12/13/03 The Date GWB Won His Second Term

[rikzilla]

The headlines say: SADDAM CAPTURED!!

But shouldn't they really say: GWB WINS RE-ELECTION!! ??

:usa:

I think so. When he wins in November, it won't be the resurgant economy...it won't be the tax cuts....it'll be 12/13/03 Lucky 13.

-z

:D :D

[DavidJames]

lapdog

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by DavidJames
lapdog :dl:

[Brown]

It's too early to say that Bush the younger will be re-elected (assuming for the sake of argument that he got "elected" a first time). The electorate has a notoriously short memory. A lot can happen in eleven months, and the full consequences of the capture are not yet known.

At this time I will remind everyone of a prediction made by Bill Maher: that of an "October Surprise" in which Osama is captured shortly before the November elections.

[Random]

Eleven months is an eternity in politics. Bush looked hopeless on 9/10/2001. He then looked invincible for six months. Then it looked like he wasn’t so invincible for a few months. Then he looked good again back in May with his carrier photo-op. Six months later, that photo op was an albatross around his neck.

The capture of Sadam looks good for Bush, but he is going to start running into problems even with this. Will Sadam be given a fair, public trial? Sadam Hussein on the stand with absolutely nothing to lose could reveal all sorts of embarrassing details concerning many of Bush’s current cabinet. If he doesn’t get a fair trial, what does that tell us? What if the terrorist attacks continue unabated? Even the Bush administration admits that that is a possibility.

Back here in the states, things are not looking so great either. We have budget deficits as far into the future as anyone is willing to look, state governments are broke, the job situation is still getting worse (although not as quickly as six months ago), the medicare bill is a mixed bag at best, the extreme right-wing wants a very divisive homosexual marriage amendment battle, Bush has big business pushing for even more tax cuts, and the President’s ridiculous flip flops on steel tariffs are not helping him with the blue collar voters.

This ain’t over yet…

[Ed]

Originally posted by rikzilla
The headlines say: SADDAM CAPTURED!!

But shouldn't they really say: GWB WINS RE-ELECTION!! ??

:usa:

I think so. When he wins in November, it won't be the resurgant economy...it won't be the tax cuts....it'll be 12/13/03 Lucky 13.

-z

:D :D

I am not diminishing the value of the capture but that is a pretty piss poor basis for electing a president.

Then again, the Dems must agree that he is the best man for the job. It appears that they are going to throw the election.

[Chad Noles]

It is somewhat interesting that Bush's first victory was about the same time of year(12/12/2000)

[Aoidoi]

Originally posted by Ed
I am not diminishing the value of the capture but that is a pretty piss poor basis for electing a president.
"Watery tarts lobbing deposed dictactors at people is no basis for a government!"

[Ed]

Originally posted by Aoidoi
"Watery tarts lobbing deposed dictactors at people is no basis for a government!"

Yeah, sorta like that. I mean if he had personally landed that navy plane thingie and then hog-tied Saddam and then deposited him back at a police station in NYC, then OK. Might even vote twice:D

[Brown]

Originally posted by Aoidoi
"Watery tarts lobbing deposed dictactors at people is no basis for a government!" Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from a farcical Supreme Court decision!

[Luke T.]

"It's the economy, stupid."

[Tmy]

While the Saddam capture is a moral boost for everyone I dont think it seals anything for GW. All the same problems still exist. UNLESS the insurgents stop I dont see GW getting off scott free. After a month or 2 the Saddam glaumor will wear off.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Luke T.
"It's the economy, stupid."

Is that an argument for his re-election?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Ed


Is that an argument for his re-election?

If he is re-elected, that will be the reason. Not the capture of Saddam.

With things looking up for the economy, it is an excellent argument for his re-election.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Ed


I am not diminishing the value of the capture but that is a pretty piss poor basis for electing a president.

Then again, the Dems must agree that he is the best man for the job. It appears that they are going to throw the election.

Yes, as long as there are wars being fought in distance lands for freedom and democracy then the situation on the homefront will be ignored.
GWB dons a pilot's outfit and gives a speech from an aircraft carrier, Joe Sixpack stands up and salutes as he watches it on TV, and all is right in the world.:rolleyes:

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Luke T.


If he is re-elected, that will be the reason. Not the capture of Saddam.

With things looking up for the economy, it is an excellent argument for his re-election.

...and just like OBL and Saddam's successful 9/11 attack sent the stock market, and economy plummeting.....Saddam's capture has sent the stock market shooting upwards.... :D

-z

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by rikzilla


...and just like OBL and Saddam's successful 9/11 attack sent the stock market, and economy plummeting.....Saddam's capture has sent the stock market shooting upwards.... :D

-z

I bet it drops back down before the day is over.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Luke T.


I bet it drops back down before the day is over.

Profit taking! It's the American way! ;) Honestly though, this news is so good it should help the market to continue to trend upwards...but hey, it was doing so for the last 6 months anyway.

-z

[Tmy]

Originally posted by rikzilla


...and just like OBL and Saddam's successful 9/11 attack sent the stock market, and economy plummeting.....Saddam's capture has sent the stock market shooting upwards.... :D

-z

I readthis article in the paper. They asked people what kind of question would tehy want to ask Saddam. Almost all of them were "Why did you attack us Saddam?".

I gotta give GW credit. Hes doen a pretty good job of linking 911 wh Saddam in the publics mind.

[Boo]

I'm voting for the person that decided that the area looked suspicious and decided to kick loose a little debris. If GWB and Co. payed a bit more attention to detail and tried turning something over instead of burying it he might get results as well.



Boo

[c0rbin]

His daddy orchestrated a successful war of liberation as well and failed to get re-elected.

I understand and feel the elation, but I wouldn't close the door yet.

Just my opinion.

The reasoning I think is this: yes, we got Saddam in our custody, but acheiving the goals of a task we set out to do should be expected and does not legitimize the task for those who were against it in the first place.

IE, the ends might not justify the means for many many voters.

[LFTKBS]

Rik -

I'm sure this will fall on deaf ears, but there is still no evidence that the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center were organized, supported, paid for, or even known about by Hussein. Number of Iraqis on those planes: 0. That's zero. Evidence for a bin Laden/Hussein consipiracy: also zero. If you have any evidence, please provide it.

Two: the United States was going to war with Iraq regardless of September 11th and regardless of whether or not Iraq complied with the U.N.'s demands and the U.S.'s demands. Let me quote from "Rebuilding America's Defenses," a report of the Project for a New American Century, to which Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz contributed:

"The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." (p. 14)

Three: both the Pentagon and the Bush Administration stated that Saddam was essentially irrevelant. Here's a quote from Petagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke in April 2003: "What really matters is not whether or not he's dead or alive, but the fact that whoever is left in this regime, whatever is left of the regime leadership, got up today and realized they have less and less control of their country. They have less and less control of just about everything in that country, and that's what's significant. And what we're focused on is ending the regime."

So there is evidence from someone who feels that while the capture of Saddam Hussein is definitely a good thing, it is not the end of the troubles in Iraq, and it is certainly not a reason to vote for George W. Bush in 2004. If you have evidence to the contrary, please post it.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Profit taking! It's the American way! ;) Honestly though, this news is so good it should help the market to continue to trend upwards...but hey, it was doing so for the last 6 months anyway.

-z

Yeah. Plus you got that Christmas panic in those brokers who have kids that want the G.I. Joe with the kung-fu grip... ;)

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by rikzilla

...and just like OBL and Saddam's successful 9/11 attackHere I was all set to make a joke about how Saddam will never again attack the US using his secret weapons of mass distruction: Boeing Jets, when someone beat me to it.

Or, at least, I hope it is a joke and rik-ster doesn't honestly think that the mostly secular Saddam worked together with religious extremist Osama in planning the 9/11 attack, when by most accounts, they hate one another.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Tmy


I readthis article in the paper. They asked people what kind of question would tehy want to ask Saddam. Almost all of them were "Why did you attack us Saddam?".

I gotta give GW credit. Hes doen a pretty good job of linking 911 wh Saddam in the publics mind.

...and the left has ignored every shred of evidence that contradicts their dogma that: 1. "There is no link between OBL and Saddam." and 2. "There are no WMD's."

To do so you must ignore the fact that Al Qaida had training camps in Iraq. That Iraqi intelligence met with Mohammed Atta before 9/11...that Atta visited Baghdad to confer with Abu Nidal before 9/11....that Ramzi Yusef (first WTC bomber) travelled under a faked identity using real Kuwaiti government documents that were pilfered from Kuwait by Iraq during the occupation. That OBL's second in command had ties to Iraqi intelligence. That Iraqi mobile labs for manufacturing toxins were found....that a vial containing enough live botulinum toxin was found that could have been used to kill hundreds of thousands....that Iraqi missiles were found that violated the UN sanctions....that secret rooms were found beneath the Tulwaitha nuke plants which were used to secret documents and materials used in their nuke weapons programs. That political prisoners were used to test deadly chemical agents. That the Mukhabarat were running "terrorism schools".

Yes, you must ignore all this and much, much more in order to believe the leftist mantra:

"There is no link between Saddam and OBL."
"There are no WMD's"

Do not allow any information to contradict those two axioms. Just call anyone who doesn't "believe" a name: "neo-con, warmonger, idiot, victim of propaganda......"

Get real....this is a site for skeptics. Real skeptics are nobody's "useful idiots". Mantra spouting leftie true believers are not skeptics.

-z

Sic Semper Tyrannis

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by rikzilla
The headlines say: SADDAM CAPTURED!!

But shouldn't they really say: GWB WINS RE-ELECTION!! ??

:usa:

I think so. When he wins in November, it won't be the resurgant economy...it won't be the tax cuts....it'll be 12/13/03 Lucky 13.

-z

:D :D

Maybe he is right and the capture of Saddam will become known as the point when Bush won the 2004 election, but I think that it is still far too early to make that determination.

For example, if Saddam himself is unable to provide any data about Iraqi WMDs because he got rid of all of them prior to the war, then I expect that such data could serve to seriously undermine the justification of the war.
And if during his trial, he exposes all of the help he got from America over the years that helped keep him in power and kill Iranians, then I expect that will not make the Bush Administration very happy.
Also, if during his trial, Saddam were to state something to the effect that he was just doing his bit to protect the people of Iraq from the Americans who were out to destroy it and that all Iraqi patriots should do their bit to fight the Americans as well, then I doubt that the Bush Administration would be very happy with this sort of response.

