Why We Invaded Iraq

[Strike4ce]

Why We Invaded Iraq


by John Hawkins


Given that we're more than a year out from the start of the war in Iraq, fighting has flared up recently, and opponents of the war have been trying rewrite history to take advantage of the fact that our intelligence estimates about WMD in Iraq have proven to be inaccurate, it's important to remind people why we went to Iraq.

To begin with, it's important to put the war in context. We must remember that we have been trying to remove Saddam Hussein from power since the Gulf War. Here's David Frum (http://www.rightwingnews.com/interviews/frum.php) on that subject,

"In the 2000 election, both candidates spoke openly about the need to deal with Saddam Hussein. Al Gore was actually more emphatic on the topic than George Bush was. In 1998, Congress passed and President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act. Just to show how conspiratorial they were, they put it in the Congressional record. In 1995, the CIA tried to organize a coup against Saddam Hussein and it failed. The coup was secret, but it has been written about in 5 or 6 books that I know of. In 1991, representatives of President George H. W. Bush went on the radio and urged the Iraqi people to rise up against Saddam Hussein. So America's policy on Saddam has been consistent. What we have been arguing about for years are the methods. First, we tried to encourage a rebellion in Iraq, that didn't work. Then we tried coups; that didn't work. Then in 1998, we tried funding Iraqi opposition. That might have worked, but the money never actually got appropriated. Then, ultimately we tried direct military power. The idea that Saddam should go has been the policy of the United States since 1991."

So the idea that we should go after Saddam Hussein was nothing new. But after 9/11, removing Saddam Hussein suddenly became an essential part of the global strategy in the war on terrorism. Why so?

Well, after September 11th, it became apparent that simply going after Al-Qaeda was not going to be enough to prevent future attacks. First off, if you simply target Al-Qaeda, what happens if the core of group simply changes its name or groups with other anti-American terrorists? Furthermore, how can you effectively target terrorists protected by the power of a rogue state? The answer is, "you can't". In addition, the training, resources, & protection provided by those rogue states is the very thing that enables a group like Al-Qaeda to become capable of pulling off the sort of attack we saw on 9/11. So in order to prevent future 9/11s, you have to go after not just Al-Qaeda, but all terrorist groups with global reach and the rogue states that support them.

George Bush made that clear in his Sept 20, 2001 speech (http://www.rightwingnews.com/speeches/sept20.php) to the nation when he said,

"Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated....

And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

Without question, Iraq was a nation that provided "safe haven" for terrorists with "global reach". Among them were terrormaster Abu Nidal, Abdul Rahman Yasin, one of the conspirators in the 1993 WTC bombing, "Khala Khadr al-Salahat (http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins091903.asp), the man who reputedly made the bomb for the Libyans that brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over...Scotland,"Abu Abbas (http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200310210934.asp), mastermind of the October 1985 Achille Lauro hijacking and murder of Leon Klinghoffer," & "Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, formerly the director of an al Qaeda training base in Afghanistan" who is now believed to be leading Al-Qaeda's forces in Iraq. Quite frankly, any war on terrorism that didn't tackle that nest of vipers would have been a war in name only.

Moreover, as devastating as 9/11 was, a terrorist attack featuring weapons of mass destruction could be infinitely worse. Much has been made of the fact that we have not found the stockpiles of WMD that we expected in Iraq. But, there are three points worth making about that.

First of all, there simply was no significant difference between the position the Bush administration had on Iraq's WMD and the position held by prominent Democrats like Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Joe Lieberman, or John Kerry. In short, the overwhelming majority of Democrats (http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php) & Republicans in Washington believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

Secondly, given the size of Iraq and the fact that Saddam Hussein's totalitarian regime was not cooperating with the UN inspectors, there was no way, even had they been there for a hundred years, that Hans Blix and the rest of the UN inspectors could have confirmed to anyone's satisfaction that Iraq was not producing WMD. Even a year after the war, when our inspectors have had the run of the country, access to "secret documents", and have been able to interview Iraqi scientists without Saddam's"minders" being present, our WMD teams have still not been able to definitively say there are no remaining stockpiles of weapons in Iraq although we certainly suspect that to be the case.

