The ad highlights Senator Obama’s refusal to acknowledge that the surge in Iraq was successful, despite countless reports from General Petraeus that we have made significant progress. The ad encourages Congress to support the current surge resolutions that give recognition to the strategy of the surge and honor our troops that have made that strategy a success.
Read more about Resolution 636 HERE
The truth is: The American people don’t know the truth about the surge, or about anything having to do with this war. The case for the Iraq war was based on lies to begin with, and the lies and propaganda continue. I seriously doubt that either McCain or Obama have the full truth, either.
The American public was told that the mission in Iraq was to “disarm Saddam”. Well, it turns out that he didn’t have the WMD’s we were told he had, and Saddam was executed long ago…
At some point our mission became the transformation of Iraq into a Democratic country with a capitalist economy. We Americans don’t approve of such a mission, and never would have if we’d been told that this was the plan.
We know that part of the reason violence is down, is because we allowed ethnic cleansing to take place to a point where Sunni and Shia no longer live together, as they did live in peace before the war.
I’ve followed the stories of several Iraqi families who write (or used to) online. Most of them are suffering from depression. They’ve lost loved ones, they live in fear, they feel like they’ve lost their country. Even the Iraqis who supported the war, seem to want the Americans out.
We need a leader for this country who will tell us the truth, and who will end the wars…
McCain wants more wars.
Tell your people in Congress to amend the resolution to include the following:
A. The people who opposed invading Iraq were RIGHT
B. Even though Bush said Iraq would be a “beacon of democracy,” it is still not free, Saudi Arabia is still not free, and several nations have been taken over by hard-liners since the invasion of Iraq happened
C. The Bush Administration’s pre-surge strategy was a failure
D. An apology to Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame, and United Nations employees who had their phones tapped to see how they would vote on the Resolution 1441
Sheesh! Whose turn is it to play whack-a-mole? These two might want to visit the archives of anyone of our fine hosts here at FA. They will find sourced material that renders their opinions…..just opinions and generalizations,……just generalizations.
Juca, don’t count on the country being as ill-informed as you apparently are.
Actually any citizen and elected official has access to the Iraqi Perspective Reports, which… after examining the ISG and Harmony documents gathered in 2003 after Baghdad fell… prove that 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.
The American MEDIA told YOU that it was all about WMDs. Yet had you read the Congressional resolution AUMF (Authorization *to use military force* in Iraq), you’d find that out of the 23 some odd “whereas” reasons to use military force, only about 6-7 of them had anything to do with WMD. WMD became the media and WH rallying cry because everyone wanted the UN/NATO to be involved. And it was the only documented talking point because of 17 ignored UN resolutions. However everyone became fixated on that as the only reason… erroneously.
Add to that, UNMOVIC documented illegal missiles acquire by Saddam *after* 1998, and discarded in a Netherlands junkyard before our coalition entry in 2003. They found it because of the increased radiation readings. Add the yellowcake and sundry chemical weapons to illegal missiles, plus the convoys that trucked stuff to Syria and other neighboring countrys, and I am quite convinced that the “no WMD” mantra is just another media/left talking point of lies.
Right… that’s why there are so many Shia mass graves. Because of that peaceful coexistance. You are dense…
~~~
Xavier, your comment’s not even worth addressing as it’s nothing but an example of successful media indoctrination, and filled with flaws. But I’ll be brief and do so anyway.
A: you’re incorrect… see above
B: you’re incorrect… Iraq has an elected government that, while not perfect (and neither is ours after over two centuries) that is a government of choice. That is far more free than under a despot/thug, Saddam
C: Errors were made, however failure would have been if the DNC forced the US to withdraw and Iraq fell to the jihad movements demanding Sharia law as rule of the land. What you call “failure” is actually errors that are being corrected. There is no perfect war strategy.. never has been, never will be.
D: LOL! Joe Wilson/Valeria Plame? ROTHLMAO! As for the UN… that pack of scum… ever heard of the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Services Act?
this is an OBVIOUS rightwing ONLY SITE and with Only ONE side permeating the pages You MATAHARLEY are the one not worth responding to, thus I won’t.
Get over yourself, your one sided lies and stop interpreting things to be what they are NOT
Hey MIddle,
Love the shoes!