While it is better to have Saddam in custody instead of at large, having him in custody does present its own problems as well. After all, having Noriega in custody did not serve to help his father's re-election campaign.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by LFTKBS
Rik -

I'm sure this will fall on deaf ears, but there is still no evidence that the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center were organized, supported, paid for, or even known about by Hussein. Number of Iraqis on those planes: 0. That's zero. Evidence for a bin Laden/Hussein consipiracy: also zero. If you have any evidence, please provide it.

Two: the United States was going to war with Iraq regardless of September 11th and regardless of whether or not Iraq complied with the U.N.'s demands and the U.S.'s demands. Let me quote from "Rebuilding America's Defenses," a report of the Project for a New American Century, to which Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz contributed:

"The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." (p. 14)

Three: both the Pentagon and the Bush Administration stated that Saddam was essentially irrevelant. Here's a quote from Petagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke in April 2003: "What really matters is not whether or not he's dead or alive, but the fact that whoever is left in this regime, whatever is left of the regime leadership, got up today and realized they have less and less control of their country. They have less and less control of just about everything in that country, and that's what's significant. And what we're focused on is ending the regime."

So there is evidence from someone who feels that while the capture of Saddam Hussein is definitely a good thing, it is not the end of the troubles in Iraq, and it is certainly not a reason to vote for George W. Bush in 2004. If you have evidence to the contrary, please post it.

BWAHAHAHAH! I must apply to JREF for the million...today ALL my predictions are coming stunningly true!

-z

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Here I was all set to make a joke about how Saddam will never again attack the US using his secret weapons of mass distruction: Boeing Jets, when someone beat me to it.

Or, at least, I hope it is a joke and rik-ster doesn't honestly think that the mostly secular Saddam worked together with religious extremist Osama in planning the 9/11 attack, when by most accounts, they hate one another.

Yeah ...true dat!

Keep chanting that mantra boys.....perhaps you will acheive nervana? ;)

[LFTKBS]

Originally posted by rikzilla
....that a vial containing enough live botulinum toxin was found that could have been used to kill hundreds of thousands....

Well, it appears that you aren't any sort of scientist, Rik. A vial of Botulinum B - which is what they found in a fridge - cannot kill hundreds of thousands. The dangerous one is Botulinum A, and you still need a hell of a lot more than a vial to produce a single weapon.

Also, where are your sources? Quotes? Anything? It appears that you are the one who isn't skeptical enough, and that you'll believe anything the Administration says.

You know, hundreds of dermatologists across the nation have access to Botulinum A; should we go bomb their homes?

Excepts from "STATEMENT BY DAVID KAY ON THE INTERIM PROGRESS REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES OF THE IRAQ SURVEY GROUP (ISG) BEFORE THE HOUSE PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE, AND THE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE", October 2, 2003

"Information found to date suggests that Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce, and fill new CW munitions was reduced - if not entirely destroyed - during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of UN sanctions and UN inspections."

"Despite evidence of Saddam's continued ambition to acquire nuclear weapons, to date we have not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material. However, Iraq did take steps to preserve some technological capability from the pre-1991 nuclear weapons program."

So now that we've refuted that nicely, do you have sources for any of your other claims?

[LFTKBS]

Originally posted by rikzilla
BWAHAHAHAH! I must apply to JREF for the million...today ALL my predictions are coming stunningly true!

What a well thought-out and well supported refutation, rik. My favorite part was where you didn't dispute the content of my post.

Are you planning to do so at any point?

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by LFTKBS


Well, it appears that you aren't any sort of scientist, Rik. A vial of Botulinum B - which is what they found in a fridge - cannot kill hundreds of thousands. The dangerous one is Botulinum A, and you still need a hell of a lot more than a vial to produce a single weapon.

Also, where are your sources? Quotes? Anything? It appears that you are the one who isn't skeptical enough, and that you'll believe anything the Administration says.

You know, hundreds of dermatologists across the nation have access to Botulinum A; should we go bomb their homes?

Excepts from "STATEMENT BY DAVID KAY ON THE INTERIM PROGRESS REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES OF THE IRAQ SURVEY GROUP (ISG) BEFORE THE HOUSE PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE, AND THE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE", October 2, 2003

"Information found to date suggests that Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce, and fill new CW munitions was reduced - if not entirely destroyed - during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of UN sanctions and UN inspections."

"Despite evidence of Saddam's continued ambition to acquire nuclear weapons, to date we have not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material. However, Iraq did take steps to preserve some technological capability from the pre-1991 nuclear weapons program."

So now that we've refuted that nicely, do you have sources for any of your other claims?

Well, if you had the gumption to do a search through my many posts you would see that my information and sources are already posted on this board. Here's some of that:

#1. Saddam gave haven and support to the terrorist Abu Nidal and his organization (before he had him killed recently that is) in violation of 687, paragraph 32 which imposes the obligation under international law to report suspected acts of Iraqi support for international terrorism to the UN secretary general.which also addresses Iraq's support of terrorism.

#2. Abdul Rahman Yasin, the one terrorist not captured from the first WTC bombing is currently living free in Baghdad. The only named conspirator still at large. He was one of the "blind Sheik's" nutty Islamic fundie followers....so why did he run for Iraq...and why did Saddam harbor him in full disregard of UN Security Council Resolution 687? (paragraph 32 again)

#3. Abu Mussab al Zarqawi (al Qaida senior operative) is apparently free to operate in Baghdad as well. (pesky paragraph 32 again)
the link

#4. Ramzi Yusef aka Abdul Basit, the mastermind of WTC bombing #!. Was at the time suspected of being an active Iraqi intelligence agent. Also, when finally captured in the Phillipines, found to be also associated with Abu Sayyef (terrorist group known to be linked with al Qaida)

#5. Dr. Hamza's testimony that Iraq's Mukhabarat (political secret police) are running the concealment mechanism for their ongoing proscribed nuclear program. The link

#6. On August 8, 1995 Hussein Kamil (Saddam's son-in-law) defected to Jordan. He had supervised Iraqi unconventional weapons programs. His information confirmed that Iraq had developed and possesed weaponized biological agents.

#7. Egyptian officials arrested one of the first WTC bombers where he was hiding with family in Cairo. He is Abu Halima. He told them about the involvement of two Iraqi intelligence agents who had managed to flee.

#8. UNSCOM 227 inspection (from Ritter's book Endgame) uncovered Iraqi documents detailing biological and chemical agent testing done on humans. (political prisoners)...Endgame page 180.

#9. Calutrons (magnetic isotope seperators) of the kind used in the Manhattan project were found in the process of being moved around by the Iraqis way back in 1991. (another instance of deception, and active nuclear program)

#10. Mukhabarat terrorism "school" inadvertently found by UNSCOM 150 inspection team in 1996. (not part of UNSCOM mandated mission...not WMD's...just terror/torture etc...the issue of this find was not taken up by the UNSC) page 120 "Endgame.


Then there's this stuff (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/23/iraq.alqaeda/index.html)



From the Wall Street Journal article linked to below:
Know Thy Enemy-The Iraq Connection
(October 18, 2001)

From: Laurie Mylroie
By R. James Woolsey
The Wall Street Journal

The professionally prepared and precisely sized anthrax spores that have infected some 30 congressional staffers and closed down the Capitol and the office of the governor of New York have made the point forcefully: When you are at war, the primary task should be to determine whom you are at war with.

In most wars this is not a problem. Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990 the way the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor--with flags flying. Even in our war two centuries ago with the Barbary Pirates, an enemy with some loose parallels to al Qaeda, we had no doubt which North African government sheltered them. Stephen Decatur knew whom to attack.

This time it‘s different. Although the administration‘s decision to move first against the obvious target--the Taliban and their demonic al Qaeda guests--is sound, there are rising doubts that even a victory in Afghanistan, and even the capture or death of Osama bin Laden and his cohorts, will solve the problem. And this is not only because of al Qaeda operatives and street demonstrations in other countries. Removing bin Laden and his associates may only amputate one hand of our enemy. There are substantial and growing indications that a state may, behind the scene, be involved in the attacks. This is hard for us to deal with because, as Sen. Dianne Feinstein said recently, "It‘s a very sobering thing for Americans, who tend to be upfront dealing with everything, to be faced with something so clandestine and unknown."

When an enemy has a face and a name, this country can be awesome in its ability to mobilize quickly for war and win, as we did in both world wars. But we are now facing an enemy from a part of the world where the major aspects of war, for many centuries, have been clandestine raids, assassinations, terror against civilians, and deception. In response to the challenge "Come out and fight like a man," we will get only smirks in the shadows and more anthrax, or worse.

Some hold the view that no degree of sophistication--precisely prepared anthrax, coordination across continents, sophisticated training, professionally-stolen identities--is enough to indicate the strong probability of a state‘s being involved. Such a position was most succinctly stated by an unnamed FBI official to Seymour Hersh (in the Oct. 8 New Yorker), speaking of the Sept. 11 attackers: "These guys look like a pickup basketball team. In your wildest dreams, do you think they thought they‘d be able to pull off four hijackings?" But for those of a more suspicious cast of mind, the degree of complexity and the sophistication of the attacks against us suggest that we have enough indications of possible state involvement for the government to be carefully and vigorously investigating.

One central issue is state involvement in what? If we define the problem in such a way as to require proof (and make it proof beyond a reasonable doubt) of state involvement in the Sept. 11 attack itself, we will quite likely define ourselves out of being able to understand who is at war with us. Instead, we need to look at the pattern of terrorism against us over the last decade and reach a considered judgment in light of the whole picture, even if we cannot prove, to the demanding standards of criminal law, a state‘s involvement in the Sept. 11 atrocity itself.

The weakest argument against the possibility of state involvement is usually implicit--that since al Qaeda is clearly involved in the Sept. 11 and other attacks, a state probably is not. But haven‘t such people heard of joint ventures? Do they think that international law imposes some sort of sole-source contracting requirement for terrorism? But which state? Well, whichever one turns up when you start looking. Iran, for example, has to be considered a possibility because--in spite of a rational president, a number of elected reformers, brave newspaper editors, and an electorate that solidly supports reform--murderous mullahs still run the country‘s intelligence services and instruments of state power. Iran sponsors Hezbollah and other terrorist groups that are targeted principally against Israel today but that have attacked us in the past, including quite possibly at Khobar Towers. Iranian involvement with al Qaeda, even across the bitter divide between extreme Wahhabi Sunnis and extreme Shiites, is not impossible.

But by far the more likely candidate for involvement with al Qaeda is Iraq, for several reasons.