Third, it isn't as if our intelligence agencies and the politicians citing them were totally wrong about WMDs and Iraq. As David Kay (http://www.rightwingnews.com/archives/week_2004_01_25.PHP#001712) revealed, Iraqi scientists were working on weaponizing anthrax "right up until the end" and had restarted a rudimentary nuclear weapons program in 2000 & 2001. Furthermore, Kay said,

"Even those senior officials we have interviewed who claim no direct knowledge of any on-going prohibited activities readily acknowledge that Saddam intended to resume these programs whenever the external restrictions were removed. Several of these officials acknowledge receiving inquiries since 2000 from Saddam or his sons about how long it would take to either restart CW production or make available chemical weapons."

Those are not comforting words given that an "Iraqi chemical weapons expert" told "Uday Husayn" that mustard gas could be produced for Saddam's Fedayeen in two months.

After 9/11, anyone who doesn't see the potential danger of allowing terrorists like Abdul Rahman Yasin & Abu Abbas to be sheltered by an America hating regime that was working on weaponizing ricin and that could produce mustard gas in two months has an insufficient understanding of the peril facing in our country in my opinion.

Furthermore, there were certainly many other reasons to go to Iraq. Saddam Hussein was an avowed enemy of America who had started two wars of aggression in the region, was steadfast in his support for Palestinian suicide bombers, and brutally oppressed his own people. That last point is especially salient since we justified sending troops to Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti, and Somalia almost solely because of "humanitarian reasons". Personally, I believe in using our military to further American interests, but if "humanitarian purposes" floated your boat in Kosovo or Haiti, I see no reason why it shouldn't still work for Iraq.

Similar arguments could be made about the UN. The UN Security Council averaged better than a UN Resolution per year for over a decade, the last of which was approved unanimously, demanding that Saddam fulfill the obligations he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War. While I have an extraordinarily low opinion of the United Nations, there are many people who hold the UN in high esteem and regard it as an essential part of the world order. But, why should anyone take the UN seriously when even a despised dictator can simply thumb his nose at the UN year after year with no response other than impotent new resolutions?

Also, as I mentioned earlier, Iraq is an essential part of the war on terrorism. That's not just because we were able to go after the terrorists mentioned earlier, but because terrorists are coming to Iraq to fight our soldiers. Some people see that as a bad thing, but as Christopher Hitchens (http://slate.msn.com/id/2097901) recently wrote,

"(I)n my experience, dud theories die only to be replaced by new and even dumber ones. The current reigning favorite is that fighting al-Qaida in Iraq is a distraction from the fight against al-Qaida."

Indeed, we are fighting Al-Qaeda in Iraq. And while none of us are happy that our military is risking their lives fighting against terrorists in a foreign land, it could be worse. Instead of fighting the finest soldiers in the world in Iraq, Al-Qaeda could be murdering unarmed American civilians here in the US, at a time and a place of the terrorists' choosing. Iraq has turned out to be irresistible flypaper (http://www.davidwarrenonline.com/Comment/Jul03/index150.shtml) for terrorists and quite possibly, we here in the US may have been spared terrorist attacks because of it.

It's also worth noting that after Saddam was gone, we no longer had a need to keep troops in Saudi Arabia, which was something Al-Qaeda had used as a recruiting tool. Furthermore, we were able to lift the sanctions which had given Saddam an opportunity to starve his political enemies to death while shifting the blame for his murderous actions to the United States. Moreover, if as expected, we can actually help the Iraqis achieve Democracy, it has the potential to be the most significant thing to occur in the Middle-East since the Mamelukes effectively ended the Crusades with their victories in 1291.

If a beachhead of democracy can be established in Iraq, there's an excellent chance that we'll see Democratic reforms start to sweep across the region where anti-American tyrants are keeping their populations in control by the skin of their teeth. The influence of a free Iraq could in time help lead to a free Iran, a free Syria, a free Lebanon, a free Saudi Arabia, a free Egypt, etc, etc. We're not just shooting for an Iraqi Democracy, we're hoping to see freedom spread across the entire region. In summary, what we must remember about Iraq is that it's not simply an optional war like Bosnia or Haiti, it's an essential part of the war on terrorism and the linchpin of our efforts to help bring democracy to the Middle-East. Potentially, what we're doing in Iraq could be as important as the work the "Greatest Generation" did in Japan and Germany after WW2, perhaps more so. The Bush administration's decision to take down Saddam and help the Iraqi people build a better, freer country was not just the right thing to do, it is without question in America's interests.

