PDA

View Full Version : US Intel: Bush completely ineffective against Al Queda


Taco John
07-11-2007, 04:58 PM
al-Qaida Has Rebuilt, U.S. Intel Warns

Jul 11 06:33 PM US/Eastern
By KATHERINE SHRADER and MATTHEW LEE
Associated Press Writers

WASHINGTON (AP) - U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded al-Qaida has rebuilt its operating capability to a level not seen since just before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, The Associated Press has learned.
The conclusion suggests that the group that launched the most devastating terror attack on the United States has been able to rebuild despite nearly six years of bombings, war and other tactics aimed at crippling it.

Still, numerous government officials say they know of no specific, credible threat of a new attack.

A counterterrorism official familiar with a five-page summary of the new government threat assessment called it a stark appraisal that will be discussed at the White House on Thursday as part of a broader meeting on an upcoming National Intelligence Estimate.

The official and others spoke on condition of anonymity because the secret report remains classified.

Counterterrorism analysts produced the document, titled "Al-Qaida better positioned to strike the West." The document pays special heed to the terror group's safe haven in Pakistan and makes a range of observations about the threat posed to the United States and its allies, officials said.

Al-Qaida is "considerably operationally stronger than a year ago" and has "regrouped to an extent not seen since 2001," the official said, paraphrasing the report's conclusions. "They are showing greater and greater ability to plan attacks in Europe and the United States."

The group also has created "the most robust training program since with an interest in using European operatives," the official quoted the report as saying.

At the same time, this official said, the report speaks of "significant gaps in intelligence" so U.S. authorities may be ignorant of potential or planned attacks.

John Kringen, who heads the CIA's analysis directorate, echoed the concerns about al-Qaida's resurgence during testimony and conversations with reporters at a House Armed Services Committee hearing on Wednesday.

"They seem to be fairly well settled into the safe haven and the ungoverned spaces of Pakistan," Kringen testified. "We see more training. We see more money. We see more communications. We see that activity rising."

The threat assessment comes as the National Intelligence Council is preparing a National Intelligence Estimate focusing on threats to the United States. A senior intelligence official, who spoke on condition of anonymity while the high-level analysis was being finalized, said the document has been in the works for roughly two years.

Kringen and aides to National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell would not comment on the details of that analysis. "Preparation of the estimate is not a response to any specific threat," McConnell's spokesman Ross Feinstein said, adding that it would be ready for distribution this summer.

Counterterrorism officials have been increasingly concerned about al- Qaida's recent operations. This week, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said he had a "gut feeling" that the United States faced a heightened risk of attack this summer.

Kringen said he wouldn't attach a summer timeframe to the concern. In studying the threat, he said he begins with the premise that al-Qaida would consider attacking the U.S. a "home run hit" and that the easiest way to get into the United States would be through Europe.

The new threat assessment puts particular focus on Pakistan, as did Kringen.

"Sooner or later you have to quit permitting them to have a safe haven" along the Afghan-Pakistani border, he told the House committee. "At the end of the day, when we have had success, it is when you've been able to get them worried about who was informing on them, get them worried about who was coming after them."

Several European countries—among them Britain, Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands—are also highlighted in the threat assessment partly because they have arrangements with the Pakistani government that allow their citizens easier access to Pakistan than others, according to the counterterrorism official.

This is more troubling because all four are part of the U.S. visa waiver program, and their citizens can enter the United States without additional security scrutiny, the official said.

The Bush administration has repeatedly cited al-Qaida as a key justification for continuing the fight in Iraq.

"The number one enemy in Iraq is al-Qaida. Al-Qaida continues to be the chief organizer of mayhem within Iraq, the chief organization for killing innocent Iraqis," White House press secretary Tony Snow said Wednesday.

The findings could bolster the president's hand at a moment when support on Capitol Hill for the war is eroding and the administration is struggling to defend its decision for a military buildup in Iraq. A progress report that the White House is releasing to Congress this week is expected to indicate scant progress on the political and military benchmarks set for Iraq.

The threat assessment says that al-Qaida stepped up efforts to "improve its core operational capability" in late 2004 but did not succeed until December of 2006 after the Pakistani government signed a peace agreement with tribal leaders that effectively removed government military presence from the northwest frontier with Afghanistan.

The agreement allows Taliban and al-Qaida operatives to move across the border with impunity and establish and run training centers, the report says, according to the official.

It also says that al-Qaida is particularly interested in building up the numbers in its middle ranks, or operational positions, so there is not as great a lag in attacks when such people are killed.

"Being No. 3 in al-Qaida is a bad job. We regularly get to the No. 3 person," Tom Fingar, the top U.S. intelligence analyst, told the House panel.

The counterterror official said the report does not focus on Osama bin Laden, his whereabouts or his role in al-Qaida. Officials say the network has become more like a "family-oriented" mob organization with leadership roles in cells and other groups being handed from father to son, or cousin to uncle.

Yet bin Laden's whereabouts are still of great interest to intelligence agencies. Although he has not been heard from for some time, Kringen said officials believe he is still alive and living under the protection of tribal leaders in the border area.

Armed Services Committee members expressed frustration that more was not being done to get bin Laden and tamp down activity in the tribal areas. The senior intelligence analysts tried to portray the difficulty of operating in the area, despite a $25 million bounty on the head of bin Laden and his top deputy.

"They are in an environment that is more hostile to us than it is to al-Qaida," Fingar said.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8QALM9G2&show_article=1

the Talking Can
07-11-2007, 05:14 PM
duh

Ugly Duck
07-11-2007, 05:20 PM
duh

Thats what Bushron calls "doing a heckuva job!"

Silock
07-11-2007, 05:24 PM
Paging pattycakes.

You can't declare war on an idea, folks. Might as well have declared war on String Theory.

Bowser
07-11-2007, 05:26 PM
At least we brought peace and stability to Iraq.

Hydrae
07-11-2007, 07:41 PM
But we are friendly to Pakistan. Surely they are not harboring our enemies are they?

memyselfI
07-11-2007, 08:20 PM
I vaguely remember SOMEONE on this board predicting this scenario, oh, about 6 years ago...

Oh Snap
07-11-2007, 08:40 PM
now i wouldnt call myself the strongest of bush supporters (the president) But i dont think he is as bad as some think. Would kerry have honestly been a much better choice?.....(long pause)

I do think we have disrupted al qeada... fighting them over there is certainly better then fighting them on suburban american streets.

jAZ
07-11-2007, 08:50 PM
(*GOP Crickets*)

Logical
07-11-2007, 09:28 PM
patteeu must not be on because there is no way he would not have been in this thread defending Bush 5 hours after the initial post if he was posting.

Ugly Duck
07-11-2007, 10:34 PM
now i wouldnt call myself the strongest of bush supporters (the president) But i dont think he is as bad as some think. Would kerry have honestly been a much better choice?.....(long pause)

I do think we have disrupted al qeada... fighting them over there is certainly better then fighting them on suburban american streets.

Heck.... Zippy the Pinhead honestly would have been a better choice.

And we didn't disrupt AQ by invading Iraq - we made them stronger. We've put ourselves in a vulnerable position occupying a country in the midst of civil war when the majority of the folk in that country want us to die. That attracts AQ to the area like a magnet to take advantage of our untenable position. It not only generates sympathy for AQ among the hostile populace, it also serves as a training ground for terrorists to get practice fighting Americans. Those AQ fighters come to Iraq to get their stripes, then move on to other countries with hero status.

Our invasion of Iraq is the best thing that could have happened to AQ cuz the fight is on their terms, not ours. The longer we allow our boyz to be exposed to attack in a civil war where the people hate us, the longer we stay in a vulnerable position where AQ can kill us, the longer we provide the training ground for AQ fighters, the longer we let AQ use the occupation as a recruitment tool, the stronger AQ will be.

jAZ
07-11-2007, 10:50 PM
Heck.... Zippy the Pinhead honestly would have been a better choice.

And we didn't disrupt AQ by invading Iraq - we made them stronger. We've put ourselves in a vulnerable position occupying a country in the midst of civil war when the majority of the folk in that country want us to die. That attracts AQ to the area like a magnet to take advantage of our untenable position. It not only generates sympathy for AQ among the hostile populace, it also serves as a training ground for terrorists to get practice fighting Americans. Those AQ fighters come to Iraq to get their stripes, then move on to other countries with hero status.

Our invasion of Iraq is the best thing that could have happened to AQ cuz the fight is on their terms, not ours. The longer we allow our boyz to be exposed to attack in a civil war where the people hate us, the longer we stay in a vulnerable position where AQ can kill us, the longer we provide the training ground for AQ fighters, the longer we let AQ use the occupation as a recruitment tool, the stronger AQ will be.
You've said just about everything that can be said, and done it quite concisly.

Well said.

stevieray
07-12-2007, 06:44 AM
that's right... the only intel that is valid is when it can be used agianst Bush.

We should just get rid of the laws against murder...all these years later and people are still killing each other.

Radar Chief
07-12-2007, 07:04 AM
Since the “US Intelligence” suddenly has credibility with you “bumper sticker rhetoric” people, here’s what Tenet had to say about al Qaeda in Iraq before we invaded.

For example, Tenet explains that in late 2002 and early 2003:
There was more than enough evidence to give us real concern about Iraq and al-Qa'ida; there was plenty of smoke, maybe even some fire: Ansar al-Islam [note: Tenet refers to Ansar al-Islam by its initials "AI" in several places]; Zarqawi; Kurmal; the arrests in Europe; the murder of American USAID officer Lawrence Foley, in Amman, at the hands of Zarqawi's associates; and the Egyptian Islamic Jihad operatives in Baghdad.

