that what we want to be sacrificing our tax dollars and soldiers lives for in the short or long term.

Finally everyone believed that pulling out of Vietnam would be a disaster for this country and in the end that turned out not to be true. I am unconvinced that pulling out of Iraq would have any worse effects than Vietnam.

I think it goes without saying that we haven't pulled it off yet and are not taking advantage of the oil.

So you don't believe we will ever have any chance to secure the area long enough to get the right people into office and use the resources there?

I know this much it's going to be good to get some real information directly out of there soon as the only news coverage our media seems to want to cover is the latest suicide bombing.

Vietnam is not even close to what Iraq is as far as the potential payoff IMO.

dirk digler
07-07-2006, 03:21 PM
I think it goes without saying that we haven't pulled it off yet and are not taking advantage of the oil.

So you don't believe we will ever have any chance to secure the area long enough to get the right people into office and use the resources there?

I know this much it's going to be good to get some real information directly out of there soon as the only news coverage our media seems to want to cover is the latest suicide bombing.

Vietnam is not even close to what Iraq is as far as the potential payoff IMO.

Personally BD, I think this is a 2 1/2 yr long occupation. Who ever becomes the next POTUS IMHO will pull all of the troops out. I don't think the next POTUS wants to mess with this.

BIG_DADDY
07-07-2006, 03:31 PM
Personally BD, I think this is a 2 1/2 yr long occupation. Who ever becomes the next POTUS IMHO will pull all of the troops out. I don't think the next POTUS wants to mess with this.


In that case the best investment is in a nice long civil war to make sure nobody secures it unfortunately. That would be a failure. I do agree that public perception of this is pretty bad now. I think our money probably would have been better spent trying to develop new energy sources to drive the next generation of war machines as well as for civilian use but what do I know it's really hard to get a good grasp on some of these things. Maybe that's why some people just stick with the Bush lied people died BS.

Iowanian
07-07-2006, 03:40 PM
Finally everyone believed that pulling out of Vietnam would be a disaster for this country and in the end that turned out not to be true. I am unconvinced that pulling out of Iraq would have any worse effects than Vietnam.

I counter this comment and point out that OBL, Mullah Omar and other terrorist pukes who started this nonsense, have specifically addressed this point, prior to the attack of 9-11, suggesting that the US Population didn't have the stomoch for a long, drawn out war. Their strategy envolved waging a long term, gorilla war, so that the US would cut and run, like Vietnam.

Vietnam, Somalia and our other failures to smash our enemies have been read as Weakness by these people.

Logical
07-07-2006, 03:49 PM
I counter this comment and point out that OBL, Mullah Omar and other terrorist pukes who started this nonsense, have specifically addressed this point, prior to the attack of 9-11, suggesting that the US Population didn't have the stomoch for a long, drawn out war. Their strategy envolved waging a long term, gorilla war, so that the US would cut and run, like Vietnam.

Vietnam, Somalia and our other failures to smash our enemies have been read as Weakness by these people.

I am not against continuing to pursue the actual terrorists such as Bin Laden and Omar. I am against the occupation since I feel it is doomed to fail.

BIG_DADDY
07-07-2006, 03:56 PM
I am not against continuing to pursue the actual terrorists such as Bin Laden and Omar. I am against the occupation since I feel it is doomed to fail.

So you don't feel the new government getting started there has a chance of making it? You must believe the insurgency will take control of the region again? Just looking for a little clarification.

dirk digler
07-07-2006, 04:10 PM
In that case the best investment is in a nice long civil war to make sure nobody secures it unfortunately. That would be a failure. I do agree that public perception of this is pretty bad now. I think our money probably would have been better spent trying to develop new energy sources to drive the next generation of war machines as well as for civilian use but what do I know it's really hard to get a good grasp on some of these things. Maybe that's why some people just stick with the Bush lied people died BS.


I agree. I don't see the Iraq occupation ending in any thing other than failure. The minute our boots leave the ground there will be all out Civil War. Bank on it.

memyselfI
07-07-2006, 04:11 PM
this place has been jam packed with evidence of Bush's lies about Iraq for SEVERAL ****ING YEARS...I haven't seen you around to explain any of it...or to even suggest that Commander in Chief is accountable...for anything...

you want answers? ask Bush...he's the guy that owes you an explanation...he's the President in case you forgot....