[SCHICK]

Well I'll be buggered,I thought we invaded Iraq for the WMD?....no? oh well, maybe it was for the Bin Laden(remember him?) connection?......no? ahhh, I see,it was regime change,weeeeell why didn't ya say so in the first place?
On President Bush's first trip outside the USA(how old is he?)on a fence mending mission with the UN,he has been internationally mocked for sheer stupidity and even the flat-earthers are starting to see the light.....some earlier than others.

[jimb]

Iraq was invaded because the sick Saddam and sons were pure murderers and terrorist supporters.

[theDirtyBomber]

Iraq was invaded because the sick Saddam and sons were pure murderers and terrorist supporters.

What, purity being the only distinguishing feature between them and the US Govt?

[VERITAS]

Well I'll be buggered,I thought we invaded Iraq for the WMD?....no? oh well, maybe it was for the Bin Laden(remember him?) connection?......no? ahhh, I see,it was regime change,weeeeell why didn't ya say so in the first place?
On President Bush's first trip outside the USA(how old is he?)on a fence mending mission with the UN,he has been internationally mocked for sheer stupidity and even the flat-earthers are starting to see the light.....some earlier than others.

Hey! Get in line with the revisionism! You're still mired in the fraudulent pretexts the Bushies originally contrived and missing all the subsequent 'upgrades' of necessity!

[Mike_001]

Iraq was invaded because the sick Saddam and sons were pure murderers and terrorist supporters.

Nope. That's not why.

[Hobbes]

In 1995, the CIA tried to organize a coup against Saddam Hussein and it failed. The coup was secret, but it has been written about in 5 or 6 books that I know of.

Now here's a fascinating example of revisionist history. Robert Baer was the CIA's man on the ground in Northern Iraq at the time.

http://www.fpa.org/pubs_inventory2418/pubs_inventory_show.htm?doc_id=98689

According to him, the coup was planned by a renegade Iraqi Army colonel, with the backing of Kurdish leadership. He repeatedly cabled his bosses at Langley about the planned uprising, but got no promise of support until the very last minute.. at which time Anthony Lake directed him to pass on that the coup leaders were "on their own." Half the Kurds pulled out of the plan, the other half fought a brave but losing battle, which the CIA denies ever happened.

[ike]

"...ahhh, I see,it was regime change,weeeeell why didn't ya say so in the first place?"

The policy of 'regime change' was emphatically stated prior to the war. An official policy of regime change in Iraq on the part of the United States existed 'unambiguously' for years prior to the Bush administration.

Have you been living under a rock or something?

[Simon666]

To begin with, it's important to put the war in context. We must remember that we have been trying to remove Saddam Hussein from power since the Gulf War.
To be more specific, since after the Gulf War. It was found more convenient during the Gulf War to leave Saddam in place than to have a divided Iraq, a civil war which would be bad for oil production or a shiite ruled Iraq which could be like Iran and would piss of Bush Sr.'s friends the Saudis.



In 1991, representatives of President George H. W. Bush went on the radio and urged the Iraqi people to rise up against Saddam Hussein. So America's policy on Saddam has been consistent. What we have been arguing about for years are the methods. First, we tried to encourage a rebellion in Iraq, that didn't work.
Actually, wrong. Bush called on the radio for Iraqis to rise up, which they did, not as much because of Bush's radio address but because they noticed Saddam's regime crumbling. The goal of Bush was to weaken Saddam's regime. There was just one little problem with that plan and that was that it worked too well, the uprise was actually succeeding. That made the Saudis as well as the US leadership a little worried about the future options for an Iraq without Saddam, so what they did was to specify the ceasefire conditions specifically as such that Saddam could crush the uprise, which shows the US policy has not been consistent at all.

To illustrate clearly what is meant with this and this isn't some conspiracy mambo jambo: Schwarzkopf specifically allowed Iraqi helicopters, not their airplanes, to fly in the country when US troops and jetfighters were still in the country, as to allow Saddam to crush the rebellion. They could easily have forbidden this if they wanted to. They also allowed his republican guard, which had been relaively spared during the Gulf War as Saddam held them back, to literally drive by US troops as to go crush the rebellion.



Furthermore, how can you effectively target terrorists protected by the power of a rogue state? The answer is, "you can't". In addition, the training, resources, & protection provided by those rogue states is the very thing that enables a group like Al-Qaeda to become capable of pulling off the sort of attack we saw on 9/11. So in order to prevent future 9/11s, you have to go after not just Al-Qaeda, but all terrorist groups with global reach and the rogue states that support them.
Only problem with this theory is that Iraq was not a rogue state supporting and protecting terrorists or at least not any more than say, Saudi Arabia.