On Ansar al-Islam, Zarqawi, and Kurmal, Tenet elaborates further:
The intelligence told us that senior al-Qa'ida leaders and the Iraqis had discussed safe haven in Iraq. Most of the public discussion thus far has focused on Zarqawi's arrival in Baghdad under an assumed name in May of 2002, allegedly to receive medical treatment. Zarqawi, whom we termed a "senior associate and collaborator" of al-Qa'ida at the time, supervised camps in northern Iraq run by Ansar al-Islam (AI).
We believed that up to two hundred al-Qa'ida fighters began to relocate there in camps after the Afghan campaign began in the fall of 2001. The camps enhanced Zarqawi's reach beyond the Middle East. One of the camps run by AI, known as Kurmal, engaged in production and training in the use of low-level poisons such as cyanide. We had intelligence telling us that Zarqawi's men had tested these poisons on animals and, in at least one case, on one of their own associates. They laughed about how well it worked. Our efforts to track activities emanating from Kurmal resulted in the arrest of nearly one hundred Zarqawi operatives in Western Europe planning to use poisons in operations.

According to Tenet, al Qaeda's presence was not limited to northern Iraq:
What was even more worrisome was that by the spring and summer of 2002, more than a dozen al-Qa'ida-affiliated extremists converged on Baghdad, with apparently no harassment on the part of the Iraqi government. They had found a comfortable and secure environment in which they moved people and supplies to support Zarqawi's operations in northeastern Iraq.

Other high-level al Qaeda terrorists set up shop in Baghdad as well. From Saddam's neo-Stalinist capital they planned attacks around the globe:
More al-Qa'ida operatives would follow, including Thirwat Shihata and Yussef Dardiri, two Egyptians assessed by a senior al-Qa'ida detainee to be among the Egyptian Islamic Jihad's best operational planners, who arrived by mid-May of 2002. At times we lost track of them, though their associates continued to operate in Baghdad as of October 2002. Their activity in sending recruits to train in Zarqawi's camps was compelling enough.
There was also concern that these two might be planning operations outside Iraq. Credible information told us that Shihata was willing to strike U.S., Israeli, and Egyptian targets sometime in the future. Shihata had been linked to terrorist operations in North Africa, and while in Afghanistan he had trained North Africans in the use of truck bombs.
Smoke indeed. But how much fire, if any?

It strains credulity to imagine that all of this was going on without, at the very least, Saddam's tacit approval.

StcChief
07-12-2007, 07:24 AM
Since the “US Intelligence” suddenly has credibility with you “bumper sticker rhetoric” people, here’s what Tenet had to say about al Qaeda in Iraq before we invaded.
But don't confuse them facts....

The war has gone very bad, Iraq gov't is NOT stepping up at all.
They are proving to be Sheep that need to be ruled by thugs.

Ugly Duck
07-12-2007, 07:41 AM
It strains credulity to imagine that all of this was going on without, at the very least, Saddam's tacit approval.

What strains credulity is that that a small minority of Americans folks continue to attempt to hang on to Dick Cheney's bumper-sticker bull. Zaqueery wasn't even AQ until after we invaded. And Sodom had no influence in northern Iraq..... we no-fly-zoned his ass out of there. The 9-11 Commission debunked all that bumper-sticker claptrap in the report requested by Bushron. Heck... even Republicans aren't trying to hang on to the raggedy-thin thread of an AQ-Sodom link any more. You should give up on that one:

Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed

By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 17, 2004; Page A01


The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.

Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was "overwhelming."

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.

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

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/images/I48266-2004Jun17

Hog Farmer
07-12-2007, 07:58 AM
Al-Queda wanted to kill us before Bush was president , they are just becoming more evolved. Bin Laden knew exactly what 911 would cause and it's happening. When Chertoff tells us he has a gut feeling, he is telling us loud and clear that a terrorist atteck is coming, I still think they have suitcase nukes and our day is coming! One report says they plan to hit seven cities simultaneously with those nukes.

banyon
07-12-2007, 08:04 AM
"Al-Queda"? Is that terrorism with extra nacho cheese? [/go bo]

Hoover
07-12-2007, 08:10 AM
OK, So I'm not defending President Bush because I think much more could have been done ie more bombing, but what is the Democrats plan? Pull Out and they will love America.

Blow the fu@kers up before they blow me and my family up.

Pretty simple if you ask me.

StcChief
07-12-2007, 08:10 AM
Al-Queda wanted to kill us before Bush was president , they are just becoming more evolved. Bin Laden knew exactly what 911 would cause and it's happening. When Chertoff tells us he has a gut feeling, he is telling us loud and clear that a terrorist atteck is coming, I still think they have suitcase nukes and our day is coming! One report says they plan to hit seven cities simultaneously with those nukes.
Get ready City Slickers

Radar Chief
07-12-2007, 08:15 AM
What strains credulity is that that a small minority of Americans folks continue to attempt to hang on to Dick Cheney's bumper-sticker bull. Zaqueery wasn't even AQ until after we invaded.

:LOL: You’re high. “Zaqueery” was injured in Afghanistan fighting our troops alongside al Qaeda. He then went to Iraq seeking medical attention where he set up shop and became leader of “al Qaeda in Iraq”.
This is not new evidence, I’ve pointed it out to you before, and only the bumper sticker demogogues continue to stick to that failed line of rhetoric.

And Sodom had no influence in northern Iraq..... we no-fly-zoned his ass out of there.

Remember a group of Arabs called the “Ma’dan”? Probably not, I’ll explain.
They were a unique culture of about 250K Arabs that made their home in the marshlands created by the Trigris and Euphrates river deltas, hence the more common name “Marsh Arabs”.
Because they supported the Shia uprising by allowing attacks to be staged from their lands directly after GW I, Saddam had their homes, villages, marshes burned to the ground and turned machine guns and artillery on everyone that fled, men, women and children.
What relevance does this have with the “northern no fly zone”, you ask? This all took place in the southern “no fly zone”. Our pilots had to watch it all take place and couldn’t do a thing about it because they weren’t being fired on. So this notion that Saddam had no control over areas because they were patrolled as “no fly zones” is a load of :BS: and I wouldn’t doubt that you already know that but continue this line of thinking because it supports your rhetoric.

The 9-11 Commission debunked all that bumper-sticker claptrap in the report requested by Bushron. Heck... even Republicans aren't trying to hang on to the raggedy-thin thread of an AQ-Sodom link any more. You should give up on that one:

Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed

By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 17, 2004; Page A01


The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.

Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was "overwhelming."

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.

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

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/images/I48266-2004Jun17

Were you and your “bumper sticker rhetoric” authors not hanging your collective hat on two words, “collaborative relationship”, while ignoring that the same 9-11 Commission then went on to spell out numerous “contacts”, this probably wouldn’t be quite so funny.

Radar Chief
07-12-2007, 08:22 AM
OK, So I'm not defending President Bush because I think much more could have been done ie more bombing, but what is the Democrats plan? Pull Out and they will love America.

Blow the fu@kers up before they blow me and my family up.

Pretty simple if you ask me.

If you don’t take hook, line and sinker, the “Bush id the Debil” line of rhetoric, you’re by default a “Bush apologist”. What are you, new? ;)

BucEyedPea
07-12-2007, 08:45 AM
But don't confuse them facts....

The war has gone very bad, Iraq gov't is NOT stepping up at all.
They are proving to be Sheep that need to be ruled by thugs.
Tenet's lies are not facts....they are FALSE REPORTS!

Tenet is a man who lies about his own lies.
And the sheep still follow him despite this.

Don't forget Tenet was a political lackey who caved into the WH's demands to manufacture evidence on WMD and alQaeda in Iraq, twisting the arms of his staff. You should see the letter written by three of his former professional CIA agents, even those in the binLaden counter-terrorism unit calling him out for ignoring the truth. These guys were the pros who do not believe in caving into to political agendas but rather prefer the cold hard facts. Afterall, over the entrance to the CIA is the following quote: "The truth will set you free."

BucEyedPea
07-12-2007, 09:05 AM
Hey Radar, here's what some of Tenet's staff say about his claim on AQ in Iraq before we went in:

Poor George Tenet; He Still Doesn't Get It (http://www.antiwar.com/mcgovern/?articleid=10893)

Excerpt from a letter written by former CIA agents, under Tenet after Tenet's book was published:
Although CIA officers learned in late September 2002 from a high-level member of Saddam Hussein's inner circle that Iraq had no past or present contact with Osama bin Laden and that the Iraqi leader considered bin Laden an enemy of the Baghdad regime, you still went before Congress in February 2003 and testified that Iraq did indeed have links to al-Qaeda.


Sincerely yours,

Phil Giraldi
Ray McGovern
Larry Johnson
Jim Marcinkowski
Vince Cannistraro
David MacMichael

The entire article by Ray McGovern should be read in full for what really happened regarding Tenet being more politician than a scrupulously honest
CIA director who believed in having a personal relationship with the President and VP. This compromised the intel, as it became edited for their agenda. A good CIA head whose honest is likely to make enemies in certain camps but they must remain objective.

Giraldi, McGovern as well as another former CIA, Sheuer now support Republican Ron Paul and write for antiwar.com as well as other antiwar sites.

StcChief
07-12-2007, 09:13 AM
Tenet's lies are not facts....they are FALSE REPORTS!

Tenet is a man who lies about his own lies.
And the sheep still follow him despite this.

Don't forget Tenet was a political lackey who caved into the WH's demands to manufacture evidence on WMD and alQaeda in Iraq, twisting the arms of his staff. You should see the letter written by three of his former professional CIA agents, even those in the binLaden counter-terrorism unit calling him out for ignoring the truth. These guys were the pros who do not believe in caving into to political agendas but rather prefer the cold hard facts. Afterall, over the entrance to the CIA is the following quote: "The truth will set you free."
I really don't care About Tenet.

I still believe Saddam would think Al-Qeada or any non-Saddam controlled group would be a threat to him. He was a control freak....

That doesn't mean he wouldn't secretly support anything they did to undermine Isreal/USA even Iran or other the western nations.
Except the France/Russia/Germany that were supplying him with technology and opposed our invasion to remove him. Under UN 1441.

