Mata #28:

You misinterpreted, and made up your own definition. In fact, no where in my post #4 did I mention 911 in association at all. You went there all on your own… bad instincts, I guess.”

You say one thing, and some hear something else

MIddle #25:

As I notice the documents you speak of were part of something that took place PRIOR to the attacks on 9/11, which I do believe were the initial reason our government felt Saddam may have had a role in those attacks;

Agreed (check out the link to my recent post, above; although I’d add it wasn’t just Bush Administration officials and congressmen in both Parties only, but many Americans instinctively drew a possible link).

I also want to add, that I do not disagree with our taking out Saddam, the world is certainly a better place because of it, what I am disagreeing to is our reasons for staying in Iraq once WMD was proven to be faulty information and our failure to spend our resources on the capture of Bin Laden.

I think it, in part, goes back to the idea of the pottery barn rule- “if you break it, you own it.” It would do nothing for America’s security and national interests to just simply walk away and leave a power vacuum in Iraq. Not only would it be highly irresponsible, but it would be dishonorable and inhumane. I absolutely agree in American self-interest and selfishness in how we conduct our affairs; and the selfish self-interest here, is to do what we can to insure the perception of a victory in Iraq (the perception and propaganda by bin Laden of a victory over the Soviets at the Lion’s Den by mujahadeen fighters was a great recruitment tool for more jihadis), and to the best of our ability, to insure an actual victory, as best we can (a Democratic ally in the GWoT and in the heart of the Middle East). This requires resolve and long-term commitment. I never supported the invasion, thinking that this would all be over in 5 short years. Yes, short. Think about it. The kind of changes we wish for Iraq won’t happen overnight. If change is to happen in the Middle East (since when has that region of the world ever been stable in recent history?), it had to happen somewhere and at sometime. We’ve thrown a seed into the pond and created the first ripples. It will probably be decades before we know what those ripples will put into effect. A peaceful and stable Iraq is in our national self-interest and is tied with our national security.

And in the end, things can head south, but the decision to remove Saddam by force could still have been the right, logical choice to make. History is filled with variables and unpredictables. Consequently, the judgment by President Bush regarding Iraq could have been a bad one to make, and yet still have things turn out right. If we hadn’t turned this page in history, what would we be facing today in a world with Saddam and his murderous sons still in power?

If invading Iraq was a bad decision; exvading it, leaving chaos in our wake, would be a worse decision. And for those who concern themselves with world opinion and whether or not Americans are loved, abandoning Iraq would not endear us to the world, nor enhance American credibility and trust.

After the Soviets left Afghanistan, didn’t we make a mistake by leaving a power vacuum in that country? A void that ended up being filled by the Taliban and their ideology?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Jenny, he only opposes the war unless he’s elected. In that case, he wants us to support him and the war he’ll lead. As to the 50yrs comment….I wonder if you’ve been misled or are misleading? Did you see the entire McCain quote, or just an Obama ad that edited it for political propaganda’s sake?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Sen. Obama is not the only senator in Washington that did not support going to war so why is this ad directed to him only? Besides, Obama has acknowledged that the surge along with other factors has reduced the violence in Iraq. However, he still does not think we should remain in Iraq for another 50 years. Is this an effort to help McCain’s campaign?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

MIddle,

What you fail to acknowledge regarding the 9/11 Commission Report is that the Commission itself was a partisan effort. Jamie Gorelick for example had no business whatsoever on the Commission once it was discovered that her actions created obstacles between the FBI and CIA.

Have you read the draft reports regarding the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda?

The drafts were much more strongly worded but partisanship and the overwhelming desire to CYA prevented the wording from appearing in the final edition.

There is a massive amount of information contained in the archives of this very site. If you are interested AT ALL in an honest pursuit of the truth it can be found right here.

I want to bring to your attention again the ruling by Judge Harold Baer that I mentioned in post #23 just in case you missed it.

Federal judges don’t generally issue rulings unless there is, at minimum, a preponderance of evidence to support the decision.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

MIddle, we all studied biology and chemistry, but it didn’t make us doctors. Both Scott, Mata and others in here have studied a mountain of information from day one–seven years. They are the best informed that I have ever encountered. Attempting to hold any ground in here by using the AUMF, the Commission report and a preconcieved opinion leaves you up a crick without a paddle.

You would do well by opening up your mind and studying the information they have stored here in the archives.