Saddam has gone to great lengths to court Sunni Islamists in recent years, even restructuring the Iraqi flag to put Allahu Akbar ("God is great") in his own handwriting across its face. (Even Saddam‘s soulmate and fellow hater of religion, Joseph Stalin, didn‘t think of courting the Russian Orthodox Church when he needed it after Hitler‘s invasion by writing across the face of the Soviet flag in his own hand, "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.") This courtship has included terrorist meetings in Iraq and, according to press reports, at least one visit to the Taliban capital of Kandahar by the infamous Faruk Hijazi, a senior official in Iraqi intelligence although nominally the Iraqi ambassador in Ankara, Turkey.

Saddam has a festering sense of revenge for his humiliation of the Gulf War, and our conduct at, and after, the war‘s end has given him added hope, he believes, for vengeance. In the aftermath of the war, the Iraqi resistance controlled much of the country, but we watched from the skies while Saddam mobilized the Republican Guard that we had spared and used it to massacre the rebels. He is not grateful to us. He has concluded that we are weak and irresolute, and that we do not dare to confront him even when we are in a position as strong as we were in the spring of 1991. If he has confidence that he has successfully hidden his hand in attacking us, he doubtless has even more confidence in our fecklessness.

His confidence in our fecklessness has some reasonable basis. If the first Bush administration made one major mistake in not helping the Iraqi resistance, in the spring of 1991, to finish the job that we had started, the Clinton administration made eight years of them. In the spring of 1993, Iraqi Intelligence (i.e., Saddam) tried to assassinate former President Bush in Kuwait, as confirmed by both CIA and FBI investigations of an unexploded bomb. President Clinton responded by shooting some cruise missiles into an empty intelligence headquarters in the middle of the night. The message--we will ruthlessly use high technology weapons against cleaning women, night watchmen and masonry--may not have struck as much fear into Saddam‘s heart as the administration hoped.

There then began eight years of using law enforcement as the principal investigative tool and principal sanction against what came to be called "loose networks" of terrorists. For two reasons, neither one the fault of those who were doing their best to enforce the law, this had the effect of making it very difficult to establish any links between terrorists and foreign governments (although the FBI reportedly found ties between Iran and the Khobar Towers terrorists).

First, a prosecutor‘s team is not the right institution to use to look for an overall assessment of whether there is state sponsorship of a terrorist act. Indeed, the better the prosecutors are, the more likely they are to focus like a laser on proving that the people they can get their hands on have committed the elements of the crime set out by the law--not on a general search for background information useful to the rest of the government. A criminal trial is not a general search for truth but rather, in a sense, a legally circumscribed trial by combat. It makes as much sense to expect a prosecutor‘s team to make an overall assessment of state sponsorship of a terrorist event as it does to ask a Marine company commander, in the midst of taking a hill, to advise you about the international alliances of the enemy whose troops he is facing.

Second, Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (perhaps now being modified by Congress) severely restricts the flow of information to the rest of the government from investigations when information is obtained pursuant to a federal grand jury‘s subpoena. A federal judge might approve some sharing with, say, a state prosecutor, but there is no provision that permits sharing with, e.g., the National Security Council or the CIA. Any such sharing must await the trial, creating a delay of months to years after the terrorist event.

As a result, during the many months of investigation and the trials of the defendants for the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, little was done to discover the implications of the fact that one of the indicted plotters, Abdul Rahman Yasin (who held Iraqi and American citizenship) fled to Baghdad after talking the FBI in New Jersey into releasing him. There are indications that both he and Ramzi Yousef, now in prison in Colorado, may be Iraqi agents, but on some important aspects the trail is very cold. Other investigations of terrorist incidents in the 1990s were similarly less than thorough on the question of state sponsorship. One can take the view that this was an unfortunate side effect of an otherwise desirable law enforcement focus.

The other, less generous possibility is that the Clinton administration was engaged here in its trademark behavior of focusing first and foremost on spin, expectation-adjustment, and short-term public relations, and deriving policy therefrom. If you assume that all terrorism flows from loose networks and not state action, then you will usually be able to find at least someone who was involved in a terrorist attack to convict. You can then claim success, get some good press and avoid confronting a state. The alternative approach--a thorough search for any state actor--presents two PR risks, neither attractive. If you find no state actor, there might be the appearance of an investigative failure. If, on the other hand, you find that a state was involved, you might then risk confrontation, even conflict, and possibly body bags on the evening news.

This may help account for the spate of recent stories in the press that seem to suggest that Iraqi government ties to terrorism are not being checked out, and that reports of such ties surprise senior government officials. It has been widely reported that the hijacker (some say the lead hijacker) Mohamed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague just before he came to the U.S. One report suggests that he met with senior Iraqi intelligence official Hijazi. And, as noted, another report puts Hijazi in the Taliban capital in 1998. Such reports are invariably followed by background statements from senior government officials to the effect that, "We don‘t know what they talked about so it doesn‘t prove anything."

Then on Oct. 1, William Safire wrote in the New York Times that al Qaeda‘s Abu Abdul Rahman, "financed by bin Laden and armed by Saddam," ambushed and killed 36 Kurds in Halabja in Northern Iraq. The Kurds retaliated, took 19 terrorists prisoner, and got valuable information from them about the terrorist-Iraqi connection. "Our top NSC officials," Mr. Safire wryly notes, "were unaware of this engagement until they read it in The Times."

Then on Oct. 12, Jim Hoagland wrote in the Washington Post that an Iraqi ex-intelligence officer has told the Iraqi National Congress of specific sightings of Islamic extremists training for hijacking a Boeing 707 in a suburb of Baghdad, Salman Pak, a year ago, but that he "was treated dismissively by CIA officers in Ankara this week. They reportedly showed no interest in pursuing a possible Iraq connection to Sept. 11." (I checked yesterday and essentially the same situation still obtains.)

What is going on here? Government bureaucracies do have a way of getting into comfortable ruts and staying there through inertia. In the present circumstances, we need to be especially sure that if any of our government agencies became infected during the 1990s with the Clinton administration malady of backward reasoning (start with the conclusion you want, then select the facts you‘ll look at), they are given the required curative as soon as possible.

The State Department, for example, negotiates with, and normally tries to make common cause with, foreign governments. And like any normal group of people, it seeks a role in the bigger picture for what it does. So it tends to push for the importance of coalition-building and cordial relations in the big scheme of things. No doubt we will have more and happier coalition partners (at least in the short run) if we don‘t raise the uncomfortable issue of a possible need to confront Saddam. But is a large coalition that doesn‘t move against a state that is at war with us better for the nation as a whole than a small coalition that moves effectively against a state that is attacking us? Isn‘t the first job learning the truth and not accommodating the views of our least staunch friends?

For its part, the CIA has always had an institutional bias in favor of information coming from recruited agents rather than volunteers and defectors. There are exceptions, but in a number of circumstances--some with which I have long personal familiarity--defectors especially have been dealt with in less than exemplary fashion by the Agency. Something similar might be said for democratic resistance groups--their occasional fractiousness makes them hard to discipline. Sometime during 1995, these tendencies seem to have joined to produce substantial hostility at Langley to the Iraqi National Congress. As one wag puts it, "If the INC showed up out there with Osama‘s and Saddam‘s heads on a plate, a number of people would say, ‘I‘ll bet that‘s the Pope and the Dalai Lama.‘ " As in the case of the State Department, it would be a tragedy of the first order if bureaucratic inertia of this sort had any hand in keeping us from learning whom we are at war with.

One must have sympathy for the president as he tries to sort all of this out. The decision whether to move against Iraq after Afghanistan will be one of the most difficult and important decisions any American president has ever made. It is much harder than deciding, even in very difficult circumstances, whether to confront a clear enemy when there is no alternative--as after the Confederacy‘s firing on Fort Sumter, or after Pearl Harbor.

The best analogy may be--although our condition is far from this desperate--the choice faced by Churchill at the time of Dunkirk in May 1940, when Britain stood alone and Lord Halifax was pressing for accommodation, via Mussolini, with Germany. Churchill‘s decision to reject Halifax‘s advice and fight was, in many ways, the hinge of the 20th century. Early in this new century, President Bush already faces one of its most momentous choices. He needs the best information any of us can give him.

Mr. Woolsey, former director of Central Intelligence, is a lawyer in Washington.


If you find all that easy to refute then say so, because I have more. If you are intrepid enough you can do a search of my posts and find it for yourself.

-z

Sic Semper Tyrannis

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by LFTKBS


What a well thought-out and well supported refutation, rik. My favorite part was where you didn't dispute the content of my post.

Are you planning to do so at any point?

You demand proof of something that has been disputed for months, then complain that I don't do it "RIGHT NOW!!"

Well, I've given you something to chew on....start chewing...if you don't address and refute all those points within the next 5 minutes I win. (by your own rules that is)

-z

edited to add: You will notice my long post left out any mention of the botulinum toxin. The truth is that you and those like you tend to look past the huge pile of evidence, find something you can refute...refute it, and then claim that that means the whole pile of evidence is suspect. This is the tactic most favored by Holocaust Deniers worldwide.

[LFTKBS]

Well, you had time to BWAHAHAHAHA or whatever; I assumed you weren't interested in the facts. In addition, it'd be a bit insane to go through every post of yours chronologically and refute them in a separate thread.

Thank you for replying with sources. Now we can discover the truth together. Hand in hand.

First: re: "edited to add: You will notice my long post left out any mention of the botulinum toxin. The truth is that you and those like you tend to look past the huge pile of evidence, find something you can refute...refute it, and then claim that that means the whole pile of evidence is suspect. This is the tactic most favored by Holocaust Deniers worldwide."

No, what I'm saying is that it means we can't take everything you say at face value. The botulinum part jumped out at me because I knew for a fact that it wasn't the right kind and that there wasn't enough of it. You were wrong about the botulinum, so let's see if you were right about the other stuff.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by LFTKBS

Thank you for replying with sources. Now we can discover the truth together. Hand in hand.

Sorry, I don't swing that way. ("not that there's anything wrong with it!")


No, what I'm saying is that it means we can't take everything you say at face value. The botulinum part jumped out at me because I knew for a fact that it wasn't the right kind and that there wasn't enough of it. You were wrong about the botulinum, so let's see if you were right about the other stuff.

No,...you won't take ANYTHING I say at face value....but that's okay. I encourage you to read up on Saddam. You would have to read blindfolded though if you want to complete your reading without messing up the leftie mantra though.

So go get your liberal blinders and repeat after me:

"There is no link betwn OBL and Saddam"
"There are no WMD's"

Please ignore ALL "other" evidence such as Saddam's terrorism schools....his testing of WMD chemicals on political prisoners.... and remember to repeat that the war was either all about WMD's or oil.