Oh how *shall* I sleep tonight with the overwhelming chagrin….
Haven’t a clue who you are, nor remember addressing you at all, #5. Unless, of course, you’re Xavier on a different computer.
I see posts #1 and 2, filled with opinion, and not based on fact.
I provide documentation to original source material with hotlinks. Hummm… who can back up why they formed their opinion more than the other? But then, perhaps reading is beyond ya’ll’s ability, eh? Perhaps I erred in providing material to the deficient in order to help them form a more informed judgment.
Not happy here? That’s okay. We don’t hold anyone hostage. We just ask for substantiation instead of talking points, masquerading as an opinion.
So ta ta… Don’t let the saloon’s swinging door to what has always been a conservative blog (although we have many regulars here who are not) hit you on the way out.
Aye, you are right about the shoes. Sleep well Mata, I doubt it will be back for another round.
Dang, Missy… did I fergit to turn on that “sarcasm” button again??? LOL
I shall not sleep well. But most surely not for such a loser as #5. I’m expecting my grandbaby girl tomorrow, and excited beyond belief. Something I know you’ll get more than others here. We’re the “ol’ broads” with brains here. :0)
Congratulations Mata! Is this your first grandchild? I hope you live close, there’s just too much to enjoy, you gotta live close enough to get your hands and heart all over those little ones.
What a day, I spent the day contacting the relatives because my little Sgt. and his lovely wife just had their first son. Patton, 7 lbs. 7 oz. They named their first child Cadence. Can you tell they are in the military?
First and only, at this moment… This particular end of the family has a habit of “one egg in one basket”, so to speak. She’s going to be six just after Christmas, and we are “long distance”. grrrrrr…. I do not get to grab her close often. Thus my excitement. *almost* like a new baby, eh?
Cadence. How kewl a name! Agreed. Grandbabies bring perspective to things… what is important, and what is important fighting FOR.
I can’t believe it!! I just saw the TV commercial (same as video above) and had to check if someone actually started a website based on the argument of whether or not the surge worked. Interesting comments by both sides. But it made me think of a joke I once heard:
“Arguing on the internet is like competing in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you’re still retarded!”
Congratulations on your new grandchild and God bless our troops!!!
That is a fun age, so much you can do together. My granddaughters loved lots of bling, feather boas and books at that age, in that order. And cookies, don’t forget cookies, they are always better at grandma’s house even if they aren’t.
These two aren’t my grandchildren, they are my nephew’s new little family.
I have six grandchildren, another coming in April and one great-grandson that I babysit almost every day. He will be one on the 29th, keeps me hopping. At times I think I’m getting a bit long in the tooth for child care, he opens cabinets and climbs, but, he always changes my mind.
Songbird
it amazes me how our men and women in uniform put their lives on the line everyday for someone like you to say ignorant, prejudice and hateful things!!
claiming the Special Olympics and those that participate in it are a ‘joke’ truly demonstrates just how narrow your mind is!!!
You should be ashamed!
“Truth” about the surge.
I hope the American people aren’t dull enough to fall for this…
Mata reads official reports, and thinks that “truth” can be found there.
Yes, Mata, I’ve seen the AUMF, and other reports. I’ve heard about the illegal missiles, etc, etc…
And ask any Iraqi whether Sunni and Shia lived in neighborhoods together & married each other. You give me some wise-ass comment about mass graves. Yes, yes, we know about Saddam killing the people who rebelled against him, that has nothing to do with the people living together.
The fact remains: the American people were misled. And we are not told the truth about what is going on in Iraq even today. Most Americans have figured this out, and we don’t need to be preached to about the “Truth” from a bunch of people who have swallowed the Bush Administration’s BS.
JUCA:
Internet is not for kids. There is so much false information out there. If you have no judgment or education, you should ask for some advise before you dig into it. There should be a warning on Google, something like: “Parental guidance is strongly suggested”.
Here is a good article for you:
BUSH LIED? IF ONLY IT WAS THAT SIMPLE.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801687.html
The only ones misled are individuals like Juba that will not look at the clear evidence presented and continue – like two year old – insisting we were misled. Like some 2 year old’s having a tantrum, do you hold your hands to your ears and stamp your feet when you repeat mindlessly ‘america was misled’/
Killing people that rebelled;
That two year old rebel needed a bullet in the head, right?