ROFL

Hydrae
07-07-2006, 04:13 PM
This whole problem in Iraq started about 100 years ago when England controlled the area and arbitrarily decided to put three opposing factions in one "country". It honestly would be in everyones best interest to split this back up and let the Kurds have a region, the Shiaa another and the Shi'ites yet another.

The problem with this is of course is economics because not everywhere has the oil resources.

dirk digler
07-07-2006, 04:16 PM
I counter this comment and point out that OBL, Mullah Omar and other terrorist pukes who started this nonsense, have specifically addressed this point, prior to the attack of 9-11, suggesting that the US Population didn't have the stomoch for a long, drawn out war. Their strategy envolved waging a long term, gorilla war, so that the US would cut and run, like Vietnam.

Vietnam, Somalia and our other failures to smash our enemies have been read as Weakness by these people.

I don't think Iraq is anything like Vietnam. Militarily we didn't win shit in Vietnam where in Iraq we destroyed Iraq's army in record time.

Now we are occupiers which play by different rules than fighting a war. Our military isn't designed to be occupiers, it is designed to kick ass. The politicians are now in control in Iraq and they have no idea WTF they are doing. There was no plan to occupy Iraq and that is the biggest failure IMO of this administration.

banyon
07-07-2006, 04:18 PM
It's common knowledge that that's not where the 9/11 hijackers stayed so it would be absurd to say such a thing. By extension, I think it's absurd to interpret it that way. If you believe, as I do, that the administration's strategy to win the GWoT is to drain the ME swamp where radical jihadists are spawned, it makes sense that they see Iraq as an advantageous geographic location from which to breach the dam. They also see the Israeli/Palestinian situation as a key to this war and Saddam had been egging that conflict on.

I think the difference between us on this one is that I fully believe that Cheney is capable of making patently absurd claims, since he does it all the time. I don't think this situation is any different. He really enjoys conflating issues to confuse the uninformed into believing that this is all justified somehow.

Logical
07-07-2006, 04:36 PM
So you don't feel the new government getting started there has a chance of making it? You must believe the insurgency will take control of the region again? Just looking for a little clarification.

I think the long held resentments of the Sunni's, Shia's and Kurds towards each other are intractable and can never be overcome by a unified governmental structure. The country will either have to fracture into controlled regions for each or a dictatorship/religious power figure will have to take control and dominate the other two factions. This IMO can only happen after the region has a major civil war.

dirk digler
07-07-2006, 04:55 PM
I think the long held resentments of the Sunni's, Shia's and Kurds towards each other are intractable and can never be overcome by a unified governmental structure. The country will either have to fracture into controlled regions for each or a dictatorship/religious power figure will have to take control and dominate the other two factions. This IMO can only happen after the region has a major civil war.

I tend to agree Logical. That is why Bush 1 didn't take down Iraq and occupy it because everyone knew that it would be a quagmire.

patteeu
07-07-2006, 05:01 PM
I first and foremost do not believe we can achieve the goal so therefore it is not worth wasting more money and more lives. Second I don't really believe they have a strategy behind this that I can support. IMO their goal is to use this area as a staging area for more incursions and that is not something we should be getting ourselves into long term.

Having either a presence or an arab ally in the region whether there is a need for an incursion or not is valuable, IMO, if for no other reason than the human intelligence opportunities it should provide. I'm not as opposed to future incursions as you seem to be, but the credible threat of using the US military option should make our diplomacy more effective. A unified population would make it even more so, but I guess we can't ask for everything.

Third we are not taking advantage of the oil situation so if that was a strategy we are failing miserably in that area.

If oil enters into the equation behind the Iraq war (and I wouldn't be hard to convince it does), I'd guess it's a more long term strategy than you seem to be imagining. Any strategy based on oil would be aimed at maintaining US access. If we don't find ourselves cut off from ME oil in the future, it will have succeeded on this point. Of course, we'll never know if it would have been cut off had we not invaded Iraq so we'll never know if the war was worth it.

