It's not what you know, but what you can prove!

[kestra]

The White House continues to assert that there was a collaborative relationship between OBL and Saddam; yet bring forth no evidence to back up their claim.

President Bush said, "This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al Qaeda. We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda."

Time and time again, the administration did link Iraq and the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Vice President Cheney was still spinning the myth yesterday; asked if Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attack, he replied, "We don't know. You know, what the commission said is they can't find any evidence of that." On Meet the Press, Cheney said Iraq was the "geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." Announcing major combat was over in Iraq in May 2003, President Bush said, "the battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001." Even going into the invasion of Iraq, "Bush and Cheney…sought to tie Iraq specifically to the 9/11 attacks. In a letter to Congress on March 19, 2003 -- the day the war in Iraq began -- Bush said that the war was permitted under legislation authorizing force against those who 'planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.'"


MR. BUSH, MR. CHENEY.....EITHER PUT UP, OR SHUT UP!!

[Frobozz]

PM Putin says "Kestra, shut the fuck up"

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...ror/index.html

[Ashlen]

Frobozz. Did you actually read the article you cited?

- Ashlen

[Quotox]

Kestra, I can tell you right now you will believe what ever you want. The administration has said several times that there is no connection between the events of 9/11. After a poll came out that said a majority of Americans thought there was a connection between 9/11 and Sadaam, the President specifically in January at a press conference said there was no connection to the events of 9/11 and Saddam.

Saying that does not mean that there is no connection to Iraq and the war on terror or Al Qeada and Saddam Hussein. If you simply look at Saddam's financial support of terrorist organizations and homicide bombers, his granting of asylum to terrorists, providing them safe harbor within Iraq and use of military intelligence and expertise to aid other organizations, then he has the appropriate connections. BTW, These are connections he had with Al-Qeada. These are things that have nothing to do with 9/11 but have everything to do with the war on terrorism that began on 9/11.

Al-Qeada is not like fighting a centralized government. Its cells or franchises of terrorist organizations that work for a common cause. Many members trained in Afghanistan in the last decade with Bin Laden, but many more did not and have received subsequent help through other paths. Furthermore, this is not an organization that has a limited intelligence or wherewithal to conduct only one operation at a time. They are intelligent. Many of there leaders are university educated (look at the 9/11 hijackers dossiers) and are bright folks. They understand the use of multifront tactics and are not unsophisticated in the battle that they are warring. So aiding 'Al-Qeada' does not mean you have a direct link to the events of 9/11.

Furthermore, this was a premptive war. That was the big complaint of everyone in the wold and the part of the Bush doctrine. We were no longer going to wait for countries who supported terrorists to strike against us. We were going to address those places. Every left leaning, anti-war activist, bitched and moaned about this war for that reason. Now, for some reason they forgot that and are looking for 9/11 as justicification. No one is saying that Iraq was 9/11... the fear was it was a country that was going to lead to something much worse than 9/11.

Finally, I think its funny you use the quotes you do, because none of them say what you think they do.

[kestra]

"No one is saying that Iraq was 9/11... the fear was it was a country that was going to lead to something much worse than 9/11."

I guess you have little faith in the 9/11 commission.

That 70% poll came out long before Bush's press conference in January, and he did very little before that to set the record straight.

If Iraq is America's example on how they spread democracy(leaving DU and undetonated cluster bombs everywhere)......I just assume say "no thanks".

The Bush Administration's position of "just trust us" doesn't fly anymore.
These guys can't even get a terror report right.

And this doctrine of pre-emption is bullshit!! What if every other able country decides to adopt a policy of pre-emption??

Bush Jr. is simply continuing and maintaining the US's strategic
interest in the middle east's oil reserves that started after WW1, under the flag of spreading democracy.


So, again, either they put up, or shut up!!

[Jarkis]

From 9/11, President Bush has declared war on terror. Iraq was a financer of terrorist groups and also a hideout. Saddam's support for these groups was the reason Bush saw Iraq a staging point. Iraq also was rumoured to have WMDs. Afganistan was different because in Afghanistan it was to topple the regime of the Taleban and to "capture" Osama. Thats his name. Bin Laden means Son of Laden. So the links of terror groups, dictators and strict regimes in the Middle East, goes so far as they supply and finance the terrorist. And if stability of the Middle East can be accomplished. Well your OIL prices will drop dramactically.

Bush has no choice but to fight terror, as there are multidtudes of reasons why stability in the Middle East in important. It not about 9/11 anymore. Its not about getting to overthrow Iraq. Is way bigger then that. This is just the beginning.

[kestra]

I think one of the main reasons for the Iraq war lie in a philosophical vision of the neo conservatives, who dominate the foreign policy establishment, is the belief that the United States does dominate the world as the world's only superpower, that it must assert it's power, globally, everywhere, and that anyone who resists it or defies American power, is absolutely unacceptable, and becomes, automatically, very much the enemy.

The theory that you can bludgeon political grievances out of existance, doesn't have much of a track record, and essentially, we have been neo-conned by this administration.