Without question, Iraq was a nation that provided "safe haven" for terrorists with "global reach". Among them were terrormaster Abu Nidal, Abdul Rahman Yasin, one of the conspirators in the 1993 WTC bombing, "Khala Khadr al-Salahat (http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins091903.asp), the man who reputedly made the bomb for the Libyans that brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over...Scotland,"Abu Abbas (http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200310210934.asp), mastermind of the October 1985 Achille Lauro hijacking and murder of Leon Klinghoffer," & "Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, formerly the director of an al Qaeda training base in Afghanistan" who is now believed to be leading Al-Qaeda's forces in Iraq.
Actually, Abu Nidal was killed before the invasion, which doesn't make Iraq look all that terrorist friendly. Even more, Abdul Rahman Yasin was held in an Iraqi prison and was offeredfor exchange to the US twice, which twice turned the offer down, probably so rightwing idiots like you could keep accusing Iraq of harbouring terrorists. Abu Abbas was also responsible for a single death, which makes him a murderer, barely a terrorist, and had rejected violence before he came to Iraq. Abu Musab al Zarqawi was on top of that operating outside the reach of Saddam in Northern Iraq, Kurdistan, where according to some he was killed in a US bombardment.



Third, it isn't as if our intelligence agencies and the politicians citing them were totally wrong about WMDs and Iraq. As David Kay (http://www.rightwingnews.com/archives/week_2004_01_25.PHP#001712) revealed, Iraqi scientists were working on weaponizing anthrax "right up until the end" and had restarted a rudimentary nuclear weapons program in 2000 & 2001. Furthermore, Kay said,
That Iraqi scientists were working on weaponizing anthrax right up until the end is an utter lie as well as Iraq restarting its nuclear weapons programs. That is not supported by any of the David Kay quotes they provided. Your source, rightwingnews, is also extremely questionable.



That last point is especially salient since we justified sending troops to Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti, and Somalia almost solely because of "humanitarian reasons".
It is especially salient since you didn't justify sending troops to Rwanda or Sudan while it is clear to anyone what is going on is a genocide on large scale. Haiti was also not for humanitarian reasons but because the United States does not like to see poor black people washing ashore in masses, only Cubans if politicians expect to get their support by saying enough harsh words at Castro's address.



Indeed, we are fighting Al-Qaeda in Iraq. And while none of us are happy that our military is risking their lives fighting against terrorists in a foreign land, it could be worse. Instead of fighting the finest soldiers in the world in Iraq, Al-Qaeda could be murdering unarmed American civilians here in the US, at a time and a place of the terrorists' choosing.
The "not fighting Al Qaeda in our streets" has to be the most pathetic argument ever made yet one of the most powerful ones to sell to the public opinion, which is basically dumb. It took just 19 guys to commit 9-11, even if Al Qaeda has a couple of hundred fighters in Iraq, the notion they couldn't miss 20 or so for US based operations is bordering the ridiculous.



It's also worth noting that after Saddam was gone, we no longer had a need to keep troops in Saudi Arabia, which was something Al-Qaeda had used as a recruiting tool.
It's worth noting that infidel US troops leaving Saudi Arabia was a key demand of Osama which could be seen to have been appeased and that US troops in Iraq are doing just as well as recruitment tool for Al Qaeda, making that argument worthless.



Furthermore, we were able to lift the sanctions which had given Saddam an opportunity to starve his political enemies to death while shifting the blame for his murderous actions to the United States.
Which deserved part of the blame as the sanctions were murderous.

[pilobolus]

I thought we invaded because, if there is one thing the neocons can't stand more than filthy arabs, it is filthy arabs that are not able to vote.

[Eat Me]

Bad people like Saddam shouldn't have something as good as a huge oil reserve. They might use the money for something stupi and dangerous. Also, he treats his people like shit.

Since we are the good guys, we were right to step in and straighten it all out.

Look at Europe and Japan and South Korea. They're glad we straightened them out.

Wow! America! Thank god, huh?

[JaneDoe]

Why We Invaded Iraq

John Hawkins......