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/27000.htm
http://www.9neesan.com/massgraves/
This is the type of idiocy that allowed furnaces to operate in Dachau.
Juca sounds like someone who doesn’t care at all that Senator Obama plans to continue the war in Iraq indefinitely, escalate the war in Afghanistan, spread the war to nuclear armed Pakistan, and get tougher on Iran which is already preparing for war with the U.S. Oh yeah, and Sen Biden-who is just SUCH a GOD when it comes to foreign policy-authorized the invasion six years ago, but my guess is Juca will vote for him. Talk about swallowing the BS.
Oops:
“Despite years of discrimination against the Shia during Saddam’s era, mixed marriages between the country’s major groups, including the Kurds, have been very common. There are no official statistics, but prominent sociology professor Ihsan al Hassan, who has studied the subject, estimates that of Iraq’s 6.5 million married couples, 2 million are Sunni-Shia unions.”
http://www.newsweek.com.id/46871
Why Iraq Was Inevitable
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/special-preview-br–why-iraq-was-inevitable-11456
Getting back to the video, Juca evidently thinks General Petraeus is a liar.
Pete Hegseth’s column covers a lot of ground from Obama’s dirty deed in Iraq, the Senate surge deniers and the dueling resolutions in the Senate. Good stuff:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDBjZjQ5YjM3Y2M0YmY1OTQ0ZjAzNTA1ZmQ2ZTc0MzU=&w=MQ==
Meta
I wasnt about to embark upon a battle of wits with such an unarmed opponent, but after sleeping on it I thought better.
You claim there were actual ties to Al Qaida and Saddam but offer NO legitimate proof!
you can view the entire final report from the 9/11 Commission here and see for yourself that they concluded that is NOT TRUE!! http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/index.htm
as for your so called claim that we invaded Iraq for MORE reasons that WMD, and that WMD was the LEAST of our reasons, I emplore you again to look at the FACTS!!!
I will break it down for you ….oh..and I will be kind enough to use the information from the link YOU provided….(you obviously didnt really read it)
You state that WMD was only used in the 23 ‘some odd’ whereas statements of the resolution 6-7 times. In fact it was the reason listed a total of 9 times and there are EXACTLY 23 whereas statements.
You also imply it wasnt our MAIN reason for invaded Iraq…YET IT WAS!!!
feel free to actually read it!
A break down of the WHEREAS statements in the resolution to go to war.
Public Law 107–243
107th Congress
Joint Resolution
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
#1 a history of 1990
#2 a history of 1991 (cease fire agreement)
#3 WMD
#4 WMD 1998
#5 WMD 1998
#6 WMD
#7 “…continuing to engage in brutal repression
of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace..”
“…refusing to release, repatriate,
or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained..”
“…failing to return property
wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait..”
(WHERE HAS IT BEEN PROVEN THIS HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED YET?? HAS THE ‘SURGE’ EVEN STOPPED THIS? WE ARE STILL BEING THREATENED, STILL FIRED UPONE AND NO ONE HAS BEEN ‘RELEASED’ NOR HAS ANY PROPERTIES?? **THIS WOULD IMPLY THE WAR IS NOT WORKING EVEN WITH THE SURGE!!!)
#8 WMD
#9 “…attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President
Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United
States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the
resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;…”
(FORMER PRES. BUSH WAS NOT ASSASSINATED, and it had NOTHING
To do with the current situation. AND
THEY STILL FIRE UPON OUR FORCES LOCATED THERE.
THIS OBJECTIVE HAS NOT BEEN MET!)
#10 “…members of al Qaida….are
known to be in Iraq..”
****WHERE IS THE PROOF OF THIS? IT HAS BEEN PROVEN HOWEVER
THAT IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ATTACKS ON 9/11
It is stated in the final report “..bin Laden explored possible cooperation with Iraq…Iraq apparently never responded.. they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States.”