This war had nothing to do with terrorism. There was no connection between Iraq and the religious fanatics that perpetrated 911. Saddam Hussein is not a fool. He's a terrible villain, yes, but why would he risk sacrificing his own life and country to terrorists who had completely opposite views to his own?
Iraq was a highly centralized dictatorship, why would Saddam ever want to give up control of that to scatterings of terrorist organizations? He would loose that control. Do you really think
Saddam would trust his fate to OBL and his nihilistic ways??
I don't think so!!

[Quotox]

Originally posted by kestra
"No one is saying that Iraq was 9/11... the fear was it was a country that was going to lead to something much worse than 9/11."

I guess you have little faith in the 9/11 commission.

Bahahaha. That is funny. 12 lawyers walk into a room no one should feel safe. As a fellow member of the bar, I sure as hell have no faith in the 9/11 commision. It is three years since 9/11 and they are just now starting to get to some interesting things. They have no power. No authority other than invesitgative subponea.

I'm sorry, but I don't feel safe when people 'chat' up people about the ingerity of my security. I feel safe when people are standing a post, defending a line, and spying on the guy who wants to kill me. Commision is at best an adivory group and at worst a bunch of partisan hacks of both sides of the ailse who want their moment in the sun.

Second, if you read their report and espcially the one last week. It talks about contacts between the Iraqi regime and Al-Qaeda. It does say that Saddam had no part in attacks on the US while acknowledging links between the two.

Originally posted by kestra And this doctrine of pre-emption is bullshit!! What if every other able country decides to adopt a policy of pre-emption??

The stance on the war on terror is exactly absolutely about preemption. The adminstartion has decided that it was a big enough threat to warrant action. Hello-- the whole point about WMD was not that Iraq had them was that the fear they would fall into terrorists hands. (e.g. Like the recent attempted Chemical Attack on Aman, Jordan). The whole point was that we couldn't let this happen.

As for what if everyone else did, they already have. Our enemies have made significant preparations for our demise. I sight recent events in Iran regarding there so called nuclear program that was supposedly only for energy. It turned out that they have been actually making nuclear grade material and have every plans to have nuclear capabilities--this was added in large parts to our buddies in North Korea and our other commie friends in China. If you think they are not a threat, I just ask you to look at the news paper headlines from 1979-1980... and pick up an atlas and draw a line from their to Israel and eastern europe to appreciate how easy it would be for them to cause a great deal of strife. So I think being a bit proactive with our enemies is quite a prudent act.

If you don't understand the principal, I suggest you read the 2002 state of the Union where the president what is euphamistically called the Bush Doctrine.

2002 State of the Union

I pulled this section for you:
"States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.

We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction. We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack. (Applause.) And all nations should know: America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation's security.

We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons. (Applause.)"

Originally posted by kestra
Bush Jr. is simply continuing and maintaining the US's strategic interest in the middle east's oil reserves that started after WW1, under the flag of spreading democracy.

First of all, this is such a cookie-cutter-kook response. The fact is the US recieves very little of its patroleum from the Middle East. We get the most from Venezula who is a nation in a great deal of political upheveal. In addition, during the pan-arab nationalism that gripped the region during the 1960's-70's that lead to nationalizing Ameican and British interests, we didn't go to war then. During the first gulf war, we stopped from finishing of Saddam's regime and we chose a tactic of isolating him. Despite the fact oil prices were up and Kuwait was on fire, we kept one of the worlds largest producers of oil segrated for over a decade. So, there is that great blood for oil argument. Finally, middle east sends the majority of its oil to China and Japan-- one ally one not... so I'm not sure if you are just repeating rhetoric, or just don't care as long as you get to bash the guy you don't like. Once again, I go to the first line of my original post, I'm not going to change your mind ... you want to slam who you want tto slam.

[kestra]

"Once again, I go to the first line of my original post, I'm not going to change your mind ... you want to slam who you want tto slam."

As you do as well.



Need I point out that much of their pre-invasion intel was from that con man Ahmed Chalabi, who was finally kicked off America's payroll for all his useless intelligence.

Bush said alot in his SOTU, as did Powell before the UN assembly.
Doesn't make it true. Remember those 16 words in his SOTU regarding the cake from Niger?? You can't tell me that it was a simple clerical error!! When George Tenet says take something out, it comes out!!
Again, why would Saddam allow fanatic terrorists, like the ones who plotted 911 into his country, and run the risk of them screwing things up??
Saddam is not a fanatical Muslim. He's a psychopath, and a sociopath, but he's not fanatical in respect to the Muslim faith.
Osama bin Laden is.

Much of the debate about Iraq focuses on should we or shouldn't we have invaded.
But whats always surprised me is how so little debate is done on the reasons America was attacked. What has America done to these groups that have caused them to hate you soo much??


And what infuriates me, more than anything else is that this administration has systematically slandered, and blackened the image of America to your friends and allies around the world.

[Solmyr]

Originally posted by kestra
But whats always surprised me is how so little debate is done on the reasons America was attacked. What has America done to these groups that have caused them to hate you soo much??

Being a Western secular democracy and a symbol of Western culture instead of a radical Islamofascist dictatorship.

If you are attacked by some thugs in a dark alley, are you planning to wonder what it was that caused them to hate you so much?