Mata Harley did not imply that 911 was a result of al Qaeda/Saddam corroboration. Members of the 911 Commission did not doubt Saddam’s relationship with terror groups and al Qaeda. Neither did Sudan, bin Laden’s host prior to Afghanistan. Look it up.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Middle, the authorization to use force was largely about WMD, but the war itself was not (WMD was but one of many reasons). I think we might be able to agree there. Further, when it comes to WMD, it’s not so much “bad information” as it was a lack of information. From 12/98-1/03 the US didn’t have a single human intel asset inside Iraq. Not one (that’s inexcusable imo).

re the ties to 911 and the 911 Commission report…there’s a few things here. First, the report was done in 2004 long before post-war intel was even started to really be looked at. However, you’re both right and wrong re Saddam/AQ/911. There is still debate about direct involvement-the 911 Commission said there was no evidence, but the Sen Intel Com phase I investigation into pre-war Iraq intel (which also said ‘no evidence’) was clear in saying that the issue needs to remain open because the ‘no evidence’ was the result of abyssmally little intel gathered. That Sen Intel Com report was really good (although really confusing for many) in that it listed the dates and names of the intel products/reports/pamphlets that looked into the question of direct collaboration between the regime and AQ groups. Point here is ‘no evidence’ was because there was almost no evidence gathered and looked at. LATER, when the captured docs were started to get looked at, 911 Commission members came out and said the matter of regime ties needs to be re-examined. It was, and the assessment was put in the Iraqi Perspectives Project reports I and II.

“John Lehman, a 9/11 commissioner, spoke to The Weekly Standard at the time the report was released.”There may well be–and probably will be–additional intelligence coming in from interrogations and from analysis of captured records and so forth which will fill out the intelligence picture. This is not phrased as–nor meant to be–the definitive word on Iraqi Intelligence activities.””

Upon seeing just a glimpse of the 18% of the millions of documents and thousands of hours of tapes captured from Saddam’s regime, 911 Commission member, Sen. Bob Kerrey (D) said,

“This is a very significant set of facts,” former 9/11 commissioner, Mr. Kerry said yesterday. “I personally and strongly believe you don’t have to prove that Iraq was collaborating against Osama bin Laden on the September 11 attacks to prove he was an enemy and that he would collaborate with people who would do our country harm. This presents facts should not be used to tie Saddam to attacks on September 11. It does tie him into a circle that meant to damage the United States.”

Other 911 Commission members have spoken out as well and made clear that the lack of evidence cited in their report was a reference to a lack of evidence gathered. That word, “gathered” come directly from the CIA reports and other intelligence agency reports regarding Saddam’s Ties upon which the 911 Commission was using to make its assessments.

“Bin Ladin was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq, even though Iraq’s dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist agenda—save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against “Crusaders” during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army.53″
-911 Comm pg61

“To protect his own ties with Iraq,Turabi reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad’s control. In the late 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Ladin’s help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam.There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.54 With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request.55 As described below, the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections.”
-911 Comm final report pg 61

INDIRECT Saddam/AQ/911 ties is something entirely different. The 911 Commission’s final report (I believe it’s like pg42 or something) lists the reasons that UBL and AQ declared war on the US. They were:
1) the presence of US forces in Saudi etc (forces which were there to wage war on Iraq
2) the US war on Iraq
3) US support for Israel which was seen as the reason for the US pressure on Saddam (and in some ways that’s true. The US likely wouldn’t have cared too much about Iraq except that Saddam threatened our oil, then he threatened Israel. Between 911 and 3/20/03 literally thousands of Israelis were killed by suicide bus bombers often wearing vests identical to those found at Baghdad University by the hundreds when US Marines were taking Baghdad. I’ve pics if you want em)

These three reasons were why UBL and AQ decided to start killing Americans. If not direct ties to 911 attacks, the attacks were at the very least a fragmentary effect of the unfinished 1991 war on Saddam. More specifically, the attacks were authorized (per 911 Commission) immediately after the Desert Fox strikes on Iraq, and done (per AQ) in retaliation for those strikes.
http://www.aim.org/aim-report/aim-report-media-reports-connect-saddam-to-9-11-plot-march-a/

I cited the stuff re regime ties that was pre-Bush admin because I wanted to point out what you apparently recognize already: that the intel at the time pointed to that kind of relationship.

Iraqi Perspectives Project Reports
http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2006/ipp.pdf

MORE HERE
http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/04/18/saddams-ties-to-al-quedadebunk/

Also, I have LOTS of information on this in txt and doc format if you want it. Just email me
smalensek@neo.rr.com

Like or Dislike: 0  0

BTW, MIddle… read more carefully my original post to Juca.

Saddam had a long term relationship with Zawahiri, had terrorist training camps, was instrumental in Blackhawk Down action (the terrorists which were trained by AQ), regular relationships with many terrorist groups that were affiliated with AQ, and used the jihad movement as a stealth State weapon, and final summary was that Saddam had both the means and will to present a threat to the US… THE PRIME REASON FOR REMOVING HIM.