If a beachhead of democracy can be established in Iraq, there's an excellent chance that we'll see Democratic reforms start to sweep across the region where anti-American tyrants are keeping their populations in control by the skin of their teeth. The influence of a free Iraq could in time help lead to a free Iran, a free Syria, a free Lebanon, a free Saudi Arabia, a free Egypt, etc, etc. We're not just shooting for an Iraqi Democracy, we're hoping to see freedom spread across the entire region. In summary, what we must remember about Iraq is that it's not simply an optional war like Bosnia or Haiti, it's an essential part of the war on terrorism and the linchpin of our efforts to help bring democracy to the Middle-East. Potentially, what we're doing in Iraq could be as important as the work the "Greatest Generation" did in Japan and Germany after WW2, perhaps more so. The Bush administration's decision to take down Saddam and help the Iraqi people build a better, freer country was not just the right thing to do, it is without question in America's interests.

Plant the seed and watch it grow


February 26, 2005
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Why Not Here?
By DAVID BROOKS

his is the most powerful question in the world today: Why not here? People in Eastern Europe looked at people in Western Europe and asked, Why not here? People in Ukraine looked at people in Georgia and asked, Why not here? People around the Arab world look at voters in Iraq and ask, Why not here?

Thomas Kuhn famously argued that science advances not gradually but in jolts, through a series of raw and jagged paradigm shifts. Somebody sees a problem differently, and suddenly everybody's vantage point changes.

"Why not here?" is a Kuhnian question, and as you open the newspaper these days, you see it flitting around the world like a thought contagion. Wherever it is asked, people seem to feel that the rules have changed. New possibilities have opened up.

The question is being asked now in Lebanon. Walid Jumblatt made his much circulated observation to David Ignatius of The Washington Post: "It's strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq. I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, eight million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world."

So now we have mass demonstrations on the streets of Beirut. A tent city is rising up near the crater where Rafik Hariri was killed, and the inhabitants are refusing to leave until Syria withdraws. The crowds grow in the evenings; bathroom facilities are provided by a nearby Dunkin' Donuts and a Virgin Megastore.

The head of the Syrian Press Syndicate told The Times on Thursday: "There's a new world out there and a new reality. You can no longer have business as usual."

Meanwhile in Palestine, after days of intense pressure, many of the old Arafat cronies are out of the interim Palestinian cabinet. Fresh, more competent administrators have been put in. "What you witnessed is the real democracy of the Palestinian people," Saeb Erakat said to Alan Cowell of The Times. As Danny Rubinstein observed in the pages of Ha'aretz, the rules of the game have changed.

Then in Iraq, there is actual politics going on. The leaders of different factions are jostling. The tone of the coverage ebbs and flows as more or less secular leaders emerge and fall back, but the amazing thing is the politics itself. If we had any brains, we'd take up Reuel Marc Gerecht's suggestion and build an Iraqi C-Span so the whole Arab world could follow this process like a long political soap opera.

It's amazing in retrospect to think of how much psychological resistance there is to asking this breakthrough question: Why not here? We are all stuck in our traditions and have trouble imagining the world beyond. As Claus Christian Malzahn reminded us in Der Spiegel online this week, German politicians ridiculed Ronald Reagan's "tear down this wall" speech in 1987. They "couldn't imagine that there might be an alternative to a divided Germany."

But if there is one soft-power gift America does possess, it is this tendency to imagine new worlds. As Malzahn goes on to note, "In a country of immigrants like the United States, one actually pushes for change. ... We Europeans always want to have the world from yesterday, whereas the Americans strive for the world of tomorrow."

Stephen Sestanovich of the Council on Foreign Relations wrote an important essay for this page a few weeks ago, arguing that American diplomacy is often most effective when it pursues not an incrementalist but a "maximalist" agenda, leaping over allies and making the crude, bold, vantage-shifting proposal - like pushing for the reunification of Germany when most everyone else was trying to preserve the so-called stability of the Warsaw Pact.

As Sestanovich notes, and as we've seen in spades over the past two years in Iraq, this rashness - this tendency to leap before we look - has its downside. Things don't come out wonderfully just because some fine person asks, Why not here?

But this is clearly the question the United States is destined to provoke. For the final thing that we've learned from the papers this week is how thoroughly the Bush agenda is dominating the globe. When Bush meets with Putin, democratization is the center of discussion. When politicians gather in Ramallah, democratization is a central theme. When there's an atrocity in Beirut, the possibility of freedom leaps to people's minds.

Not all weeks will be as happy as this one. Despite the suicide bombings in Israel and Iraq, the thought contagion is spreading. Why not here?

SOURCE (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/26/opinion/26broooks.html?hp=&oref=login&pagewanted=print&position=)

[jimb]

Bad people like Saddam shouldn't have something as good as a huge oil reserve. They might use the money for something stupi and dangerous. Also, he treats his people like shit.