-z

[rikzilla]

Hey Mr. Bucket o' popcorn;


When it rains it pours eh? (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F12%2F14%2Fwterr14. xml&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=31804)

From the link:



Terrorist behind September 11 strike was trained by Saddam
By Con Coughlin
(Filed: 14/12/2003)


Iraq's coalition government claims that it has uncovered documentary proof that Mohammed Atta, the al-Qaeda mastermind of the September 11 attacks against the US, was trained in Baghdad by Abu Nidal, the notorious Palestinian terrorist.

[Skeptic]

Nobody knows how reelections will turn out so far in advance, but at least the emerging conspiracy theory that Saddam was captured long ago and is held "in reserve" to bolster GWB's reelection bid by claiming he was captured two weeks before the coming elections didn't turn out as expected...

[Gem]

Iraq's coalition government claims that it has uncovered documentary proof that Mohammed Atta, the al-Qaeda mastermind of the September 11 attacks against the US, was trained in Baghdad by Abu Nidal, the notorious Palestinian terrorist.

This was discussed in another thread. Needless to say we're all skeptical. Let's just say this isn't very good "evidence."

From the link:

Although Iraqi officials refused to disclose how and where they had obtained the document

Gem

[American]

Two landmark dates that assured conservative victories were:


- Oct. 30, 2002: Senator Paul Wellstone's "Memorial" (not the plane crash itself, but how his life was remembered)
- Dec. 9, 2003: Gore endorses Dean


I don't call Saddam too significant, because it was never in any doubt that he would be captured or killed. As the sun rises and sets, it was bound to happen. Same with OBL.

The other dates I mention are the result of Free Will chosen in anger, selfishness, and sheer stupidity of the left.

[subgenius]

And why exactly should George personally get the credit for finding him and not the dogfaces digging in the dirt?
Does he get the credit for everything and the blame for nothing?
Pretty good gig.

[Nasarius]

Originally posted by American
- Oct. 30, 2002: Senator Paul Wellstone's "Memorial" (not the plane crash itself, but how his life was remembered)

Yes, this was quite stupid and tasteless, and may very well have cost that particular election, but do you really think it will have any effect on the Presidential election? Or did you just randomly think of two otherwise unrelated incidents that may (have) hurt Democratic candidates?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by subgenius
And why exactly should George personally get the credit for finding him and not the dogfaces digging in the dirt?
Does he get the credit for everything and the blame for nothing?
Pretty good gig.

Well, I agree with you. Bush didn't fish him out of the hole. However I do give Bush credit for:

Not pulling out of Iraq due to lower polling numbers (pandering)
Not pulling out of Iraq due to negative press coverage
Not pulling out of Iraq due to pressure from some democrats including presidential candidates

So yes, Bush does deserve some credit for Saddam's capture for a few reasons.

A. if Gore had been elected, we would have never liberated Iraq
B. Even amid mounting criticism he stayed the course.

I mention Gore not to attack him but just saying he probably would not have finished the US war against Saddam. I have no idea if he would have invaded Afghanistan but I am pretty certain he would not have invaded Iraq.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by rikzilla


...and the left has ignored every shred of evidence that contradicts their dogma that: 1. "There is no link between OBL and Saddam." and 2. "There are no WMD's."

To do so you must ignore the fact that Al Qaida had training camps in Iraq. That Iraqi intelligence met with Mohammed Atta before 9/11...
I'd just like to point this out: http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=3987110

That reported meeting was used by conservatives within and outside the Bush administration as evidence of a link between former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, the group responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. In the run-up to the war, President Bush argued that invading Iraq was part of his administration's anti-terrorism campaign.

U.S. officials cautioned that Ani may have lied to interrogators about the meeting, but the CIA and FBI eventually concluded that the meeting probably did not take place and that there was no evidence that Saddam's government was involved in the Sept. 11 hijack attacks, the Times said.

[Hypocolius]

Originally posted by Brown
Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from a farcical Supreme Court decision!

If I went around saying I was President just because some moistened bint had lobbed a chad at me they'd put me away!

[jj]

Originally posted by rikzilla
The headlines say: SADDAM CAPTURED!!

But shouldn't they really say: GWB WINS RE-ELECTION!! ??

:usa:

I think so. When he wins in November, it won't be the resurgant economy...it won't be the tax cuts....it'll be 12/13/03 Lucky 13.

-z

:D :D

Still having your totalitarian dreams of right-wing world domination, Rik?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Brown
Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from a farcical Supreme Court decision!

Brown, you are a pretty square guy but this statement is just silly.

You basically advocate mob rule and propagate the selected president myth.

Yes, some of the pro-Bush rhetoric on here has spiked since Saddam's capture but I see no need to respond in kind with equally silly rhetoric.

[American]

Originally posted by Nasarius

Yes, this was quite stupid and tasteless, and may very well have cost that particular election, but do you really think it will have any effect on the Presidential election? Or did you just randomly think of two otherwise unrelated incidents that may (have) hurt Democratic candidates?


Nah... it's more a "chain-of-events" concept, not a particular thing that people vote on.

[Aoidoi]

Originally posted by corplinx


Brown, you are a pretty square guy but this statement is just silly.

You basically advocate mob rule and propagate the selected president myth.

Yes, some of the pro-Bush rhetoric on here has spiked since Saddam's capture but I see no need to respond in kind with equally silly rhetoric. Help! Help! He's opressin me!

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Nasarius
Yes, this was quite stupid and tasteless...And didn't happen.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled right-wing cartoons, already in progress!

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Aoidoi
Help! Help! He's opressin me! It's only a model!

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by subgenius
And why exactly should George personally get the credit for finding him and not the dogfaces digging in the dirt?
Does he get the credit for everything and the blame for nothing?
Pretty good gig.

BWAHAHAHAHAH! (Gee...I'm getting hoarse, it's been this funny all day!)

C'mon SG...you of all people should know better! One look back at the threads you've started blaming GWB for everything unseemly that you could think of!! You've made a personal career of blaming Bush....don't deny it....the proof is in the archive!

And now,...now you won't give him credit where it's due!! Remarkable! I've often found you amusing in the past, but that post!!! That's rich! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!

-z

...stop it man! you're killing me! HARHARHARHAR!

[jj]

Originally posted by rikzilla


BWAHAHAHAHAH! (Gee...I'm getting hoarse, it's been this funny all day!)

C'mon SG...you of all people should know better! One look back at the threads you've started blaming GWB for everything unseemly that you could think of!! You've made a personal career of blaming Bush....don't deny it....the proof is in the archive!

And now,...now you won't give him credit where it's due!! Remarkable! I've often found you amusing in the past, but that post!!! That's rich! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!

-z

...stop it man! you're killing me! HARHARHARHAR!

Ok I give GWB credit for caving into Haliburton and Cheyney and agreeing to keep the war going.

Satisfied?

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by subgenius
And why exactly should George personally get the credit for finding him and not the dogfaces digging in the dirt?
Does he get the credit for everything and the blame for nothing?
Pretty good gig. He hasn't got s**t all over him.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Thanz

I'd just like to point this out: ..........


Keep working Thanz....

There was alot more in that post than just that. But if you like you can bail with the poisoned well caveat....just say that since some item isn't 100% sure, that none of it is worth investigating.

Such tactics have worked well for holocaust deniers. Find something to debunk,...then use it to deny the mountain of evidence you wish would go away.

How 'bout addressing every one of those points I made,..the problem is that you are not going to be able to refute them all....and the ones you can't refute will just add up because I know of more too.....and in the coming days I'd guess ever more will come to light.

FACT: Saddam was a state sponsor of terrorism
FACT: Saddam not only possessed WMD, but used them on his own people. (unless you think those thousands of Kurds faked it)

-z

[jj]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Such tactics have worked well for holocaust deniers. Find something to debunk,...then use it to deny the mountain of evidence you wish would go away.
...


Now look at that. If you dare to disagree with Rik, you're something like a holocaust denier, or you use the same tactics.

Shameful, Rik, shameful.

Your own tactics, frankly, could be equated to some well-known historical methods.

Do you realize that?

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by jj
Now look at that. If you dare to disagree with Rik, you're something like a holocaust denier, or you use the same tactics.Yup, I was likened to convicted murderer John Mohammed acting in his own defense. Behold the elevated discourse!

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by jj


Now look at that. If you dare to disagree with Rik, you're something like a holocaust denier, or you use the same tactics.

Shameful, Rik, shameful.

Your own tactics, frankly, could be equated to some well-known historical methods.

Do you realize that?

Hey jerk,

Either go back, look at the post in question and address the points I brought up...or shut the f up.

The problem is you and your leftie friends can't. You a-holes have been cheering every soldier killed or maimed for months now and you can't stand it that your little myth of the evil US government is blowing away on the winds of actual revealed reality.

Too damn bad,...that mantra of yours had been catching on for a while among the gullible.....pretty soon the only folks still clinging to it will be the liars and the terminally stupid people who keep believing them.

-z

[corplinx]

Originally posted by rikzilla



The problem is you and your leftie friends



jj isnt a leftie, he says so all the time! He is a moderate! He says so all the time!

[jj]

Originally posted by rikzilla
The problem is you and your leftie friends can't.

Do not lie about my political affiliations, Mr. "Rikzilla". If you can't cope with the facts surrounding your own behavior, then change your behavior.

You are already fully and incontrovertably aware of the fact that I am in no way a "leftist", nor do I generally associate with "leftie friends". As any careful examination of what I say reveals, "leftie" types can not abide my political positions at all, and in fact tend to go stark-raving incoherent when they have to deal with my political positions.

Do you remember malachi reduced to spluttering at me when I showed him that his political "theory" was actually a religion?

Yes, I think you do remember that.

Once again, you demonstrate shameful, disgraceful behavior.

[jj]

Originally posted by corplinx


jj isnt a leftie, he says so all the time! He is a moderate! He says so all the time!

Actually, I only say something about that when you right-wing fanatics lie about my political affiliations.

All the lies in the world won't make me anything other than a right-leaning moderate, corpie.

[jj]

Originally posted by rikzilla

a-holes have been cheering every soldier killed or maimed for months now

Oh, I missed this nasty little lie the first time through.

Your lies don't suit your cause, you know, except with those who are already as brainwashed as you are.

[Aoidoi]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
It's only a model! On second thought, let's not go to Iraq, tis a silly place.

[Ion]

This strong landmine:

US Supreme Court to hear Cheney Energy Suit Case (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=4&u=/nm/20031215/ts_nm/court_energy_cheney_dc)

can hit.