I'm just dis-hearten that we spent so much of our military to help them get their gov't going and they are doing so little to keep it going.

Radar Chief
07-12-2007, 11:02 AM
Hey Radar, here's what some of Tenet's staff say about his claim on AQ in Iraq before we went in:

Poor George Tenet; He Still Doesn't Get It (http://www.antiwar.com/mcgovern/?articleid=10893)

Excerpt from a letter written by former CIA agents, under Tenet after Tenet's book was published:


The entire article by Ray McGovern should be read in full for what really happened regarding Tenet being more politician than a scrupulously honest
CIA director who believed in having a personal relationship with the President and VP. This compromised the intel, as it became edited for their agenda. A good CIA head whose honest is likely to make enemies in certain camps but they must remain objective.

Giraldi, McGovern as well as another former CIA, Sheuer now support Republican Ron Paul and write for antiwar.com as well as other antiwar sites.

Evidence gathered pre and post invasion tends to indicate they were wrong about ole Tenet on this one.
But I used Tenet to make a point that you’re actually helping me make. Thank you, BTW.
The point is that the “US Intelligence” doesn’t speak with the unified voice that some apparently wish to think when “US Intelligence” is saying what they want to hear.
There are as many different voices saying things as there are people with opinions. It’s not much different than the rest of politics.

Silock
07-12-2007, 03:40 PM
Just because AQ was around before we invaded Iraq doesn't do anything to lessen the fact that AQ is now stronger than ever and the methods we've been using to "fight" them have been completely ineffective.

Ugly Duck
07-12-2007, 06:44 PM
:LOL: You’re high. “Zaqueery” was injured in Afghanistan fighting our troops alongside al Qaeda. He then went to Iraq seeking medical attention where he set up shop and became leader of “al Qaeda in Iraq”.
This is not new evidence, I’ve pointed it out to you before, and only the bumper sticker demogogues continue to stick to that failed line of rhetoric.

Are we speaking of the same creep? Abu Musab al-Zarqawi swore loyalty to bin Laden in late 2004 and spawned the "al-Qaeda in Iraq" a-holes. That was after we invaded. Before that, Sodom was no collaborator with bin Laden - even went so far as to outlaw bin Laden's brand of Islam (Wahabism) upon pain of death. Bin Laden called Sodom an "unbeliever." The fuggers were more enemies than friends. Look it up.

BucEyedPea
07-12-2007, 07:00 PM
Are we speaking of the same creep? Abu Musab al-Zarqawi swore loyalty to bin Laden in late 2004 and spawned the "al-Qaeda in Iraq" a-holes. That was after we invaded. Before that, Sodom was no collaborator with bin Laden - even went so far as to outlaw bin Laden's brand of Islam (Wahabism) upon pain of death. Bin Laden called Sodom an "unbeliever." The fuggers were more enemies than friends. Look it up.
You can't tell him that. I've tried have many times. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was in Iraq before but was merely a wannabe until he connected with AQ—post invasion. Besides just try to get away with terrorism in Iraq under SH, he'd persecute them. :p

go bowe
07-12-2007, 08:46 PM
"Al-Queda"? Is that terrorism with extra nacho cheese? [/go bo]tank yew, tank yew, tank yew, tank you bery much...

Ugly Duck
07-12-2007, 11:23 PM
You can't tell him that. I've tried have many times. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was in Iraq before but was merely a wannabe until he connected with AQ—post invasion. Besides just try to get away with terrorism in Iraq under SH, he'd persecute them. :p

I dunno, dude.... its not like its rocket science or anything. I guess if one really doesn't want to believe it, they can just choose to believe something else instead. Itsa kinda political "faith" - just have faith that what you really want to believe is actually true & then ignore the facts in front of you....

Saggysack
07-12-2007, 11:50 PM
Al-Queda wanted to kill us before Bush was president , they are just becoming more evolved. Bin Laden knew exactly what 911 would cause and it's happening. When Chertoff tells us he has a gut feeling, he is telling us loud and clear that a terrorist atteck is coming, I still think they have suitcase nukes and our day is coming! One report says they plan to hit seven cities simultaneously with those nukes.

I hope they have suitcase nukes. It would have been a waste of tens of millions of dollars on their part. The last of the suitcase nukes were produced in 1991. They each have a operational life span of 3-4 years before the internal triggers become junk. You do the math.

ChiefaRoo
07-13-2007, 12:00 AM
Just because AQ was around before we invaded Iraq doesn't do anything to lessen the fact that AQ is now stronger than ever and the methods we've been using to "fight" them have been completely ineffective.

This report is full of crap and is irrelavent. We've lost lost 3,600 guys right? I guarantee you we've killed the bad guys at a rate 10x to 20x our casualty rate. Listen you whiney liberal pussies. This war with Islamo Fascism is going to go on for a very long time regardless of who is in the White House. If you really believe the Dems. are going to pull out of Iraq and come home and let ME become a base for AQ your naive at best but most likely stupid. Hillary, Thompson et al. it won't matter we may not have 170,000 troops in Iraq but we'll have 50k to 70k there 10 years or longer from now. The missions will continue to evolve but the objective of killing AQ and denying them bases and safe harbor will continue all around the world for a long time.

Radar Chief
07-13-2007, 06:55 AM
Are we speaking of the same creep? Abu Musab al-Zarqawi swore loyalty to bin Laden in late 2004 and spawned the "al-Qaeda in Iraq" a-holes. That was after we invaded. Before that, Sodom was no collaborator with bin Laden - even went so far as to outlaw bin Laden's brand of Islam (Wahabism) upon pain of death. Bin Laden called Sodom an "unbeliever." The fuggers were more enemies than friends. Look it up.

Yes, we’re talking about the same guy. He was injured fighting our troops in Afghanistan along side al Qaeda. He then went to Iraq seeking and receiving medical assistance.
He then hooked up with some of his al Qaeda brothahs and became head of “al Qaeda in Iraq”.
If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, hangs out with other ducks, wants to be called a duck, it’s a pretty sure bet you’re dealing with a duck.
Saddam also had a common enemy with al Qaeda and an open offer of asylum to bin Hide’n.
As you said, look it up. Though, I’m pretty sure you already know this because I’ve posted it in response to you before.

Radar Chief
07-13-2007, 07:01 AM
You can't tell him that. I've tried have many times. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was in Iraq before but was merely a wannabe until he connected with AQ—post invasion.

By use of that exact same logic, bin Hide’n himself is just a “local wannabe”. Yet he’s the end all, be all of the GWOT to some. :shrug:

Besides just try to get away with terrorism in Iraq under SH, he'd persecute them. :p

Saddam openly supported terrorists, both financially and by giving them a place to hide.
This is not new news, you know this already.

Radar Chief
07-13-2007, 07:03 AM
I dunno, dude.... its not like its rocket science or anything. I guess if one really doesn't want to believe it, they can just choose to believe something else instead. Itsa kinda political "faith" - just have faith that what you really want to believe is actually true & then ignore the facts in front of you....

:LOL: I’ve presented you with the facts, repeatedly. It’s quite obvious, at least to me, who here is working on “faith”.

BucEyedPea
07-13-2007, 07:20 AM
By use of that exact same logic, bin Hide’n himself is just a “local wannabe”. Yet he’s the end all, be all of the GWOT to some. :shrug:
Saddam openly supported terrorists, both financially and by giving them a place to hide.
This is not new news, you know this already.
He supported terrorists who did their dirty work in Israel—not the United States. That's called a half-truth. You prefer gross generalities as opposed to specifics just like Bush. It's how and where the facts come together that tell the whole truth. AQ was here in America too. Flight schools allowed them to train...when do we invade ourselves? It was the lack of a collaborative relationship between the two. Again specifics.

As for lack of consensus on intel not speaking with one voice, please say specifically who was a dissenter that was a "qualified" intel person and not a lackey political appointee. I'll stick with the 9/11 Commission Report and the Pros, other charges that turned out false and the lack of results.

Please don't give me those found documents that have born no fruit upon translation.

Radar Chief
07-13-2007, 07:40 AM
He supported terrorists who did their dirty work in Israel—not the United States. That's called a half-truth.

Speaking of “half-truths”, earlier in this very topic you claimed Saddam cracked down on all terrorism in his borders, not just the ones that want to attack us. Only after the fact that Saddam supported terrorists both financially and with a place to hide did you come up with that caveat.
Besides, it’s pretty well accepted by everyone without a personal agenda that al Qaeda was already in Iraq before we invaded. The only debate left is whether he cooperated with them.

AQ was here in America too. Flight schools allowed them to train...when do we invade ourselves? It was the lack of a collaborative relationship between the two. Again specifics.

Any place but Iraq? This argument is getting way too predictable. Next you’ll be trying to tell me that Zarqawi wasn’t an al Qaeda terrorist until we made him that way……wait, you’ve already done that. ;)

As for lack of consensus on intel not speaking with one voice, please say specifically who was a dissenter that was a "qualified" intel person and not a lackey political appointee. I'll stick with the 9/11 Commission Report and the Pros, other charges that turned out false and the lack of results.

Good, then you’ll agree that the 9/11 Commission Report blows this “Saddam would never cooperate with al Qaeda” argument out of the water since they outlined multiple meetings between the two. :thumb:

Please don't give me those found documents that have born no fruit upon translation.

:LOL: In the future I’ll try to remember not to present you with the facts you don’t want to know about.

Silock
07-13-2007, 07:41 AM
This report is full of crap and is irrelavent.

Based on what evidence?

We've lost lost 3,600 guys right? I guarantee you we've killed the bad guys at a rate 10x to 20x our casualty rate.

And that matters HOW if they're recruiting at an even higher rate?

Listen you whiney liberal pussies.

Oh, nice try, but for the 8 years I've had a vote, it's always been straight Republican, and that includes Bush twice.

The missions will continue to evolve but the objective of killing AQ and denying them bases and safe harbor will continue all around the world for a long time.