But hey don’t take my word for it, you can download the entire report here
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/index.htm
#11 “…Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist
organizations,…”
(AGAIN THERE IS NO PROOF OF THIS! NONE HAVE BEEN FOUND
THUS FAR)
#12 WMD
#13 WMD
#14 resolution supporting permission to attack should there be WMD
#15 authorization of congress for the President to us force
WE DID THIS ONE!
#16 history of what congress expressed in 1991 in regards to using force
#17 Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 explained “…that it should be the policy
of the United States to support efforts to remove from power
the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic
government to replace that regime..”
***We never did this in 1998 but you know, if we had reason we could..***
#18 “..September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the
United States to ‘‘work with the United Nations Security Council
to meet our common challenge’’ posed by Iraq and to ‘‘work
for the necessary resolutions,…… just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable’’;
***PRES. BUSH PROMISING TO ACT***
#19 WMD
#20 “…take the necessary actions against
international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including
those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized,
committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September
11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organization..”
***AGAIN WHERE IS THE PROOF THEY WERE HARBORING TERRORIST GROUPS? AGAIN IT WAS PROVEN THEY DID NOT AIDE IN THE ATTACK
ON 9/11***
#21 Explains the Presidents and Congress’s determination to do the above
#22 Again stating the Presidents right to act
#23 ”…it is in the national security interests of the United States
to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf
region: Now, therefore, be it”
**CLOSING STATEMENT**
As a typical one minded, self-centered, right-wing you twist things to benefit YOUR beliefs and discount everyone elses even if their’s is the TRUTH!
Hi Middle. I’m sorry to say you’ve been grossly misled and ill-informed. Saddam’s regime did have ties with Al Queda groups (see also 1998 African Embassy bombing trials during Clinton admin and Nov 1998 Osama Bin Laden indictment sec 4). There are also several well-documented meetings between Saddam’s regime and Al Queda leaders. The last investigation into the question of ties found that the 1996-present FBI claim that the regime had ties to Al Queda’s core leadership (members of Egyptian Islamic Jihad who also served as 2/3s of AQ’s leadership until Nov 01) was confirmed by authenticated documents captured at Saddam’s intelligence hq. I’ve got a lot more on this, and am eager to discuss the matter with you or anyone.
🙂
Popcorn anyone?
MIddle, you’ve stuck your whole arm into a hornet’s nest and you’re not even smart enough to realize it.
MIddle, have you ever heard of U.S. District Judge Harold Baer?
Probably not.
He disagrees with you in regard to Iraq having a connection to Al Qaeda and 9/11.
Just one of many inconvenient facts that refute your foolishness.
MIddle, the 911 Commission Report was published in 2004. The Iraqi Perspectives Report, which I linked above in #4, referencing the Harmony/ISG documents we confiscated in spring of 2003, and slowly translated, was released early this year.
The 911 Commission Report did not have these documents from the Saddam Regime. Thus you are using dated material for your opinions.
I happen to own a copy of the 911 Commission Report, and read it years ago. I have also read many books and documents since… including the Iraq Perspectives Report, Ray Robison’s book, Both in One Trench, The Iraq Study Group Report, Saddam’s Secrets, Regime of Terror, Ghost Wars, and The Secret History of the Iraq War.
Thus I’m showing up here armed with a 50 calibre… you’re walking around with a used slingshot.
I’d encourage you to read at least the Iraqi Perspectives Report. And Scott is most definitely one of the FA authors most on top of Saddam’s history with the jihad terrorist movements as a State weapon.
And I was off by two “whereas’s”? Oh my… shoot me… I think I can still dodge a slingshot and spitwad. I was running on memory, and I’m an ol’ broad who didn’t remember the count exact. Then again, I distinctly said “about”… and not “exactly”…. to accommodate for a slipping memory.
But it’s good that you went back to read it, and found nine WMD references, and 14 other reasons that Congress voted to authorize the use of military force in Iraq… thus making WMD’s NOT the only reason… nor the prime reason to remove Saddam.
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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
BTW, MIddle… read more carefully my original post to Juca.
Now, in your post #25 you said:
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.
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
Also, I have LOTS of information on this in txt and doc format if you want it. Just email me
smalensek@neo.rr.com
🙂
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.
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.
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?
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?
Mata #28:
You say one thing, and some hear something else
MIddle #25:
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 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?