If the goal was profiteering for companies like Haliburton, then maybe we are succeeding but is that what we want to be sacrificing our tax dollars and soldiers lives for in the short or long term.[/quote]


Finally everyone believed that pulling out of Vietnam would be a disaster for this country and in the end that turned out not to be true. I am unconvinced that pulling out of Iraq would have any worse effects than Vietnam.

I think losing in Vietnam was very bad for this country. The domino theory didn't really pan out, but part of the legacy of Vietnam seems to be an "it's cool to protest the war" streak within our culture, and more importantly, it has convinced some among us that we can't win this type of war.

patteeu
07-07-2006, 05:04 PM
I was wrong. I am the commatard now. I didn't realize the letter he wrote was copied from the resolution. I stand corrected.

What I find odd is the way that the letter doesn't include the last part of that sentence (from the resolution) which adds a mention of nations that harbor terrorists. I don't know if something should be read into that omission or not.

patteeu
07-07-2006, 05:13 PM
I think the difference between us on this one is that I fully believe that Cheney is capable of making patently absurd claims, since he does it all the time. I don't think this situation is any different. He really enjoys conflating issues to confuse the uninformed into believing that this is all justified somehow.

I think it's possible that some of the administration's comments are intentionally vague and that some listeners might draw the wrong conclusions. As with so many other things, Dick Cheney is good with the media. :)

mlyonsd
07-07-2006, 05:16 PM
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/

That's pretty f***ing close. The implied connotation is clear.

Come on man, not even close. Especially when you read the entire exchange where this quote came from, and not an excerpt taken out of context by CNN:

Meet the Press Transcript for Sept. 14, 2003 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/)



MR. RUSSERT: The Congressional Budget Office said that: “That the Army lacks sufficient active-duty forces to maintain its current level of nearly 150,000 troops in Iraq beyond next spring. In a report that underscores the stress being place on the military by the occupation of Iraq, the CBO said the Army’s goals of keeping the same number of troops in Iraq and limiting tours of duty there to a year while maintaining its current presence elsewhere in the world were impossible to sustain without activating more National Guard or Reserve units.”

Can we keep 150,000 troops beyond next spring without, in effect, breaking the Army?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Tim, we can do what we have to do to prevail in this conflict. Failure’s not an option. And go back again and think about what’s involved here. This is not just about Iraq or just about the difficulties we might encounter in any one part of the country in terms of restoring security and stability. This is about a continuing operation on the war on terror. And it’s very, very important we get it right. 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. They understand what’s at stake here. That’s one of the reasons they’re putting up as much of a struggle as they have, is because they know if we succeed here, that that’s going to strike a major blow at their capabilities.

MR. RUSSERT: So the resistance in Iraq is coming from those who were responsible for 9/11?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No, I was careful not to say that. With respect to 9/11, 9/11, as I said at the beginning of the show, changed everything. And one of the things it changed is we recognized that time was not on our side, that in this part of the world, in particular, given the problems we’ve encountered in Afghanistan, which forced us to go in and take action there, as well as in Iraq, that we, in fact, had to move on it. The relevance for 9/11 is that what 9/11 marked was the beginning of a struggle in which the terrorists come at us and strike us here on our home territory. And it’s a global operation. It doesn’t know national boundaries or national borders. And the commitment of the United States going into Afghanistan and take down the Taliban and stand up a new government, to go into Iraq and take down the Saddam Hussein regime and stand up a new government is a vital part of our long-term strategy to win the war on terror. America’s going to be safer and more secure in the years ahead when we complete the task in Iraq successfully, and we will complete it successfully. And whatever the cost is, in terms of casualties or financial resources, it’s a whale of a lot less than trying to recover from the next attack in the United States. So what we do on the ground in Iraq, our capabilities here are being tested in no small measure, but this is the place where we want to take on the terrorists. This is the place where we want to take on those elements that have come against the United States, and it’s far more appropriate for us to do it there and far better for us to do it there than it is here at home.

We talk about $87 billion. Yeah, that’s a significant expense. No question about it. But it’s going to be much more expensive down the road if we wait. And it’ll be uch more expensive—it’s less money, frankly, than the events of 9/11 imposed on us here in the United States.