Of course it will, and it should. Totally not the point, though. The point is that the methods used so far have been totally ineffective.

Saggysack
07-13-2007, 08:33 AM
Holy hell. This broken quote post crap is getting way out of hand. IMO if you are unable to follow along a post without breaking it down to 50 ****ing quotes for 1 post, you may want to head back to daycare. I would rather have a gay porn posting troll than read another damn post broken down into 10 different quotes. Almost the most annoying BB style writing EVAR!

Radar Chief
07-13-2007, 08:57 AM
Holy hell. This broken quote post crap is getting way out of hand. IMO if you are unable to follow along a post without breaking it down to 50 ****ing quotes for 1 post, you may want to head back to daycare. I would rather have a gay porn posting troll than read another damn post broken down into 10 different quotes. Almost the most annoying BB style writing EVAR!

:LOL: My experience is that it cuts down on the confusion as to what is being addressed. But I can understand that its annoying because breaks up continuity.

Cochise
07-13-2007, 08:58 AM
Running From Petraeus
New York Sun Editorial

Congress, without waiting for General Petraeus to send back the progress report it asked him to write when it sent him to Baghdad in January, will launch phase two of the campaign to declare defeat in the Battle of Iraq. The majority leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, the Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and their Democratic Party are maneuvering to set a date for withdrawal of troops even as General Petraeus is preparing for delivery in September two reports that will conclude that it is possible to bring enough security to Iraq for political reconciliation.

What is shaping up may be the most astounding act of perfidy in the history of the Congress. The senate voted 82 to zero to confirm General Petraeus. The Congress underwrote his surge in a bipartisan show of support for a campaign to get control of Baghdad. It put only one basic condition on the expedition, which is that General Petraeus would have to come back in the fall with a thorough report. Our troops are now in the field, fighting heroically in one of the deadliest phases of the Battle to do just what the Congress ratified — and is making real progress.

That turns out to be just what the Democrats are afraid of. One of the things we hear the general is preparing to report concerns the success of the efforts of his officers to turn many of Iraq's sheikhs in Anbar into an anti-terrorist front, with prospects for going national. He will compare the levels of violence in Iraq today to the ghastly reality of Iraq when he arrived. Violent though the battle has been these past few weeks, the level of violence is actually declining — though it's so much lower than, say, the U.S. Civil War or the European wars, or even Iraq's war with Iran, that single car bombs can sharply affect monthly casualty statistics

...The commander has his work cut out for him with the Democrats. It seems that the Democratic Party, which only a year ago demanded that Mr. Bush listen to his generals, is uninterested in what the general in command of forces in Iraq will have to say. So the next phase of the maneuvering to force a retreat will begin at a hearing on the 2008 Defense Authorization bill. The majority party in Congress will offer a series of amendments aimed at fixing a date to begin a rearward march.

One of these amendments — from Senator Webb, who had a great record in Vietnam and in the Reagan administration but who is now in the anti-war camp — would make it impossible to relieve the GIs on the ground come January and March, by which point most would have to redeploy home. Other amendments, like one offered by Senator Feingold, would fix a date in April for the full retreat.


...The right move for President Bush is to fight this thing all the way through, the way Washington did at Valley Forge, another moment when the summer soldiers were abandoning the fight. He could go into the Valley and address the nation from the spot where it found its courage and won the right to exist. He could talk, as he has so eloquently, about what's at stake in this battle. He could go over the heads of the Democratic Congress and the quailing editorial writers to talk to the nation about the importance of what General Petraeus is getting ready to report to them. And of how the fight is not yet lost and of how we need to keep our troops in the battle, well-supplied and paid, so that a year hence the American people themselves will be in a position to choose between the counsels of defeat and the prospect of victory.

Hog Farmer
07-13-2007, 09:51 AM
I hope they have suitcase nukes. It would have been a waste of tens of millions of dollars on their part. The last of the suitcase nukes were produced in 1991. They each have a operational life span of 3-4 years before the internal triggers become junk. You do the math.

How do you know this? I'm just asking.

Saggysack
07-13-2007, 12:56 PM
How do you know this? I'm just asking.

It's public knowledge.

go bowe
07-13-2007, 01:46 PM
mmmmmmm, pubic knowledge...

sounds kinky...

Hog Farmer
07-13-2007, 02:11 PM
It's public knowledge.

I've never heard that and I'm public.

Logical
07-13-2007, 02:29 PM
Running From Petraeus
New York Sun Editorial

Congress, without waiting for General Petraeus to send back the progress report it asked him to write when it sent him to Baghdad in January, will launch phase two of the campaign to declare defeat in the Battle of Iraq. The majority leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, the Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and their Democratic Party are maneuvering to set a date for withdrawal of troops even as General Petraeus is preparing for delivery in September two reports that will conclude that it is possible to bring enough security to Iraq for political reconciliation.

....I have heard nothing about a Senate vote. The house voted yesterday 223 to 201 for a series of steps to monitor Iraq and how Iraq would continue to be funded.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0713/iraq.html

Saggysack
07-13-2007, 03:37 PM
I've never heard that and I'm public.

Mm, too bad. I consider myself a private citizen. ;)

FWIW...



One element, polonium, used in conjunction with beryllium to form a functioning trigger, is rare and, incidentally, quite hard to come by. It is a highly radioactive metalloid that has a brief lifespan, a half-life of only 138.38 days. Coincidentally – or perhaps not – polonium was the substance used to poison former KGB spy Alexander Litvinenko.


There are many other reasons as well. Suitcase nukes were known to be very high maintenance. I'd say a dirty bomb attack is more likely than a suitcase nuke.

ChiefaRoo
07-13-2007, 07:24 PM
Based on what evidence?



And that matters HOW if they're recruiting at an even higher rate?



Oh, nice try, but for the 8 years I've had a vote, it's always been straight Republican, and that includes Bush twice.



Of course it will, and it should. Totally not the point, though. The point is that the methods used so far have been totally ineffective.

1) Personal experience at watching Pols trying to keep power.
2) Then we must learn to kill them at an even faster rate while the Muslim world figures out that the West isn't going to bow to their radical elements.
3) I wasn't talking to you specifically. By the way, who are you?
4) The methods have not been ineffective. We have and will continue to destroy and disrupt radical Islam.

Ugly Duck
07-13-2007, 09:03 PM
we must learn to kill them at an even faster rate while the Muslim world figures out that the West isn't going to bow to their radical elements.

You've just made the case for pulling out of our vulnerable position in Iraq because our presence in the middle of a civil war where the majority of the populace wants to kill us is making AQ numbers grow. If you want to kill them at a faster rate, then leave the arena where they have the advantage and go after their leaders in the Afghan/Pakistan border area. Thank you for joining us libs in the WOT!! We welcome you!!

ChiefaRoo
07-13-2007, 09:06 PM
You've just made the case for pulling out of our vulnerable position in Iraq because our presence in the middle of a civil war where the majority of the populace wants to kill us is making AQ numbers grow. If you want to kill them at a faster rate, then leave the arena where they have the advantage and go after their leaders in the Afghan/Pakistan border area. Thank you for joining us libs in the WOT!! We welcome you!!

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Ugly Duck
07-13-2007, 09:16 PM
You have no idea what you are talking about.Poo-poo head!! Doo-doo face!!

patteeu
07-14-2007, 06:17 AM
What strains credulity is that that a small minority of Americans folks continue to attempt to hang on to Dick Cheney's bumper-sticker bull. Zaqueery wasn't even AQ until after we invaded. And Sodom had no influence in northern Iraq..... we no-fly-zoned his ass out of there. The 9-11 Commission debunked all that bumper-sticker claptrap in the report requested by Bushron. Heck... even Republicans aren't trying to hang on to the raggedy-thin thread of an AQ-Sodom link any more. You should give up on that one:

Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed

By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 17, 2004; Page A01


The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.

Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was "overwhelming."

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.

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


Forget, for a minute, whether Zarqawi was a card carrying al Qaeda member or just a "senior associate and collaborator" for a minute. Do you believe that Zarqawi was a radical islamist who, along with more domestic concerns, had the inclination to use violent means to strike out at the West and our interests in the Gulf Region?

patteeu
07-14-2007, 06:32 AM
I dunno, dude.... its not like its rocket science or anything. I guess if one really doesn't want to believe it, they can just choose to believe something else instead. Itsa kinda political "faith" - just have faith that what you really want to believe is actually true & then ignore the facts in front of you....

This goes both ways as I'm sure you must be aware.

patteeu
07-14-2007, 06:41 AM
He supported terrorists who did their dirty work in Israel—not the United States. That's called a half-truth. You prefer gross generalities as opposed to specifics just like Bush. It's how and where the facts come together that tell the whole truth. AQ was here in America too. Flight schools allowed them to train...when do we invade ourselves? It was the lack of a collaborative relationship between the two. Again specifics.

As for lack of consensus on intel not speaking with one voice, please say specifically who was a dissenter that was a "qualified" intel person and not a lackey political appointee. I'll stick with the 9/11 Commission Report and the Pros, other charges that turned out false and the lack of results.

Please don't give me those found documents that have born no fruit upon translation.

If you don't accept the fact that intel consists of many different voices saying different things then you don't have a clue about how intelligence works. I really can't believe you are challenging Radar on that point.

patteeu
07-14-2007, 06:52 AM
Holy hell.

Interesting expression.

This broken quote post crap is getting way out of hand.

At what point would you say it goes from being in hand to getting out of hand and then on to getting way out of hand?

IMO if you are unable to follow along a post without breaking it down to 50 ****ing quotes for 1 post, you may want to head back to daycare.

Do they teach kids how to post in daycare these days? Incredible. These little rugrats are getting pretty darn technologically saavy. :thumb:

I would rather have a gay porn posting troll than read another damn post broken down into 10 different quotes.

Your wish is my command. I'm sure you can find some of what you're looking for here: www.denverbroncos.com

Almost the most annoying BB style writing EVAR!