The case deals with how secret the Administration can be regarding the Energy Plan that Cheney devised.
It must be very heavy if they'd go as far as the US Supreme Court to reverse a US Appeals Court and lower court rulings to show the information regarding how this Energy plan was created.

The US Supreme Court will hear the case in the spring and the judgment will be due in June.
A response that requires the Administration to give up these documents could be very dangerous for them because a ruling by late June would still mean four more months to grandstand, which would be hard seeing they'd have no one else to appeal to.
These documents could really expose the Administration's ties to big business.
I mean expose 'officially' seeing it is aleady known how deep they are with big energy corporations.

However, these documents may not come to light either.
Though it would give Dean an opportunity to speak out against Bush for being so secretive.

In any case, I think this is a landmine that can strike the Bush 2004 campaign.

Hopefully it will be a large blow to Bush.

[Tony]

Originally posted by jj


Actually, I only say something about that when you right-wing fanatics lie about my political affiliations.

All the lies in the world won't make me anything other than a right-leaning moderate, corpie.

Is this hyperbole, or are you really this senile?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Keep working Thanz....

There was alot more in that post than just that. But if you like you can bail with the poisoned well caveat....just say that since some item isn't 100% sure, that none of it is worth investigating.
That was the one that immediately jumped out at me, as I had just read the referenced report this morning. It is not my job to correct every one of your misstatements.

Such tactics have worked well for holocaust deniers. Find something to debunk,...then use it to deny the mountain of evidence you wish would go away.
I take exception to you comparing me to a holocaust denier, and nothing in my post should attract such treatment. I picked out one of your statements, and then corrected it.

FACT: Saddam was a state sponsor of terrorism
FACT: There is no real evidence that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11, despite all of the implications to the contrary.

FACT: There are many more connecting factors between Saudi Arabia and 9/11 than there are between Iraq and 9/11, yet the USA is buddy-buddy with SA and invades Iraq.
FACT: Saddam not only possessed WMD, but used them on his own people. (unless you think those thousands of Kurds faked it)
FACT: They can't find any of these WMD that they were so scared of that they had to launch an immediate invasion.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Tmy


I readthis article in the paper. They asked people what kind of question would tehy want to ask Saddam. Almost all of them were "Why did you attack us Saddam?".

I gotta give GW credit. Hes doen a pretty good job of linking 911 wh Saddam in the publics mind.
He has rik conviced.....still, thats not very difficult.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Luke T.
"It's the economy, stupid."

"Are you really better off than you were four years ago?"

;)

[jj]

Originally posted by Tony


Is this hyperbole, or are you really this senile?

The statement is not hyperbole and I am in no fashion senile.

The facts are simple. I am, regardless of your ad-hominem attack, a right-leaning centrist.

Deal with reality, Tony, it will suit you better in the long run.

[Gem]

I'd like to vouch for jj since he isn't a leftist. Don't you recall the 2003 blackout thread he started blaming it on de-regulation and environment gone crazy? (I beleive the first was hotly debated, but the second one jj accepted that it had little to do with)

So calling him a leftist isn't going to cut it.

Gem

P.S.:
FACT: The WMD on the kurds were PRE gulf war.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Hey jerk,

Either go back, look at the post in question and address the points I brought up...or shut the f up.

The problem is you and your leftie friends can't. You a-holes have been cheering every soldier killed or maimed for months now and you can't stand it that your little myth of the evil US government is blowing away on the winds of actual revealed reality.

Too damn bad,...that mantra of yours had been catching on for a while among the gullible.....pretty soon the only folks still clinging to it will be the liars and the terminally stupid people who keep believing them.Behold the elevated discourse!

[Lyle Beaudoin]

Like Free Republic without the prayer meetings.

[a_unique_person]

So you're saying that the hundreds of americans killed and thousands injured have done so to get Dubya re-elected?

I guess this puts the moon base on the back burner for now.

[Hypocolius]

Originally posted by Aoidoi
Help! Help! He's opressin me!

Come and see the violence inherent in the system!

[subgenius]

Originally posted by corplinx


Well, I agree with you. Bush didn't fish him out of the hole. However I do give Bush credit for:

Not pulling out of Iraq due to lower polling numbers (pandering)
Not pulling out of Iraq due to negative press coverage
Not pulling out of Iraq due to pressure from some democrats including presidential candidates

So yes, Bush does deserve some credit for Saddam's capture for a few reasons.

A. if Gore had been elected, we would have never liberated Iraq
B. Even amid mounting criticism he stayed the course.

I mention Gore not to attack him but just saying he probably would not have finished the US war against Saddam. I have no idea if he would have invaded Afghanistan but I am pretty certain he would not have invaded Iraq.
How flippin ridiculous. For this guy to get any credit or mileage out of the grunts finding this slimeball is sickening.
"If Gore had been elected..." do you or rik ever have any objective analysis of anything to do with your boy without bringing up some other subject?
OK, to boil it down: if someone other than GWB had been elected and done the same thing as your hero GWB how the heck would they be entitled to any credit for anything an individual soldier did in the field?
Outrageous. You are too young to remember when a president gave all the credit to the folks doing the work and took all the responsibility for when things went bad. That happens to be class.
By the way as your hero would say, and did say today in his press conference "Saddams punishment will be metted out" and the length of our committment will be "commiserate" with the need.
You also don't remember when heads of state could speak their native tongues. If you can't use big words, don't.
How many dead is enough?
How long is enough?
How much money is enough?
Simple questions. Any answers?
"We don't want to burden the Iraqi people with debt."
(Is it OK to saddle the American people with that debt, and why?)

Simple question again: why would any American president who was in office when Iraq was invaded be entitled to any credit for finding Hussein?
Isn't that like taking the credit when your maid flushes the toilet for you?

[subgenius]

"You a-holes have been cheering every soldier killed or maimed for months now ...."
Sad to accuse anyone of such a thing. Sad, sad.

[Ion]

Don't be naive, corplinx:
Originally posted by corplinx


Well, I agree with you. Bush didn't fish him out of the hole. However I do give Bush credit for:

Not pulling out of Iraq due to lower polling numbers (pandering)
Not pulling out of Iraq due to negative press coverage
Not pulling out of Iraq due to pressure from some democrats including presidential candidates

So yes, Bush does deserve some credit for Saddam's capture for a few reasons.

A. if Gore had been elected, we would have never liberated Iraq
B. Even amid mounting criticism he stayed the course.
...

In another thread, I posted this:
Originally posted by Ion

...
“The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”

(Hint: that's why a few posts ago I wrote that Saddam is a smokescreen only, and the U.S. interest for war is deeper than Saddam).

"From an American perspective, the value of such bases would endure even should Saddam pass from the scene. Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region." - PNAC 1998

(Hint: by "...American interests in the region." here, understand American oil interests in the region which are well documented).

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by rikzilla

You a-holes have been cheering every soldier killed or maimed for months now...

-z

Whew! Thanks to subgenious for pointing this out.

Rikzilla! Dude! I'm on your side and even that statement is too much for me, man.

Maybe "rubbing in our faces" in place of "cheering" ?

Carry on.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by subgenius
And why exactly should George personally get the credit for finding him and not the dogfaces digging in the dirt?
Does he get the credit for everything and the blame for nothing?
Pretty good gig.

Seems only fair considering the amount of blame Dubya gets when things don't go right, or when he wins an election by the electoral process.

My analysis is that Bush won't so much win the next election as the Democrats will lose it with their antics.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by subgenius
"You a-holes have been cheering every soldier killed or maimed for months now ...."
Sad to accuse anyone of such a thing. Sad, sad.

Look, perhaps I was a bit harsh...and I never directly said that of you SG....but the fact is that dems in general and liberals in particular have taken a political position during wartime that puts their political goals at odds with the needs of our troops in Iraq.

Amazingly, instead of being genuinely happy that Saddam has been captured and what it may mean to the safety of our troops.. the dems/libs have grudgingly hailed Saddam's capture while silently lamenting what this may mean to their political chances in the upcoming election. (Only Joe Lieberman has clean hands in this)

How is it that almost an entire US political party, during a time of war, has tied their political fortunes to our enemy's success?

That is what I meant by my less-than-politic comment. In the immortal words of Jimmy Buffett:
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!

I got a little carried away by my overpowering feeling of disgust after Howard Dean's last speech. Please forgive.

-z

[LFTKBS]

Huh. Even Henry Kissinger just said that he doesn't think there's a link between the attacks on 9/11/01 and Iraq. (Diane Rehm Show, NPR, just now)

But you know how liberal he is . . .

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by LFTKBS
Huh. Even Henry Kissinger just said that he doesn't think there's a link between the attacks on 9/11/01 and Iraq. (Diane Rehm Show, NPR, just now)

But you know how liberal he is . . .

I'm still waiting for you to address those connections I brought up earlier....or are you going to do the famous liberal ostrich maneuver and forget we ever had that discussion...then just move on and chant the mantra some more??

C'mon...put ur dukes up.... :)

-z

[daenku32]

I'm still not voting for the guy..

He is still a loser in my book.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by daenku32
I'm still not voting for the guy..

He is still a loser in my book.

Yeah,...vote for this guy instead...he has better references,...but remember to follow directions or we'll push you off the top of a 3 story building with handcuffs on. :con2: Hey, it's a job. :con2:
General Federation of Iraqi Women

Referendum slogans on the post of President of the Republic:

To the leader Saddam Hussein…. A booming (Yes) to be uttered by the hearts of Iraqi glorious women.

Because you are the faith and the will…because you are the victory and the sovereignty…because you are the wisdom in leadership…(Yes we say) with full hearts and minds.

(Yes) you equity of justice and right…you bearer of the emblem of the Message, O you daring one, you son of the glorious, O you Saddam.

With you, O you great leader, we will continue the march of crossing because it is you who opened for us the recesses of light.

Because you are the symbol of Iraq’s and the Arab Nation’s pride, we tell you (yeas) you our great leader in every grand march.

The glorious Iraqi women … in the forefront of the charters (Yes) to the leader Saddam Hussein.

You glorious Iraqi woman…your exercise of the right of voting is a slap to the faces of ignorance and colonialism and claimants of sham democracy.

Because you are the great struggler liberator… and the great leader…yes, yes we are with you in defiance of the enemies.

Yes, yes, yes to the leader Saddam Hussein, in defiance of the evil tyrants.

O you brave leader, on your right course began our grand march to the peak of the heavens, and here we repeat … (yes, yes, yes) to Saddam Hussein.