Cheney is clearing making that statement in regards to the region. The sentence CNN used to partially quote even had the word "region" in it.

Also, the CNN article you point to even includes this:

In June, Cheney said "we don't know" whether Iraq was involved in 9/11.



But at the time President Bush said, "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11 [attacks]. What the vice president said was that he has been involved with al Qaeda."


Nothing you have posted comes close to my original challenge of finding a quote claiming Iraq was responsible for 911.

You're above this man, don't stoop to the same level as TC.

banyon
07-07-2006, 05:35 PM
Come on man, not even close. Especially when you read the entire exchange where this quote came from, and not an excerpt taken out of context by CNN:

Meet the Press Transcript for Sept. 14, 2003 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/)



Cheney is clearing making that statement in regards to the region. The sentence CNN used to partially quote even had the word "region" in it.

Also, the CNN article you point to even includes this:




Nothing you have posted comes close to my original challenge of finding a quote claiming Iraq was responsible for 911.

You're above this man, don't stoop to the same level as TC.

TC would not have given you a link or quote. He'd have just asserted that he knew it because of some high-level meetings he had been in on and he wasn't authorized to tell you about it.

P.S. I will get back to the substance of what you said later.

mlyonsd
07-07-2006, 05:55 PM
TC would not have given you a link or quote. He'd have just asserted that he knew it because of some high-level meetings he had been in on and he wasn't authorized to tell you about it.



ROFL Touche.

patteeu
07-08-2006, 11:01 AM
Are we talking TC as in Talking Can or TC as in Chiefs Express?

Chiefnj
07-08-2006, 01:37 PM
Can we be honest for a minute? You blowtards who criticize the current administration's approach to the GWoT would find just as many reasons to criticize them if they had attacked Saudi Arabia and Pakistan (or Iran and North Korea) instead of Iraq. Your criticisms strike me as insincere.

.

Bullshit. Soon after 9-11 when we after the Taliban in Afghanistan there was overwhelming support for a war on terror (except perhaps for me, me, me). It was when the administration started bullshitting the country and leading them into a war against Iraq did the public opposition begin; and rightly so.

Lurch
07-08-2006, 01:43 PM
Are we talking TC as in Talking Can or TC as in Chiefs Express?

Eh, opposite sides of the same coin.

banyon
07-08-2006, 02:08 PM
Come on man, not even close. Especially when you read the entire exchange where this quote came from, and not an excerpt taken out of context by CNN:

Nothing you have posted comes close to my original challenge of finding a quote claiming Iraq was responsible for 911.

You're above this man, don't stoop to the same level as TC.

Well it does sound better in context, but he is still doing an awful lot of conflating in that interview. When you put it as directly as you do, then maybe that was not said. But the expectation is to repeat "9/11=AlQaeda", "AlQaeda=Iraq" and allow the listener to make the obvious transitive leap.

patteeu
07-08-2006, 02:15 PM
Bullshit. Soon after 9-11 when we after the Taliban in Afghanistan there was overwhelming support for a war on terror (except perhaps for me, me, me). It was when the administration started bullshitting the country and leading them into a war against Iraq did the public opposition begin; and rightly so.

There were critics during Afghanistan too, but success quiets the critics. Around the time of the "Mission Accomplished" deal on the aircraft carrier, when it appeared that the Iraq invasion had gone much more smoothly than some had predicted, someone (maybe Chris Matthews) said, "We are all neocons now."

Public opposition from some quarters began at the very beginning with recriminations against the Bush administration for a failure to connect the dots and it's reared it's head again at every opportunity since then.

mlyonsd
07-09-2006, 09:27 AM
Well it does sound better in context, but he is still doing an awful lot of conflating in that interview. When you put it as directly as you do, then maybe that was not said. But the expectation is to repeat "9/11=AlQaeda", "AlQaeda=Iraq" and allow the listener to make the obvious transitive leap.

We'll just have to agree to disagree then cause when I read the entire interview (plus I had the benefit of watching it live that day), Cheney made it clear to me at least he was not saying Iraq had something to do with 911.

Iowanian
07-11-2006, 11:39 AM
oh jaaaaaaaaz