Almost? What would you say is the king of annoying BB styles?

:Poke:

patteeu
07-14-2007, 07:14 AM
You've just made the case for pulling out of our vulnerable position in Iraq because our presence in the middle of a civil war where the majority of the populace wants to kill us is making AQ numbers grow. If you want to kill them at a faster rate, then leave the arena where they have the advantage and go after their leaders in the Afghan/Pakistan border area. Thank you for joining us libs in the WOT!! We welcome you!!

Pulling out of Iraq will produce more AQ recruits than staying. Prevailing in Iraq should be our approach if dampening AQ recruitment is our goal.

penchief
07-14-2007, 07:17 AM
now i wouldnt call myself the strongest of bush supporters (the president) But i dont think he is as bad as some think. Would kerry have honestly been a much better choice?.....(long pause)

I do think we have disrupted al qeada... fighting them over there is certainly better then fighting them on suburban american streets.

Considering that Bush's actions have been completely counterproductive you would have to believe the Kerry would have done that exact same stupid ill-advised crap to believe that he wouldn't have done any better.

Spying on Americans, committing torture, starting unjustified wars and occupying a ME country for the benefit of the oil industry, and eroding our military defenses are not better options than securing our borders, ports, and vital infrastructure or going after the people that actually attacked us.

penchief
07-14-2007, 07:19 AM
that's right... the only intel that is valid is when it can be used agianst Bush.

We should just get rid of the laws against murder...all these years later and people are still killing each other.

Are we talking about the same Bush that hides or twists info that contradicts his lies while leaking info that helps his administration lie to you?

penchief
07-14-2007, 07:33 AM
OK, So I'm not defending President Bush because I think much more could have been done ie more bombing, but what is the Democrats plan? Pull Out and they will love America.

Blow the fu@kers up before they blow me and my family up.

Pretty simple if you ask me.

Being smarter than the terrorists would be a start. When even the overwhelming majority of Americans can see that Bush's plan is not only counterproductive but bordering on catastrophic, it's hard to say that a democrat couldn't do better. Heck, just about anybody could do better than the "Heckuva job" crowd, who have yet to do anything right and who seem to be interested only in creating more chaos and fear.

In fact, I think this has been there gameplan from the start. If it wasn't, it seems like they'd have tried to change course. But the things that seem most important to them have been things that are distinctly unAmerican (spying on citizens, torture, military occupation, starting wars unjustly).

Is there anyone on this board who thinks that our own government should take care of the basics (border security, port security, protecting our infrastructure) before they start taking away our freedoms and our privacy? Just the fact that this administration's priorities are what they have been should be all the proof anyone needs that we're being conned by a bunch of business suit phonies in order to consolodate political and economic power in the hands of the few. They want to steal our country from the us and they're doing a mighty fine job of it.

RIP America.

stevieray
07-14-2007, 08:24 AM
Being smarter than the terrorists would be a start. When even the overwhelming majority of Americans can see that Bush's plan is not only counterproductive but bordering on catastrophic, it's hard to say that a democrat couldn't do better. Heck, just about anybody could do better than the "Heckuva job" crowd, who have yet to do anything right and who seem to be interested only in creating more chaos and fear.

In fact, I think this has been there gameplan from the start. If it wasn't, it seems like they'd have tried to change course. But the things that seem most important to them have been things that are distinctly unAmerican (spying on citizens, torture, military occupation, starting wars unjustly).

Is there anyone on this board who thinks that our own government should take care of the basics (border security, port security, protecting our infrastructure) before they start taking away our freedoms and our privacy? Just the fact that this administration's priorities are what they have been should be all the proof anyone needs that we're being conned by a bunch of business suit phonies in order to consolodate political and economic power in the hands of the few. They want to steal our country from the us and they're doing a mighty fine job of it.

RIP America.

(cue melodramatic music)

penchief
07-14-2007, 02:54 PM
(cue melodramatic music)

It'll need to be melodramitic when you're reminiscing about your lost liberty.

stevieray
07-15-2007, 12:11 AM
It'll need to be melodramitic when you're reminiscing about your lost liberty.

what lost liberty is that penchief?

Logical
07-15-2007, 01:07 AM
what lost liberty is that penchief?If you don't know you have not taken the time to care. In which case it is as the liberties fade you will some day wake up and they will all be gone. It will be too late then.

Ugly Duck
07-15-2007, 03:44 AM
Forget, for a minute, whether Zarqawi was a card carrying al Qaeda member or just a "senior associate and collaborator" for a minute. Do you believe that Zarqawi was a radical islamist who, along with more domestic concerns, had the inclination to use violent means to strike out at the West and our interests in the Gulf Region?

Yep. ZaQueeri was a wahabi terrorist. And Sodom didn't take kindly to such folks which was why ZaQueeri & friends had to stay in the part of Iraq that we kept him from controlling. As our intel tells us, there was no collaboration between Sodom & ZaQueeri. That idea's been made up by Bushron & Faux News, after we invaded , after Zaqueeri pledged allegiance to Bin Laden & spawned "al Qaeda in Iraq.".

patteeu
07-15-2007, 09:59 AM
Yep. ZaQueeri was a wahabi terrorist. And Sodom didn't take kindly to such folks which was why ZaQueeri & friends had to stay in the part of Iraq that we kept him from controlling. As our intel tells us, there was no collaboration between Sodom & ZaQueeri. That idea's been made up by Bushron & Faux News, after we invaded , after Zaqueeri pledged allegiance to Bin Laden & spawned "al Qaeda in Iraq.".

If Zarqawi and other radical islamists were in Iraq, whether they were there on assignment from AQ-Afghanistan or not, then we had plenty of reason to invade. There is no reason to believe that Saddam would have cooperated with us in the GWoT. He wouldn't even cooperate with us on WMD when his regime and his life were on the line.

BTW, I reject your view that separates Saddam and Zarqawi as if they were oil and water. And our intel tells us that there were many contacts between Saddam and AQ including some that were discussions of cooperation.

Adept Havelock
07-15-2007, 10:23 AM
If Zarqawi and other radical islamists were in Iraq, whether they were there on assignment from AQ-Afghanistan or not, then we had plenty of reason to invade.

We know Al-Queda and other radical islamists are in Pakistan. We know we cannot depend on the government to cooperate with us in getting rid of them (by his past actions). When do you start stumping for an invasion of Pakistan?

I'd like to know so I can set my DVR.

BTW, I reject your view that separates Saddam and Zarqawi as if they were oil and water.

Of course you do. As you don't seem to present a reason for rejecting it, I'd suggest it's because it undercuts the poor foreign policy you've been intellectually whoring for. JMO.

StcChief
07-15-2007, 10:28 AM
We know Al-Queda and other radical islamists are in Pakistan. We know we cannot depend on the government to cooperate with us in getting rid of them (by his past actions). When do you start stumping for an invasion of Pakistan?

I'd like to know so I can set my DVR for it.



Of course you do. It undercuts the poor foreign policy you've been carrying water for.
Massurif (sp) will either help or get out of the way. If they are haboring AlQueda camps there.

We will strike in the border Afganistan/Pakistan region when the time is right and intel is correct.

Adept Havelock
07-15-2007, 10:30 AM
We will strike in the border Afganistan/Pakistan region when the time is right and intel is correct.

Just like at Tora Bora?

I hope I'm wrong, but I think expanding our current mistake in Iraq into Iran is a bit higher on the current WH priority list then going after that area.

patteeu
07-15-2007, 10:58 AM
We know Al-Queda and other radical islamists are in Pakistan. We know we cannot depend on the government to cooperate with us in getting rid of them (by his past actions). When do you start stumping for an invasion of Pakistan?

I'd like to know so I can set my DVR.

IMO we would be justified if we invaded Pakistan too, but that doesn't mean we should do it. Unlike Saddam's regime, the Pakistan regime actually *is* cooperating with us even if it's not total cooperation. Our government has taken a judgment that we are better off with the cooperation we are getting than with the likely results of an invasion, so far. I have no reason to believe they are wrong, do you?

Of course you do. As you don't seem to present a reason for rejecting it, I'd suggest it's because it undercuts the poor foreign policy you've been intellectually whoring for. JMO.

I would have thought that you'd been around here long enough to have seen Radar Chief make this case on numerous occasions, not to mention the findings of the 9/11 commission. If you are still clinging to the belief that Saddam was unwaveringly opposed to working with AQ and other radical islamist outfits, it's not because you haven't had ample opportunity to be disabused of that notion.

patteeu
07-15-2007, 11:06 AM
We will strike in the border Afganistan/Pakistan region when the time is right and intel is correct.

I agree with that. If we see a target of high enough value and if taking out that target is low enough profile, we will strike just like we did when we thought we could take out Zawahiri with a hellfire. I don't see us crossing the border with a huge expedition anytime soon though.

Ultra Peanut
07-15-2007, 11:12 AM
But we are friendly to Pakistan. Surely they are not harboring our enemies are they?Welp, time to go in there. At least they have some connection to AQ, right?

banyon
07-15-2007, 11:14 AM
Welp, time to go in there. At least they have some connection to AQ, right?

Yes, any connection, no matter how tenuous or doubtful is excuse enough. I rename him "St. Patteustine".

Logical
07-15-2007, 02:33 PM
Yes, any connection, no matter how tenuous or doubtful is excuse enough. I rename him "St. Patteustine".ROFL

Logical
07-15-2007, 02:35 PM
Just like at Tora Bora?

I hope I'm wrong, but I think expanding our current mistake in Iraq into Iran is a bit higher on the current WH priority list then going after that area.Unfortunately true and also high on the priorities of the neocons in general.

Ugly Duck
07-15-2007, 04:53 PM
not to mention the findings of the 9/11 commission. If you are still clinging to the belief that Saddam was unwaveringly opposed to working with AQ and other radical islamist outfits, it's not because you haven't had ample opportunity to be disabused of that notion.