Let the glorious women exclaim (yes) to Saddam Hussein in averment of the inevitability of victory over the enemies and their iniquitous sanctions.

O you Iraqi female, your participation in the referendum is the index of your deep awareness of your political rights.

Belief in democratic life is confirmed by Iraqis glorious females’ participation in the renewal of the covenant to the struggler leader Saddam Hussein.

O you great leader, you released our suppressed voices, and here they are chanting yes, yes to the pioneer of freedom and commitment.

The glorious women of Iraq write with the throbbing of hearts… (Yes) to the leader Saddam Hussein.

All the Iraqi women…yes to Saddam Hussein…and let the enemies die in their loathing, and long live Iraq.

Glory be to you great leader…felicitations from the hearts of the Iraqi women rise on the wings of brilliance.

Blessed be your victory O you mighty people of Iraq…by your brave leader Saddam Hussein forerunner of the free.

We felicitate the women of the Arab Nation and its men on our victory that gleaming in the face of the leader Saddam Hussein.

Iraq shall remain lofty by your presence O you victorious leader.

On the grand march day, Iraq’s will triumph and the enemies lies were routed.

By your presence O you struggling leader Iraq shall continue marching onwards.

This is the grand march, and the illuminate victory. So shut to the tongues of spiteful.

O you dear leader, with you the march shall go on, loud and victorious to the final victory over the enemies.

With your wise leadership and under your flapping ensign of God is Great, Palestine shall return free and Arab from the sea to the river.

The souls of the martyrs marched with us to say yes because you are the symbol of wishes and protector of the holies.

Long live the leader, surrounded by the love of his people and his nation and God is Great.

On the mountains all the glorious women of Kurdistan said yes to the leader Saddam Hussein.

The glorious women of Iraq’s Kurdistan exclaim yes, yes to Saddam …No, No to the Zionist imperialist designs.

The popular referendum day on the post of the President of the Republic is the feast day of the Kurdish glorious woman.

Arabs and Kurds, our women and men and children with you, you beloved of Iraq.

The glorious women of Iraq’s Kurdistan, our hearts say: yes, yes, yes to the leader Saddam Hussein.

By the soul, the mind and the heart, the glorious Kurdish women will go on saying yes to the leader Saddam Hussein.

Yes to the leader Saddam Hussein, is the exclamation of Iraq’s women in Iraq’s plains and on the acme of autonomous Kurdistan’s mountains

Yes to the leader Saddam Hussein, is the throb of the hearts of Iraq’s Arab and Kurdish women, exclaiming to the national unity and its great symbol.

Yes to the leader Saddam Hussein, is the slogan of Iraq’s Arab and Kurdish women in the Iraq of unity and fortitude.

Yes to the leader Saddam Hussein, from the summits of the mountains to the Gulf coast Arab and Kurdish women in one exclamation to the beacon of the national unity.

The glorious women of Iraq, from the pinnacles of the datepalms to the pinnacles of the oaktrees exclaim loudly yes to the leader Saddam Hussein.


Oh brother! :rolleyes:
So much material....so little time.


The link (http://the-amazing.us/uruklink/women/en1a.htm)

-z

[Chanileslie]

This is a horrifying thought!!

Of course I can alway hope (in vain) that the American populace will come to their senses.

[LFTKBS]

Originally posted by rikzilla
I'm still waiting for you to address those connections I brought up earlier....or are you going to do the famous liberal ostrich maneuver and forget we ever had that discussion...then just move on and chant the mantra some more??

C'mon...put ur dukes up.... :)
-z

Okay, my dukes are up. Let's take things from the top.

1) The link between Mohammad Atta and Abu Nidal. You must be referring to this story in the Telegraph. (http://tinyurl.com/z4jq)
a) This memo is an exclusive to the Telegraph. It was allegedly found by the coalition government. It also has a second part which references a shipment of uranium to Iraq - the "Niger Shipment."
a.1) Therefore, the Bush administration could have had no knowledge of this memo, and could not have justified the invasion this way.
a.2) Don't you think it is very unusual for one memo to spell out both the alleged links to Al-Qaeda AND verify Bush's 16 words in the State of the Union address? Isn't that just a bit too convenient and perfect? Doesn't that trip your b.s. meter just a bit?
a.3) I prefer to have information verified before believing just anything any newspaper says,
a.4) especially because the author of this article also wrote one on 8/25/2002 saying Abu Nidal, the Palestinian terrorist, was murdered on the orders of Saddam Hussein after refusing to train al-Qa'eda fighters based in Iraq, the Telegraph can reveal. (http://tinyurl.com/zirq)

2) Iraq had mobile labs to produce weapons of mass destruction.
a) An official British investigation into two trailers found in northern Iraq has concluded they are not mobile germ warfare labs... (http://tinyurl.com/grcm)
a.1) Britain is part of the Coalition of the Willing, and their official government reports should be trustworthy enough for you.
a.2) The CIA has removed its initial report in which it is claimed that they are for germ warfare. If you find something different, please post it.

3) Iraq had missiles that violate UN restrictions.
a) Missiles are not necessarily WMD.
b) Missiles do not a show a link to Al-Qaeda.
c) The UN apparently didn't think that was cause for invasion.

4) Inspectors found a vial of botulinium.
a) I already covered that in this thread,
a.1) Quite well, actually.
b) It was not weaponizable nor was it of nearly sufficient quantity nor was it the correct strain of botulinum.

That's my first series of refutations, rik. Please feel free to counter these arguments when you have a moment. I'll post the rest later (i.e., when I'm not actually at work).

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by LFTKBS


Okay, my dukes are up. Let's take things from the top.

1) The link between Mohammad Atta and Abu Nidal. You must be referring to this story in the Telegraph. (http://tinyurl.com/z4jq)
a) This memo is an exclusive to the Telegraph. It was allegedly found by the coalition government. It also has a second part which references a shipment of uranium to Iraq - the "Niger Shipment."
a.1) Therefore, the Bush administration could have had no knowledge of this memo, and could not have justified the invasion this way.
a.2) Don't you think it is very unusual for one memo to spell out both the alleged links to Al-Qaeda AND verify Bush's 16 words in the State of the Union address? Isn't that just a bit too convenient and perfect? Doesn't that trip your b.s. meter just a bit?
a.3) I prefer to have information verified before believing just anything any newspaper says,
a.4) especially because the author of this article also wrote one on 8/25/2002 saying Abu Nidal, the Palestinian terrorist, was murdered on the orders of Saddam Hussein after refusing to train al-Qa'eda fighters based in Iraq, the Telegraph can reveal. (http://tinyurl.com/zirq)

2) Iraq had mobile labs to produce weapons of mass destruction.
a) An official British investigation into two trailers found in northern Iraq has concluded they are not mobile germ warfare labs... (http://tinyurl.com/grcm)
a.1) Britain is part of the Coalition of the Willing, and their official government reports should be trustworthy enough for you.
a.2) The CIA has removed its initial report in which it is claimed that they are for germ warfare. If you find something different, please post it.

3) Iraq had missiles that violate UN restrictions.
a) Missiles are not necessarily WMD.
b) Missiles do not a show a link to Al-Qaeda.
c) The UN apparently didn't think that was cause for invasion.

4) Inspectors found a vial of botulinium.
a) I already covered that in this thread,
a.1) Quite well, actually.
b) It was not weaponizable nor was it of nearly sufficient quantity nor was it the correct strain of botulinum.

That's my first series of refutations, rik. Please feel free to counter these arguments when you have a moment. I'll post the rest later (i.e., when I'm not actually at work).

I will, but here are the ones you neglected:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#1. Saddam gave haven and support to the terrorist Abu Nidal and his organization (before he had him killed recently that is) in violation of 687, paragraph 32 which imposes the obligation under international law to report suspected acts of Iraqi support for international terrorism to the UN secretary general.which also addresses Iraq's support of terrorism.

#2. Abdul Rahman Yasin, the one terrorist not captured from the first WTC bombing is currently living free in Baghdad. The only named conspirator still at large. He was one of the "blind Sheik's" nutty Islamic fundie followers....so why did he run for Iraq...and why did Saddam harbor him in full disregard of UN Security Council Resolution 687? (paragraph 32 again)

#3. Abu Mussab al Zarqawi (al Qaida senior operative) is apparently free to operate in Baghdad as well. (pesky paragraph 32 again)
the link

#4. Ramzi Yusef aka Abdul Basit, the mastermind of WTC bombing #!. Was at the time suspected of being an active Iraqi intelligence agent. Also, when finally captured in the Phillipines, found to be also associated with Abu Sayyef (terrorist group known to be linked with al Qaida)

#5. Dr. Hamza's testimony that Iraq's Mukhabarat (political secret police) are running the concealment mechanism for their ongoing proscribed nuclear program. The link

#6. On August 8, 1995 Hussein Kamil (Saddam's son-in-law) defected to Jordan. He had supervised Iraqi unconventional weapons programs. His information confirmed that Iraq had developed and possesed weaponized biological agents.

#7. Egyptian officials arrested one of the first WTC bombers where he was hiding with family in Cairo. He is Abu Halima. He told them about the involvement of two Iraqi intelligence agents who had managed to flee.

#8. UNSCOM 227 inspection (from Ritter's book Endgame) uncovered Iraqi documents detailing biological and chemical agent testing done on humans. (political prisoners)...Endgame page 180.

#9. Calutrons (magnetic isotope seperators) of the kind used in the Manhattan project were found in the process of being moved around by the Iraqis way back in 1991. (another instance of deception, and active nuclear program)

#10. Mukhabarat terrorism "school" inadvertently found by UNSCOM 150 inspection team in 1996. (not part of UNSCOM mandated mission...not WMD's...just terror/torture etc...the issue of this find was not taken up by the UNSC) page 120 "Endgame.

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

These were just the points that I found in my reading prior to the invasion.

The above have stood unrefuted since March when I first posted them.

If unrefuted they prove these FACTS:

FACT#1. Saddam's Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism. (note that I did not say 9/11...Thanz got lost here....I said "state terrorism" and it is borne out by UNSCOM witness accounts.

FACT#2. Saddam not only had WMD, but used them to kill his own people. (Note, I did not say "back in 1988" UNSCOM 227 had found documented evidence that an on-going chemical weapons program was using political prisoners as test subjects.)

Now, the botulinum toxin, the mobile labs, Mohammed Atta...these are much more circumstantial....but my own personal standard of proof on this issue is the preponderance of evidence, not the elimination of all doubt. I am not willing to give Saddam the benefit of the doubt...he doesn't deserve it.

Oh, BTW....the missiles I mentioned were not legal for Iraq to have under sanctions....I never said they were WMD's.