Now, in your post #25 you said:

However the situation you speak of does not prove that Saddam and Al Qaida had an agreement, a collaboration or support during the 9/11 attacks. Which is what Mata was saying.

You misinterpreted, and made up your own definition. In fact, no where in my post #4 did I mention 911 in association at all. You went there all on your own… bad instincts, I guess. And that’s because you have not read the Iraq Perspectives Report Vol 1.

What I said, and what is documented in Harmony/ISG documents is that Saddam had a relationship with Zawahiri since 1993. At that time, Zawahiri was the head honcho of EIJ, who he merged with AQ years later, before they jointly issued the World Islamic Front Statement in 1998.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

MIddle

The first link is the one from the ABC story. However you can find all five volumes of the Pentagon Report here. Volume I is the Executive Summary of the rest, and is 11.8MB in size. So it takes a while to download. I saved a copy to my hard drive to avoid those when I like to go there for reference.

Mata…I could care less how many BOOKS you’ve read, as books are NOT fact they merely the authors interpretation of he/she believes to be the facts.. So if other peoples opinions are your ammo I will only need to sit and wait..as it will be inevitable that you hang yourself.:)

I see… so the 911 Commission report isn’t a book filled with opinions and analysis like the Pentagon Report?? Only it’s filled with analysis sans the latest documentation and translations of the Harmony/ISG documents…. so it’s still dated.

What you say about “other people’s opinions” is rather absurd. Unless you have those Harmony/ISG docs yourself, and can read the various languages and know the references to the people via code and rank, what the heck are you forming your opinion on but books, news articles and other people’s opinion?? At least my opinions are based on updated events and source documentation.

My statement to you was merely to point out that WMD was in FACT the MAIN reason for our invasion of Iraq, which you dont seem to believe, but the FACTS are it WAS. You implied it was a minimal reason among many, yet it was the MAIN reason among FEW

Since when is 9 a majority of 23? And would you like to prove that were no WMDs, when even the UNMOVIC documents he had proscribed missiles, acquired AFTER 1998, plus chemical weapons stashes? You are aware that Georges Sada states unequivocally that Saddam did have a WMD program, and that most was shipped to Syria just before the coalition’s arrival? How do you explain Saddam hiding his Russian nuke scientists from IAEA reviews and inspections?

You are only looking at a few pieces of the puzzle, and picking out what you want to believe. Just expand your horizons a little more, and open your mind to the updated data before you settle in on old judgments.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Thank you Scott, I would love to read the documents you are referring to.
My point however was that Mata was stating that WMD was NOT the MAIN reason we invaded Iraq and according to the actual Joint Resolution it CERTAINLY WAS!

Mata…I could care less how many BOOKS you’ve read, as books are NOT fact they merely the authors interpretation of he/she believes to be the facts.. So if other peoples opinions are your ammo I will only need to sit and wait..as it will be inevitable that you hang yourself.:)

I will read the Iraqi Perspective Reports as you’ve suggested but the link you provided is ‘corrupt’ and will not open.? do you have another???

My statement to you was merely to point out that WMD was in FACT the MAIN reason for our invasion of Iraq, which you dont seem to believe, but the FACTS are it WAS. You implied it was a minimal reason among many, yet it was the MAIN reason among FEW.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Scott
i appreciate your input and am willing to read anything that is authentic. However the situation you speak of does not prove that Saddam and Al Qaida had an agreement, a collaboration or support during the 9/11 attacks. Which is what Mata was saying.
The 9/11 commission concluded that NO such support from Iraq existed at that time. It acknowledged that Al Qaida did indeed try to make contact with Saddam and Iraq but that there remains NO proof they collaborated or supported each other in any fashion, most of all the attacks on the US on 9/11/2001
Whether or not I have been misled, remains to be seen, as it would not be our governments first time in doing so. However, I gathered my information from the FINAL 9/11 commission report and the ACTUAL Joint Resolution to use military force in Iraq.
If you have links to the things you discussed please feel free to post them, I would appreciate the opportunity to read them and determine where they tie into the current war, 9/11 and Bin Laden. As I notice the documents you speak of were part of something that took place PRIOR to the attacks on 9/11, which I do believe were the initial reason our government felt Saddam may have had a role in those attacks; although that assumption did not pan out in the end.
I also want to add, that I do not disagree with our taking out Saddam, the world is certainly a better place because of it, what I am disagreeing to is our reasons for staying in Iraq once WMD was proven to be faulty information and our failure to spend our resources on the capture of Bin Laden.
Our reasoning for invading Iraq was based on bad information, false information…well we all know that can happen! I thnk we reacted correctly at the time….its since then we have failed to put OUR country first and STOP BIN LADEN.
thanx again Scott..i look forward to reading those documents…

Like or Dislike: 0  0