But... but the findings of the 9/11 Commision portray the opposite of your position:


Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed

The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.

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

Nightwish
07-15-2007, 05:43 PM
now i wouldnt call myself the strongest of bush supporters (the president) But i dont think he is as bad as some think. Would kerry have honestly been a much better choice?.....(long pause)
He couldn't have done any worse, that's for sure.

I do think we have disrupted al qeada... fighting them over there is certainly better then fighting them on suburban american streets.
How often were we fighting them on suburban American streets prior to 9/11? Not once. And there has never been any indication that such a scenario ever would have occurred. That's not their style.

Nightwish
07-15-2007, 05:46 PM
But... but the findings of the 9/11 Commision portray the opposite of your position:


Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed

The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html
Patteeu is talking about "patteeu's 9/11 Commission," not the governments. You should know that by now. "Patteeu's 9/11 Commission" found rock-solid evidence of Saddam/Al-Qaeda collaboration, in the form of "we think there was, so there must have been." In patteeu's vocabulary, that is equal to rock solid and unequivocal proof.

ChiefaRoo
07-15-2007, 06:05 PM
Patteeu is talking about "patteeu's 9/11 Commission," not the governments. You should know that by now. "Patteeu's 9/11 Commission" found rock-solid evidence of Saddam/Al-Qaeda collaboration, in the form of "we think there was, so there must have been." In patteeu's vocabulary, that is equal to rock solid and unequivocal proof.

You guys keep whining about how the war was sold to the masses. Any thinking person who was paying attention at the time knew we went into Iraq for a lot of reasons other than Al Qaeda - WMD's, Saddam, sending a message to Iran and Syria, lofty goals of establishing a Democracy in the ME and of course securing the free flow of oil out of the region indefinately. We can argue the right and wrong of the invasion all day long but it's really it misses the point of what is going on now in Iraq and the greater ME. For all our sakes it's time to move on because the die is cast, it's history and you can't vote Bush out of office now even if you wanted to. Now that AQ is in Iraq the question at hand is how to defeat, disrupt and kill them and to get as many of our guys out of harms way as possible.

Nightwish
07-15-2007, 06:08 PM
You guys keep whining about how the war was sold to the masses. Any thinking person who was paying attention at the time knew we went into Iraq for a lot of reasons other than Al Qaeda.Yes, and thankfully, precious few are still gullible enough to believe that more than a couple of those reasons still hold water. Most of the reasons have been pretty much proven bunk, as any thinking person who has been paying attention will have noticed. Except for oil, of course, because that was the furthest thing from our minds [/patteeu, Bush, et al]!

ChiefaRoo
07-15-2007, 06:12 PM
Yes, and thankfully, precious few are still gullible enough to believe that more than a couple of those reasons still hold water. Most of the reasons have been pretty much proven bunk, as any thinking person who has been paying attention will have noticed. Except for oil, of course, because that was the furthest thing from our minds [/patteeu, Bush, et al]!

I think the administration was really concerned about WMD's and them getting into terroist hands at the time. It's no secret Saddam had used them before and the guy had a huge hard on for the US.

Nightwish
07-15-2007, 06:40 PM
I think the administration was really concerned about WMD's and them getting into terroist hands at the time.
Which is one of the reasons that is now generally considered bunk.

It's no secret Saddam had used them before
Yes, back in the 80s. We know he had them, we still have the receipts. But whether he had them very far into the 90s, or especially during the lead-up to the invasion is very much another story.

and the guy had a huge hard on for the US.
He was understandably pissed at the US. We had basically given him the green light to invade Kuwait (April Glaspie, then-ambassador, told him the US didn't approve but would not interfere) then stabbed him in the back. Not that there's anything wrong with stabbing him in the back, he was a monster, but it would be nice if it didn't make our government look like a collective lying sack of sh*t. But there's a huge difference between harboring understandable anger and disappointment with the US, and having a "huge hard-on for the US," as indicated by the fact that he never made any threats nor took any actions against us, save for a little bit of impotent sabre-rattling when we started building up troops on his border. When it all boils down, there were really only three justifications for the war that still hold any water at all. One was getting rid of Saddam Hussein and installing a stable, pro-western government (and we know how well that worked out), one was freeing the Iraqi people from oppression (a noble goal, but not our military's job, and it didn't work either), and the third was control of Iraq's oil exports (which BushCo loudly denied the invasion had anything to do with, and only recently have some proponents of the war come around and admitted might have at least been a small justification for going to war, now that nothing else is left in their bucket).

Ugly Duck
07-15-2007, 07:36 PM
Patteeu is talking about "patteeu's 9/11 Commission," not the governments. You should know that by now. "Patteeu's 9/11 Commission" found rock-solid evidence of Saddam/Al-Qaeda collaboration, in the form of "we think there was, so there must have been." In patteeu's vocabulary, that is equal to rock solid and unequivocal proof.

Screw you, Nightwish... you just gave me a big fuggin headache and now I can't think anymore. I wanna understand what you are telling me, but there is smoke coming out of my ears... and thats not a good sign...

ChiefaRoo
07-16-2007, 02:40 AM
Which is one of the reasons that is now generally considered bunk.


Yes, back in the 80s. We know he had them, we still have the receipts. But whether he had them very far into the 90s, or especially during the lead-up to the invasion is very much another story.


He was understandably pissed at the US. We had basically given him the green light to invade Kuwait (April Glaspie, then-ambassador, told him the US didn't approve but would not interfere) then stabbed him in the back. Not that there's anything wrong with stabbing him in the back, he was a monster, but it would be nice if it didn't make our government look like a collective lying sack of sh*t. But there's a huge difference between harboring understandable anger and disappointment with the US, and having a "huge hard-on for the US," as indicated by the fact that he never made any threats nor took any actions against us, save for a little bit of impotent sabre-rattling when we started building up troops on his border. When it all boils down, there were really only three justifications for the war that still hold any water at all. One was getting rid of Saddam Hussein and installing a stable, pro-western government (and we know how well that worked out), one was freeing the Iraqi people from oppression (a noble goal, but not our military's job, and it didn't work either), and the third was control of Iraq's oil exports (which BushCo loudly denied the invasion had anything to do with, and only recently have some proponents of the war come around and admitted might have at least been a small justification for going to war, now that nothing else is left in their bucket).

There's a few things you left out. First, Saddam tried to kill Bush the Elder on the West Coast if you remember, secondly he violated many of the cease fire terms from Gulf War one, Third he shot at our planes on a daily basis patrolling the no fly zone, Fourth he was actively seeking to acquire WMD's (bio and chemical) as per our intelligence, the UK and even the Euro Frogs have said that. Have we done this whole thing perfectly? No, but then again no war is handled perfectly.

Finally, there is no understandably pissed excuse for saddam. The guy was a monster and killed tens of thousands of his own peoples, he invaded a soverign nation and threatened to take control of the ME oil flow if he would of invaded Saudi. Gulf war one was a clear cut case of necessity and we handled it in spectacular fashion as we did Gulf War 2. The occupation and setting up a new Govt. is what is so troubling and painful. However, were in it now we have to get it done one way or the other.

Nightwish
07-16-2007, 06:41 AM
There's a few things you left out. First, Saddam tried to kill Bush the Elder on the West Coast if you remember
I remember that he was suspected of the attempt, but that his involvement was never proven. And he was no longer the President, so it wasn't an attack on America, it was just an attack on one American.

secondly he violated many of the cease fire terms from Gulf War one,
Actually, we violated the cease-fire first. From then on, there was no cease-fire, it was null and void, so he violated nothing in that regard.

Third he shot at our planes on a daily basis patrolling the no fly zone,
He shot at planes that were bombing his country on a regular basis all through the 90s. I'm not aware of any paradigm of war and conflict that has one sign aggressing and the other just sitting there and taking it lying down, are you?

Fourth he was actively seeking to acquire WMD's (bio and chemical) as per our intelligence, the UK and even the Euro Frogs have said that.
Sure several intelligence agencies said that they believed that. None of them said they had iron-clad proof (except for Britain, who has to this day still refused to demonstrate said proof, prompting many a critic to believe that they are just being too damned proud to admit they were wrong in their assessment, something Britain is quite well known for). Suspicion is not a good justification for war.

Have we done this whole thing perfectly? No, but then again no war is handled perfectly.
Perfectly, no. Better than this one? Almost without exception.

Finally, there is no understandably pissed excuse for saddam. The guy was a monster and killed tens of thousands of his own peoples,
Agreed. But that doesn't excuse us from making ourselves look like complete asses on the world stage by giving him the green light to invade then stabbing him in the back.

he invaded a soverign nation
He invaded a nation that was illegally tapping Iraq's oil supply by slant-drilling into Iraqi oilfields. That would justify war in many countries, probably even the US.

and threatened to take control of the ME oil flow if he would of invaded Saudi.
That's a gigantic "if," since he never gave any indication that he had any intention of invading Saudi Arabia (his invasion of Kuwait was about stopping illegal slant-drilling and annexing a country that had always traditionally been viewed as an Iraqi territory), and since Saudi Arabia is no slouch militarily.

However, were in it now we have to get it done one way or the other.
Agreed. And Bush's way clearly isn't going to "get it done."

stevieray
07-16-2007, 06:54 AM
ROFL

penchief
07-16-2007, 07:45 AM
I think the administration was really concerned about WMD's and them getting into terroist hands at the time. It's no secret Saddam had used them before and the guy had a huge hard on for the US.

Which is exactly why the administration outed a covert CIA agent whose job it was to prevent those WMD from getting into terrorists hands, right?

If that contradiction alone doesn't raise questions in your mind, nothing will.

Radar Chief
07-16-2007, 10:27 AM
Patteeu is talking about "patteeu's 9/11 Commission," not the governments. You should know that by now. "Patteeu's 9/11 Commission" found rock-solid evidence of Saddam/Al-Qaeda collaboration, in the form of "we think there was, so there must have been." In patteeu's vocabulary, that is equal to rock solid and unequivocal proof.