Then there's this stuff you should see:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From the Wall Street Journal article linked to below:
Know Thy Enemy-The Iraq Connection
(October 18, 2001)

From: Laurie Mylroie
By R. James Woolsey
The Wall Street Journal

The professionally prepared and precisely sized anthrax spores that have infected some 30 congressional staffers and closed down the Capitol and the office of the governor of New York have made the point forcefully: When you are at war, the primary task should be to determine whom you are at war with.

In most wars this is not a problem. Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990 the way the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor--with flags flying. Even in our war two centuries ago with the Barbary Pirates, an enemy with some loose parallels to al Qaeda, we had no doubt which North African government sheltered them. Stephen Decatur knew whom to attack.

This time it‘s different. Although the administration‘s decision to move first against the obvious target--the Taliban and their demonic al Qaeda guests--is sound, there are rising doubts that even a victory in Afghanistan, and even the capture or death of Osama bin Laden and his cohorts, will solve the problem. And this is not only because of al Qaeda operatives and street demonstrations in other countries. Removing bin Laden and his associates may only amputate one hand of our enemy. There are substantial and growing indications that a state may, behind the scene, be involved in the attacks. This is hard for us to deal with because, as Sen. Dianne Feinstein said recently, "It‘s a very sobering thing for Americans, who tend to be upfront dealing with everything, to be faced with something so clandestine and unknown."

When an enemy has a face and a name, this country can be awesome in its ability to mobilize quickly for war and win, as we did in both world wars. But we are now facing an enemy from a part of the world where the major aspects of war, for many centuries, have been clandestine raids, assassinations, terror against civilians, and deception. In response to the challenge "Come out and fight like a man," we will get only smirks in the shadows and more anthrax, or worse.

Some hold the view that no degree of sophistication--precisely prepared anthrax, coordination across continents, sophisticated training, professionally-stolen identities--is enough to indicate the strong probability of a state‘s being involved. Such a position was most succinctly stated by an unnamed FBI official to Seymour Hersh (in the Oct. 8 New Yorker), speaking of the Sept. 11 attackers: "These guys look like a pickup basketball team. In your wildest dreams, do you think they thought they‘d be able to pull off four hijackings?" But for those of a more suspicious cast of mind, the degree of complexity and the sophistication of the attacks against us suggest that we have enough indications of possible state involvement for the government to be carefully and vigorously investigating.

One central issue is state involvement in what? If we define the problem in such a way as to require proof (and make it proof beyond a reasonable doubt) of state involvement in the Sept. 11 attack itself, we will quite likely define ourselves out of being able to understand who is at war with us. Instead, we need to look at the pattern of terrorism against us over the last decade and reach a considered judgment in light of the whole picture, even if we cannot prove, to the demanding standards of criminal law, a state‘s involvement in the Sept. 11 atrocity itself.

The weakest argument against the possibility of state involvement is usually implicit--that since al Qaeda is clearly involved in the Sept. 11 and other attacks, a state probably is not. But haven‘t such people heard of joint ventures? Do they think that international law imposes some sort of sole-source contracting requirement for terrorism? But which state? Well, whichever one turns up when you start looking. Iran, for example, has to be considered a possibility because--in spite of a rational president, a number of elected reformers, brave newspaper editors, and an electorate that solidly supports reform--murderous mullahs still run the country‘s intelligence services and instruments of state power. Iran sponsors Hezbollah and other terrorist groups that are targeted principally against Israel today but that have attacked us in the past, including quite possibly at Khobar Towers. Iranian involvement with al Qaeda, even across the bitter divide between extreme Wahhabi Sunnis and extreme Shiites, is not impossible.

But by far the more likely candidate for involvement with al Qaeda is Iraq, for several reasons.

Saddam has gone to great lengths to court Sunni Islamists in recent years, even restructuring the Iraqi flag to put Allahu Akbar ("God is great") in his own handwriting across its face. (Even Saddam‘s soulmate and fellow hater of religion, Joseph Stalin, didn‘t think of courting the Russian Orthodox Church when he needed it after Hitler‘s invasion by writing across the face of the Soviet flag in his own hand, "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.") This courtship has included terrorist meetings in Iraq and, according to press reports, at least one visit to the Taliban capital of Kandahar by the infamous Faruk Hijazi, a senior official in Iraqi intelligence although nominally the Iraqi ambassador in Ankara, Turkey.

Saddam has a festering sense of revenge for his humiliation of the Gulf War, and our conduct at, and after, the war‘s end has given him added hope, he believes, for vengeance. In the aftermath of the war, the Iraqi resistance controlled much of the country, but we watched from the skies while Saddam mobilized the Republican Guard that we had spared and used it to massacre the rebels. He is not grateful to us. He has concluded that we are weak and irresolute, and that we do not dare to confront him even when we are in a position as strong as we were in the spring of 1991. If he has confidence that he has successfully hidden his hand in attacking us, he doubtless has even more confidence in our fecklessness.

His confidence in our fecklessness has some reasonable basis. If the first Bush administration made one major mistake in not helping the Iraqi resistance, in the spring of 1991, to finish the job that we had started, the Clinton administration made eight years of them. In the spring of 1993, Iraqi Intelligence (i.e., Saddam) tried to assassinate former President Bush in Kuwait, as confirmed by both CIA and FBI investigations of an unexploded bomb. President Clinton responded by shooting some cruise missiles into an empty intelligence headquarters in the middle of the night. The message--we will ruthlessly use high technology weapons against cleaning women, night watchmen and masonry--may not have struck as much fear into Saddam‘s heart as the administration hoped.

There then began eight years of using law enforcement as the principal investigative tool and principal sanction against what came to be called "loose networks" of terrorists. For two reasons, neither one the fault of those who were doing their best to enforce the law, this had the effect of making it very difficult to establish any links between terrorists and foreign governments (although the FBI reportedly found ties between Iran and the Khobar Towers terrorists).

First, a prosecutor‘s team is not the right institution to use to look for an overall assessment of whether there is state sponsorship of a terrorist act. Indeed, the better the prosecutors are, the more likely they are to focus like a laser on proving that the people they can get their hands on have committed the elements of the crime set out by the law--not on a general search for background information useful to the rest of the government. A criminal trial is not a general search for truth but rather, in a sense, a legally circumscribed trial by combat. It makes as much sense to expect a prosecutor‘s team to make an overall assessment of state sponsorship of a terrorist event as it does to ask a Marine company commander, in the midst of taking a hill, to advise you about the international alliances of the enemy whose troops he is facing.

Second, Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (perhaps now being modified by Congress) severely restricts the flow of information to the rest of the government from investigations when information is obtained pursuant to a federal grand jury‘s subpoena. A federal judge might approve some sharing with, say, a state prosecutor, but there is no provision that permits sharing with, e.g., the National Security Council or the CIA. Any such sharing must await the trial, creating a delay of months to years after the terrorist event.

As a result, during the many months of investigation and the trials of the defendants for the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, little was done to discover the implications of the fact that one of the indicted plotters, Abdul Rahman Yasin (who held Iraqi and American citizenship) fled to Baghdad after talking the FBI in New Jersey into releasing him. There are indications that both he and Ramzi Yousef, now in prison in Colorado, may be Iraqi agents, but on some important aspects the trail is very cold. Other investigations of terrorist incidents in the 1990s were similarly less than thorough on the question of state sponsorship. One can take the view that this was an unfortunate side effect of an otherwise desirable law enforcement focus.

The other, less generous possibility is that the Clinton administration was engaged here in its trademark behavior of focusing first and foremost on spin, expectation-adjustment, and short-term public relations, and deriving policy therefrom. If you assume that all terrorism flows from loose networks and not state action, then you will usually be able to find at least someone who was involved in a terrorist attack to convict. You can then claim success, get some good press and avoid confronting a state. The alternative approach--a thorough search for any state actor--presents two PR risks, neither attractive. If you find no state actor, there might be the appearance of an investigative failure. If, on the other hand, you find that a state was involved, you might then risk confrontation, even conflict, and possibly body bags on the evening news.

This may help account for the spate of recent stories in the press that seem to suggest that Iraqi government ties to terrorism are not being checked out, and that reports of such ties surprise senior government officials. It has been widely reported that the hijacker (some say the lead hijacker) Mohamed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague just before he came to the U.S. One report suggests that he met with senior Iraqi intelligence official Hijazi. And, as noted, another report puts Hijazi in the Taliban capital in 1998. Such reports are invariably followed by background statements from senior government officials to the effect that, "We don‘t know what they talked about so it doesn‘t prove anything."

Then on Oct. 1, William Safire wrote in the New York Times that al Qaeda‘s Abu Abdul Rahman, "financed by bin Laden and armed by Saddam," ambushed and killed 36 Kurds in Halabja in Northern Iraq. The Kurds retaliated, took 19 terrorists prisoner, and got valuable information from them about the terrorist-Iraqi connection. "Our top NSC officials," Mr. Safire wryly notes, "were unaware of this engagement until they read it in The Times."

Then on Oct. 12, Jim Hoagland wrote in the Washington Post that an Iraqi ex-intelligence officer has told the Iraqi National Congress of specific sightings of Islamic extremists training for hijacking a Boeing 707 in a suburb of Baghdad, Salman Pak, a year ago, but that he "was treated dismissively by CIA officers in Ankara this week. They reportedly showed no interest in pursuing a possible Iraq connection to Sept. 11." (I checked yesterday and essentially the same situation still obtains.)

What is going on here? Government bureaucracies do have a way of getting into comfortable ruts and staying there through inertia. In the present circumstances, we need to be especially sure that if any of our government agencies became infected during the 1990s with the Clinton administration malady of backward reasoning (start with the conclusion you want, then select the facts you‘ll look at), they are given the required curative as soon as possible.

The State Department, for example, negotiates with, and normally tries to make common cause with, foreign governments. And like any normal group of people, it seeks a role in the bigger picture for what it does. So it tends to push for the importance of coalition-building and cordial relations in the big scheme of things. No doubt we will have more and happier coalition partners (at least in the short run) if we don‘t raise the uncomfortable issue of a possible need to confront Saddam. But is a large coalition that doesn‘t move against a state that is at war with us better for the nation as a whole than a small coalition that moves effectively against a state that is attacking us? Isn‘t the first job learning the truth and not accommodating the views of our least staunch friends?