Heh, yea. Or maybe he’s reading more of the report than the two words you bumper sticker rhetoric parrots keep getting stuck on.

http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/pdb120498.pdf

Nightwish
07-16-2007, 10:39 AM
Heh, yea. Or maybe he’s reading more of the report than the two words you bumper sticker rhetoric parrots keep getting stuck on.

http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/pdb120498.pdf
There are few things funnier than a bumper sticker rhetoric parrot calling someone else a bumper sticker rhetoric parrot. Thanks for the laugh!

Radar Chief
07-16-2007, 10:42 AM
There are few things funnier than a bumper sticker rhetoric parrot calling someone else a bumper sticker rhetoric parrot. Thanks for the laugh!

But at least you addressed content. Impressive.

Nightwish
07-16-2007, 10:53 AM
But at least you addressed content. Impressive.I'm sure you mean the content where it says that the language about Iraq's understanding with Al Qaeda, y'know, the part you and pat keep relying on to sell us this myth, was dropped from later indictments (presumably because the original language was found to be premature and unsupported). That was the content you meant, right?

I find it interesting that among the bumper sticker rhetoric parrots of the right, they find it particularly meaningful that the 9/11 Commission acknowledges that there existed at one time an indictment that concluded that there was a degree of cooperation between Al Qaeda and Iraq, but they don't find it particularly meaningful that the idea was later abandoned.

Radar Chief
07-16-2007, 11:44 AM
I'm sure you mean the content where it says that the language about Iraq's understanding with Al Qaeda, y'know, the part you and pat keep relying on to sell us this myth, was dropped from later indictments (presumably because the original language was found to be premature and unsupported). That was the content you meant, right?

I find it interesting that among the bumper sticker rhetoric parrots of the right, they find it particularly meaningful that the 9/11 Commission acknowledges that there existed at one time an indictment that concluded that there was a degree of cooperation between Al Qaeda and Iraq, but they don't find it particularly meaningful that the idea was later abandoned.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

:hmmm: I’ll be damned. The “9/11 Commission Report” still exists exactly as quoted. You sure this isn’t some made up crap from the fantasyland you’re currently posting from? :shrug: ROFL

Nightwish
07-16-2007, 11:58 AM
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

:hmmm: I’ll be damned. The “9/11 Commission Report” still exists exactly as quoted. You sure this isn’t some made up crap from the fantasyland you’re currently posting from? :shrug: ROFL
You're not inclined to carefully read your own links, are you? From page 128 of the 9/11 Commission report, from your first link:

The original sealed indictment had added that al Qaeda had "reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects,specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.

-snip-

This language about al Qaeda’s "understanding"with Iraq had been dropped, however, when a superseding indictment was filed in November 1998.

Funny what you see if you actually read the whole paragraph, instead of stopping halfway through!

Radar Chief
07-16-2007, 12:02 PM
You're not inclined to carefully read your own links, are you? From page 128 of the 9/11 Commission report, from your first link:



Funny what you see if you actually read the whole paragraph, instead of stopping halfway through!

[/size]


But oddly not dropped from the 9/11 Commission report, which is what we were talking about, since you seem to have lost track.

This passage led Clarke, who for years had read intelligence reports on Iraqi-Sudanese cooperation on chemcical weapons, to speculate to Berger that a large Iraqi presence at chemical facilities in Khar-toum was “probably a direct result of the Iraq-Al Qida agreement.” Clarke added that VX precursor traces found near al Shifa were the “exact formula used by Iraq.”

And just for reference, the part you snipped.

Nightwish
07-16-2007, 12:14 PM
But oddly not dropped from the 9/11 Commission report, which is what we were talking about, since you seem to have lost track.
The Commission Report is merely acknowledging that at one time it was the "official position" that there was cooperation, and that an indictment to that effect existed at one time but was later abandoned, hence the inclusion of the exact language that was originally included but later abandoned. It's just tracking the history of the claim, not confirming the veracity of it.

And just for reference, the part you snipped.
And the fact that Richard Clarke, who later changed his tune, believed it at one time, based on the original indictment that was later dropped, helps your myth how?

patteeu
07-16-2007, 12:22 PM
But... but the findings of the 9/11 Commision portray the opposite of your position:


Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed

The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.

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

No, they support my position and completely undercut yours. The absence of evidence of a "collaborative operational relationship" is different than the absence of a relationship altogether. Here is the quote from the commission's report (http://911.gnu-designs.com/Chapter_2.5.html):

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.74

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.75

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.76

Not only are several contacts between Saddam's regime and AQ identified, but the nature of these contacts indicate that both sides were willing to investigate a collaborative relationship. Both sides had proposed collaboration at one time or another. Friendly contacts. Iraq reportedly took the initiative. Iraqi officials offered bin Laden safe haven in Iraq. So much for Saddam not taking kindly to such folks.

patteeu
07-16-2007, 12:23 PM
Patteeu is talking about "patteeu's 9/11 Commission," not the governments. You should know that by now. "Patteeu's 9/11 Commission" found rock-solid evidence of Saddam/Al-Qaeda collaboration, in the form of "we think there was, so there must have been." In patteeu's vocabulary, that is equal to rock solid and unequivocal proof.

Cute. Now you can eat your words.

Nightwish
07-16-2007, 12:36 PM
No, they support my position and completely undercut yours.
Unless your position was that there was some degree of contact and dialogue, but that there was never any evidence that any kind of collaborative relationship arose from such, then no, it doesn't support your position. The position you've always cultivated is that the 9/11 Commission found that there was evidence of a collaborative relationship, not merely that they had spoken at some point.

The absence of evidence of a "collaborative operational relationship" is different than the absence of a relationship altogether.
Even you must see how weak your position must be when you are forced to resort to the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" defense.

Not only are several contacts between Saddam's regime and AQ identified, but the nature of these contacts indicate that both sides were willing to investigate a collaborative relationship. Both sides had proposed collaboration at one time or another. Friendly contacts. Iraq reportedly took the initiative. Iraqi officials offered bin Laden safe haven in Iraq. So much for Saddam not taking kindly to such folks.

Here's your snippet from the report again, this time with the most relevant portions bolded:

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.74

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.75

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.76
Since the position that you've been putting forward has never been that there was merely contact and dialogue, then your position is not supported by the Commission's findings. And if your position is that there was some degree of discussion and dialogue, then it's kind of a silly position to take, since it is one that doesn't amount to jack squat.

Nightwish
07-16-2007, 12:38 PM
Cute. Now you can eat your words.
Nope, since you're displaying your usual tendency to ignore the relevant portions of the report that don't support your position, then my tongue-in-cheek characterization stands. I will be eating something shortly, probably a slice or two of pizza, but it won't be my words.

patteeu
07-16-2007, 12:44 PM
Unless your position was that there was some degree of contact and dialogue, but that there was never any evidence that any kind of collaborative relationship arose from such, then no, it doesn't support your position. The position you've always cultivated is that the 9/11 Commission found that there was evidence of a collaborative relationship, not merely that they had spoken at some point.


Even you must see how weak your position must be when you are forced to resort to the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" defense.



Here's your snippet from the report again, this time with the most relevant portions bolded:


Since the position that you've been putting forward has never been that there was merely contact and dialogue, then your position is not supported by the Commission's findings. And if your position is that there was some degree of discussion and dialogue, then it's kind of a silly position to take, since it is one that doesn't amount to jack squat.

I think you should read the thread to see what my position is. That way you wouldn't have to guess. I'll give you a hint though. Everything you typed above is either wrong or irrelevant. In some cases, both at the same time.

Radar Chief
07-16-2007, 12:45 PM
The Commission Report is merely acknowledging that at one time it was the "official position" that there was cooperation, and that an indictment to that effect existed at one time but was later abandoned, hence the inclusion of the exact language that was originally included but later abandoned. It's just tracking the history of the claim, not confirming the veracity of it.

It’s not denying it either. But at least we’ve moved from the “idea” of Iraq – al Qaeda cooperation being “dropped” to realization that it’s still in the 9/11 Commission Report. :thumb:

And the fact that Richard Clarke, who later changed his tune, believed it at one time, based on the original indictment that was later dropped, helps your myth how?

I made no claims as to how or even if it helps or hurts my case. Why are you in such a hurry to color it as such? And why did you omit it to begin with? That seems a much more interesting question to me.
Is it just that you don’t want to know about Iraq’s involvement in an al Qaeda camp in Sudan? Or did you just snip it to try and avoid having to answer to the allegation?

Cochise
07-16-2007, 12:46 PM
So we need to fight Al Queda, who is operating in Iraq, and to do this we need to leave Iraq. The best way to defeat Al Queda is to cede to them the place that their #2 says is the centerpiece of their operations. Do I have this right?

patteeu
07-16-2007, 12:47 PM
Nope, since you're displaying your usual tendency to ignore the relevant portions of the report that don't support your position, then my tongue-in-cheek characterization stands. I will be eating something shortly, probably a slice or two of pizza, but it won't be my words.

I think you should put more effort into understanding the topic and less into blathering about whatever you imagine it to be.

Radar Chief
07-16-2007, 12:48 PM
Unless your position was that there was some degree of contact and dialogue, but that there was never any evidence that any kind of collaborative relationship arose from such, then no, it doesn't support your position. The position you've always cultivated is that the 9/11 Commission found that there was evidence of a collaborative relationship, not merely that they had spoken at some point.

Quote and link?
Here, I’ll save you the time, ‘cause you won’t find what you claim.

patteeu
07-16-2007, 12:50 PM
So we need to fight Al Queda, who is operating in Iraq, and to do this we need to leave Iraq. The best way to defeat Al Queda is to cede to them the place that their #2 says is the centerpiece of their operations. Do I have this right?

That's right. You are now qualified to be Defense Secretary in Hillary/Obama administration. :p

Radar Chief
07-16-2007, 12:51 PM
So we need to fight Al Queda, who is operating in Iraq, and to do this we need to leave Iraq. The best way to defeat Al Queda is to cede to them the place that their #2 says is the centerpiece of their operations. Do I have this right?

Yup, that pretty much covers it.

patteeu
07-16-2007, 12:51 PM
Quote and link?
Here, I’ll save you the time, ‘cause you won’t find what you claim.

You're right about that. I was just going to ignore Nightwish's red herrings today.

Adept Havelock
07-16-2007, 01:10 PM
The best way to defeat Al Queda is to cede to them the place that their #2 says is the centerpiece of their operations. Do I have this right?

I find it interesting you are so willing to take Al Queda at their word. If I had an opponent in a position where it was aiding me, I'd say whatever I could to help keep them there. I'm pretty sure they are smart enough to do the same. :shrug:

Nightwish
07-16-2007, 01:14 PM
It’s not denying it either.It didn't need to deny it. It's implicitly denied in the fact that the official source which first raised it, dropped it. The whole point of the 9/11 report including it was to show that it had been raised and dismissed. If you believe it is implicit of something more meaningful than that, I'll venture that it's invention on your part.
But at least we’ve moved from the “idea” of Iraq – al Qaeda cooperation being “dropped” to realization that it’s still in the 9/11 Commission Report. :thumb:If you feel that the report merely mentioning that the idea had been raised and then dropped somehow indicates that the idea is "still on the table," I'd love for you to point out where you're getting that.I made no claims as to how or even if it helps or hurts my case. Why are you in such a hurry to color it as such?Because you wasted the time and effort to point it out as if it were somehow important.
And why did you omit it to begin with?
Because it wasn't important. The point was that the commission merely pointed out that it was raised and dropped. The fact that they went into a further detail to point out how the original indictment affected the beliefs of Richard Clarke before it was dropped isn't at all relevant to the veracity of the original claim, to the beliefs that Clarke developed later, and to the ultimate fact that the claim was dropped.
That seems a much more interesting question to me.Then that's your issue to deal with.
Is it just that you don’t want to know about Iraq’s involvement in an al Qaeda camp in Sudan?It doesn't say anything about an Al Qaeda camp in Sudan. It mentions an Iraqi presence at chemical facilities in Khartoum. In a different section, it alleges an alliance between Sudan and Al Qaeda. And it reports that Clarke believed that the Iraqi presence at these chemical facilities (which were never said to be operated by Al Qaeda) may have been the result of this now-abondoned theory of an agreement between Al Qaeda and Iraq. But nowhere does it report that the facilities were Al Qaeda facilities or that Clarke or anyone else still believed, after it was dropped, that the Iraqi presence was related to Al Qaeda.
Or did you just snip it to try and avoid having to answer to the allegation?I snipped it because it wasn't relevant. It doesn't say what you want it to say.

Cochise
07-16-2007, 01:38 PM
That's right. You are now qualified to be Defense Secretary in Hillary/Obama administration. :p

Well, slow down. I haven't been to begging and pleading classes yet, and I still have a lot of work to do on appeasement.

Radar Chief
07-16-2007, 01:40 PM
It didn't need to deny it. It's implicitly denied in the fact that the official source which first raised it, dropped it. The whole point of the 9/11 report including it was to show that it had been raised and dismissed. If you believe it is implicit of something more meaningful than that, I'll venture that it's invention on your part.
If you feel that the report merely mentioning that the idea had been raised and then dropped somehow indicates that the idea is "still on the table," I'd love for you to point out where you're getting that.

Then why include it? Seems to me if it was as “irrelevant” as you want to claim the thing to do rather than waste the time and effort to commit it to print is to just not put it in there.
But it is in there, and hasn’t been “dropped” as you originally claimed.

Because you wasted the time and effort to point it out as if it were somehow important.

I pointed it out because you omitted it. Still haven’t read a reasonable explanation for that act either.

Because it wasn't important. The point was that the commission merely pointed out that it was raised and dropped. The fact that they went into a further detail to point out how the original indictment affected the beliefs of Richard Clarke before it was dropped isn't at all relevant to the veracity of the original claim, to the beliefs that Clarke developed later, and to the ultimate fact that the claim was dropped.

Wow, you sure are making lots of claims as to what is and isn’t important in the 9/11 Commission Report. Just a little bit ago you claimed it as the end all be all of intelligence on Iraq. Then after it’s pointed out that the report doesn’t say quite what you want it too, we have this long-winded attempt at distracting from that point.
I guess it’s just same as it ever was with Nightwish. :shrug:

Cochise
07-16-2007, 01:43 PM
I find it interesting you are so willing to take Al Queda at their word. If I had an opponent in a position where it was aiding me, I'd say whatever I could to help keep them there. I'm pretty sure they are smart enough to do the same. :shrug:

This is the first time I have seen anyone deny that Al Queda is in Iraq. Even the Democratic leadership is talking about them being there.

Cochise
07-16-2007, 01:46 PM
Wow, you sure are making lots of claims as to what is and isn’t important in the 9/11 Commission Report. Just a little bit ago you claimed it as the end all be all of intelligence on Iraq.

Aside from the supposedly non-existent pre-9/11 connection between Iraq and Al Queda... anybody who saw those hearings on TV would have a very hard time taking it seriously. It was a bunch of Congressmen grandstanding on TV and trying to get a sound bite on the news.

Adept Havelock
07-16-2007, 01:59 PM
This is the first time I have seen anyone deny that Al Queda is in Iraq. Even the Democratic leadership is talking about them being there.


I'm not denying they are in Iraq. :rolleyes: I understand with the latest GOP defections and Malki's recent statement the supporters of the Iraq misadventure are grasping for straws, but please don't put words in my mouth. I might expect that from recxjake, but not you.

I'm just suggesting that I may be a bit more skeptical than you when it comes to believing the claims of Al Queda's #2 when he states Iraq is the "Centerpiece" of their efforts. Like I said, if I had an opponent in a situation where it was aiding my recruiting and propaganda efforts, I'd say things just like that to keep them there.

It was a bunch of Congressmen grandstanding on TV and trying to get a sound bite on the news.

I don't disagree. I do disagree with the notion that the biggest terrorist attack on US soil was somehow unworthy of investigation by Congress (I don't believe you are saying this, but plenty that opposed the commission did).

Nightwish
07-16-2007, 02:09 PM
Then why include it? Seems to me if it was as “irrelevant” as you want to claim the thing to do rather than waste the time and effort to commit it to print is to just not put it in there.
But it is in there, and hasn’t been “dropped” as you originally claimed.
Are you really, honestly this dense? Or are you trying at it? It is "in the report," by way of mentioning that there was once an indictment to that effect which was later dropped. It is "in the report" in that manner to show the history of the claim, from inception to demise. No more, no less. It's like a book report, in that regard. If someone writes a book report on "Gone With the Wind," and gives a summary of the plot of that book, that doesn't mean that the book report is a confirmation that Rhett Butler and Scarlet O'Hara actually lived or that the events in that household actually transpired. You seem to be of the opinion that because the Commission bothered to mention that somebody at some point believed there was enough evidence to warrant an indictment, then later changed their minds, indicates that the Commission believes that there was enough evidence to warrant the indictment, despite the fact that it was dropped. Nothing in the language of the Commission's report even mildly implies anything like that.

I pointed it out because you omitted it. Still haven’t read a reasonable explanation for that act either.
If you explain to me why the pre-drop beliefs of a man who later changed his mind on the subject are relevant to current fact that the claim was dropped, then perhaps I'll address it a bit more. And since you're hell-bent on trying to get me to discuss things that have nothing to do with the topic at hand (i.e. whether the 9/11 Commission found that there was evidence of a collaborative relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda), then I'll add these: if you can explain to me how the fact that the Swiss make good chocolate, that there are some people who believe the moon landing was faked, and that Elvis marries people in Vegas are relevant to the topic, I'll be happy to discuss those with you as well. But until then, none of the above are relevant, but I'll give you due credit for the diversion tactic.

Wow, you sure are making lots of claims as to what is and isn’t important in the 9/11 Commission Report.
No, I'm making claims about what in the 9/11 Commission Report is important to the discussion immediately at hand. There's a difference.

Just a little bit ago you claimed it as the end all be all of intelligence on Iraq.
You must have me confused with someone else, because I've never said anything even close to that. It was you and pat who brought up the Commission report, or have you forgotten?

Then after it’s pointed out that the report doesn’t say quite what you want it too, we have this long-winded attempt at distracting from that point.
This is what is known in the psychology field as "projection."

Radar Chief
07-16-2007, 02:56 PM
Are you really, honestly this dense? Or are you trying at it?

Why are you so obsessed with me? Do you have the ability to discuss a topic without getting personal? I tend to doubt it.

It is "in the report" in that manner to show the history of the claim, from inception to demise. No more, no less.

Still doesn’t explain why it’s there. Particularly if it’s as irrelivent as you want to believe it is.

If you explain to me why the pre-drop beliefs of a man who later changed his mind on the subject are relevant to current fact that the claim was dropped, then perhaps I'll address it a bit more. And since you're hell-bent on trying to get me to discuss things that have nothing to do with the topic at hand (i.e. whether the 9/11 Commission found that there was evidence of a collaborative relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda),

Those are your words, not mine. Later in this post, you :deevee: about “projection”.

This is what is known in the psychology field as "projection."

:rolleyes:


But until then, none of the above are relevant, but I'll give you due credit for the diversion tactic.

Speaking of, what ever happened to this?

The position you've always cultivated is that the 9/11 Commission found that there was evidence of a collaborative relationship, not merely that they had spoken at some point.

Quote and link?
Here, I’ll save you the time, ‘cause you won’t find what you claim.

You must have me confused with someone else, because I've never said anything even close to that. It was you and pat who brought up the Commission report, or have you forgotten?

:LOL: Try and keep up, would ya?

http://67.18.68.69/BB/showpost.php?p=4071850&postcount=16