For its part, the CIA has always had an institutional bias in favor of information coming from recruited agents rather than volunteers and defectors. There are exceptions, but in a number of circumstances--some with which I have long personal familiarity--defectors especially have been dealt with in less than exemplary fashion by the Agency. Something similar might be said for democratic resistance groups--their occasional fractiousness makes them hard to discipline. Sometime during 1995, these tendencies seem to have joined to produce substantial hostility at Langley to the Iraqi National Congress. As one wag puts it, "If the INC showed up out there with Osama‘s and Saddam‘s heads on a plate, a number of people would say, ‘I‘ll bet that‘s the Pope and the Dalai Lama.‘ " As in the case of the State Department, it would be a tragedy of the first order if bureaucratic inertia of this sort had any hand in keeping us from learning whom we are at One must have sympathy for the president as he tries to sort all of this out. The decision whether to move against Iraq after Afghanistan will be one of the most difficult and important decisions any American president has ever made. It is much harder than deciding, even in very difficult circumstances, whether to confront a clear enemy when there is no alternative--as after the Confederacy‘s firing on Fort Sumter, or after Pearl Harbor.

The best analogy may be--although our condition is far from this desperate--the choice faced by Churchill at the time of Dunkirk in May 1940, when Britain stood alone and Lord Halifax was pressing for accommodation, via Mussolini, with Germany. Churchill‘s decision to reject Halifax‘s advice and fight was, in many ways, the hinge of the 20th century. Early in this new century, President Bush already faces one of its most momentous choices. He needs the best information any of us can give him.

Mr. Woolsey, former director of Central Intelligence, is a lawyer in Washington.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------war with.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by rikzilla


I will, but here are the ones you neglected:


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

These were just the points that I found in my reading prior to the invasion.

The above have stood unrefuted since March when I first posted them.
But what of those points justifies the immediate invasion? Before the invasion Canada proposed a tight 30 day deadline and co-operation with inspectors and then a UN sanctioned effort. The US had no interest. Why? They kept going on about WMD, but where are they?

FACT#1. Saddam's Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism. (note that I did not say 9/11...Thanz got lost here....I said "state terrorism" and it is borne out by UNSCOM witness accounts.
Note that 9/11 was used by the Bush administration and by many on this board to justify the Iraq invasion. Either they were involved with 9/11 or they weren't - and if they weren't, it shouldn't be used to justify the war. Some connections to the first WTC bombing do not justify this invasion.

FACT#2. Saddam not only had WMD, but used them to kill his own people. (Note, I did not say "back in 1988" UNSCOM 227 had found documented evidence that an on-going chemical weapons program was using political prisoners as test subjects.)
Where are they? How long has the US been there? Why can't they find ANY of these WMD that they were so scared of?


Now, the botulinum toxin, the mobile labs, Mohammed Atta...these are much more circumstantial....but my own personal standard of proof on this issue is the preponderance of evidence, not the elimination of all doubt. I am not willing to give Saddam the benefit of the doubt...he doesn't deserve it.
What evidence? If you read the stuff posted by LFTKBS, th toxin is dubious, and the mobile labs were determined not to be mobile germ warfare labs. And the CIA and the FBI don't believe the Atta connection.

[Graham]

*bump* so Rikzilla can answer and to post a link:

Atta / Saddam document a forgery (http://msnbc.msn.com/Default.aspx?id=3741646&p1=0)

Dec. 17 - A widely publicized Iraqi document that purports to show that September 11 hijacker Mohammed Atta visited Baghdad in the summer of 2001 is probably a fabrication that is contradicted by U.S. law-enforcement records showing Atta was staying at cheap motels and apartments in the United States when the trip presumably would have taken place, according to U.S. law enforcement officials and FBI documents.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by rikzilla


I will, but here are the ones you neglected:


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

These were just the points that I found in my reading prior to the invasion.

The above have stood unrefuted since March when I first posted them.

If unrefuted they prove these FACTS:

FACT#1. Saddam's Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism. (note that I did not say 9/11...Thanz got lost here....I said "state terrorism" and it is borne out by UNSCOM witness accounts.

FACT#2. Saddam not only had WMD, but used them to kill his own people. (Note, I did not say "back in 1988" UNSCOM 227 had found documented evidence that an on-going chemical weapons program was using political prisoners as test subjects.)

Now, the botulinum toxin, the mobile labs, Mohammed Atta...these are much more circumstantial....but my own personal standard of proof on this issue is the preponderance of evidence, not the elimination of all doubt. I am not willing to give Saddam the benefit of the doubt...he doesn't deserve it.

Oh, BTW....the missiles I mentioned were not legal for Iraq to have under sanctions....I never said they were WMD's.



Then there's this stuff you should see:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From the Wall Street Journal article linked to below:
Know Thy Enemy-The Iraq Connection
(October 18, 2001)

From: Laurie Mylroie
By R. James Woolsey
The Wall Street Journal

The professionally prepared and precisely sized anthrax spores that have infected some 30 congressional staffers and closed down the Capitol and the office of the governor of New York have made the point forcefully: When you are at war, the primary task should be to determine whom you are at war with.

In most wars this is not a problem. Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990 the way the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor--with flags flying. Even in our war two centuries ago with the Barbary Pirates, an enemy with some loose parallels to al Qaeda, we had no doubt which North African government sheltered them. Stephen Decatur knew whom to attack.

This time it‘s different. Although the administration‘s decision to move first against the obvious target--the Taliban and their demonic al Qaeda guests--is sound, there are rising doubts that even a victory in Afghanistan, and even the capture or death of Osama bin Laden and his cohorts, will solve the problem. And this is not only because of al Qaeda operatives and street demonstrations in other countries. Removing bin Laden and his associates may only amputate one hand of our enemy. There are substantial and growing indications that a state may, behind the scene, be involved in the attacks. This is hard for us to deal with because, as Sen. Dianne Feinstein said recently, "It‘s a very sobering thing for Americans, who tend to be upfront dealing with everything, to be faced with something so clandestine and unknown."

When an enemy has a face and a name, this country can be awesome in its ability to mobilize quickly for war and win, as we did in both world wars. But we are now facing an enemy from a part of the world where the major aspects of war, for many centuries, have been clandestine raids, assassinations, terror against civilians, and deception. In response to the challenge "Come out and fight like a man," we will get only smirks in the shadows and more anthrax, or worse.

Some hold the view that no degree of sophistication--precisely prepared anthrax, coordination across continents, sophisticated training, professionally-stolen identities--is enough to indicate the strong probability of a state‘s being involved. Such a position was most succinctly stated by an unnamed FBI official to Seymour Hersh (in the Oct. 8 New Yorker), speaking of the Sept. 11 attackers: "These guys look like a pickup basketball team. In your wildest dreams, do you think they thought they‘d be able to pull off four hijackings?" But for those of a more suspicious cast of mind, the degree of complexity and the sophistication of the attacks against us suggest that we have enough indications of possible state involvement for the government to be carefully and vigorously investigating.

One central issue is state involvement in what? If we define the problem in such a way as to require proof (and make it proof beyond a reasonable doubt) of state involvement in the Sept. 11 attack itself, we will quite likely define ourselves out of being able to understand who is at war with us. Instead, we need to look at the pattern of terrorism against us over the last decade and reach a considered judgment in light of the whole picture, even if we cannot prove, to the demanding standards of criminal law, a state‘s involvement in the Sept. 11 atrocity itself.

The weakest argument against the possibility of state involvement is usually implicit--that since al Qaeda is clearly involved in the Sept. 11 and other attacks, a state probably is not. But haven‘t such people heard of joint ventures? Do they think that international law imposes some sort of sole-source contracting requirement for terrorism? But which state? Well, whichever one turns up when you start looking. Iran, for example, has to be considered a possibility because--in spite of a rational president, a number of elected reformers, brave newspaper editors, and an electorate that solidly supports reform--murderous mullahs still run the country‘s intelligence services and instruments of state power. Iran sponsors Hezbollah and other terrorist groups that are targeted principally against Israel today but that have attacked us in the past, including quite possibly at Khobar Towers. Iranian involvement with al Qaeda, even across the bitter divide between extreme Wahhabi Sunnis and extreme Shiites, is not impossible.

But by far the more likely candidate for involvement with al Qaeda is Iraq, for several reasons.

Saddam has gone to great lengths to court Sunni Islamists in recent years, even restructuring the Iraqi flag to put Allahu Akbar ("God is great") in his own handwriting across its face. (Even Saddam‘s soulmate and fellow hater of religion, Joseph Stalin, didn‘t think of courting the Russian Orthodox Church when he needed it after Hitler‘s invasion by writing across the face of the Soviet flag in his own hand, "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.") This courtship has included terrorist meetings in Iraq and, according to press reports, at least one visit to the Taliban capital of Kandahar by the infamous Faruk Hijazi, a senior official in Iraqi intelligence although nominally the Iraqi ambassador in Ankara, Turkey.

Saddam has a festering sense of revenge for his humiliation of the Gulf War, and our conduct at, and after, the war‘s end has given him added hope, he believes, for vengeance. In the aftermath of the war, the Iraqi resistance controlled much of the country, but we watched from the skies while Saddam mobilized the Republican Guard that we had spared and used it to massacre the rebels. He is not grateful to us. He has concluded that we are weak and irresolute, and that we do not dare to confront him even when we are in a position as strong as we were in the spring of 1991. If he has confidence that he has successfully hidden his hand in attacking us, he doubtless has even more confidence in our fecklessness.

His confidence in our fecklessness has some reasonable basis. If the first Bush administration made one major mistake in not helping the Iraqi resistance, in the spring of 1991, to finish the job that we had started, the Clinton administration made eight years of them. In the spring of 1993, Iraqi Intelligence (i.e., Saddam) tried to assassinate former President Bush in Kuwait, as confirmed by both CIA and FBI investigations of an unexploded bomb. President Clinton responded by shooting some cruise missiles into an empty intelligence headquarters in the middle of the night. The message--we will ruthlessly use high technology weapons against cleaning women, night watchmen and masonry--may not have struck as much fear into Saddam‘s heart as the administration hoped.

There then began eight years of using law enforcement as the principal investigative tool and principal sanction against what came to be called "loose networks" of terrorists. For two reasons, neither one the fault of those who were doing their best to enforce the law, this had the effect of making it very difficult to establish any links between terrorists and foreign governments (although the FBI reportedly found ties between Iran and the Khobar Towers terrorists).

First, a prosecutor‘s team is not the right institution to use to look for an overall assessment of whether there is state sponsorship of a terrorist act. Indeed, the better the prosecutors are, the more likely they are to focus like a laser on proving that the people they can get their hands on have committed the elements of the crime set out by the law--not on a general search for background information useful to the rest of the government. A crimina