Since we are the good guys, we were right to step in and straighten it all out.

Look at Europe and Japan and South Korea. They're glad we straightened them out.

Wow! America! Thank god, huh?

Saddam either was going to take Mideast oil or was going to control the sells of it.Saddam ans sons were in time going to have MDWs to threaten the world.

The USA depends on getting 35% of the oil it needs from the Mideast.Other nations in the region depends on oil very much that does not have oil wells.

The fact that oil in the Mideast could cause WW#3 was said by X President Ford plus Ford said who ever controled Africa could control the world.Africa the rich in resources with poverty and starvation.

The peoples must develope other fuels because oil will not be there forever for fuel.

[NYC]

Davide Brooks
(senior editor at The Weekly Standard)
is a an idiot - NYC

David Brooks recently claimed in the New York Times that only "full-mooners" believe that neoconservative institutions like the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) have any influence on Bush Administration policy because PNAC "has a staff of five and issues memos on foreign policy." But PNAC disseminates the views not of its paid staffers, receptionists and interns, but of powerful Administration insiders like Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld [...] Brooks continued: "In truth, the people labeled neocons... travel in widely different circles and don't actually have much contact with one another."



In truth--to use Brooks's phrase--among those who have signed PNAC letters are Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle and Robert Kagan. PNAC is run by William Kristol, who edits The Weekly Standard, for which Brooks writes, and is the son of Irving Kristol, founder of The Public Interest and former publisher of The National Interest, who wrote a book called Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea, and is married to the neoconservative historian Gertrude Himmelfarb, William's mother.

Norman Podhoretz, the former editor of Commentary, is the father of John Podhoretz, a neoconservative editor and columnist who has worked for the Reverend Moon's Washington Times and the New York Post, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns The Weekly Standard and Fox Television. Norman is the father-in-law of Elliott Abrams, the former Iran/contra figure and former head of the neocon Ethics and Public Policy Center and the director of Near Eastern affairs at the National Security Council. Elliott's mother-in-law and Norman's wife, Midge Decter, like many older neocons a veteran of the old Committee on the Present Danger, was recently given a National Humanities Medal after publishing a fawning biography of Rumsfeld, whose number-two and number-three deputies at the Pentagon, respectively, are Wolfowitz and Feith, veterans of the Committee on the Present Danger and Team B, the intelligence advisory group that grossly exaggerated Soviet military power in the 1970s and '80s. Perle, a member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board (and its former head), is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and sits on the board of Hollinger International, a right-wing media conglomerate (including the Jerusalem Post and the Daily Telegraph) controlled by Conrad Black, the chairman of the editorial board of The National Interest, which Black partly subsidizes through the Nixon Center. Perle and Feith--both PNAC allies--helped write a 1996 paper called "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," on behalf of Israel's right-wing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Perle, Feith and the other US and Israeli authors called on Israel to abandon the Oslo process and to restore martial law in the Palestinian territories long before the second intifada began. Co-authorship is common among the neocons: Brooks and Kristol, Kristol and Kagan, Frum and Perle. These are people who, according to David Brooks, "don't actually have much contact with one another."

http://wilsonhellie.typepad.com/for_the_record/2004/02/david_brooks_ru.html

[jimb]

N Korea and Iraq had talked about joining forces before Iraq fell.Saddam and Jong were only butchers of people. Iraq has a chance to be free with the help of
gladiators as Bush and Blair are that believe in freedom.

[VERITAS]

That the neocons' scheme to impose US military bases on Iraq was accomplished by their opportunistic conflation of the disparate matter of Osama's Lucky Day and myriad fraudulent pretexts (DubyaMD stockpiles, etc.) is obvious. Whether the Iraqi people will actually tolerate the imposition is highly problematic.

Will Boy George & Culture Club now dub in "Iran" or "Syria" in a video of Colin Powell's embarrassing, infamous fiction litany before the UN?

Of course, Iran, now sustained by an emerging ally in Iraq, chortles at Junior's swagger, quite justifiably responding to Junior's enfeebled bluster, "You and what army?" whilst Kim Jung Il, in essence, moons the impotent OOO (Oval Office Occupant).

What a disaster for the US!

[ike]

To be more specific, since after the Gulf War. It was found more convenient during the Gulf War to leave Saddam in place than to have a divided Iraq, a civil war which would be bad for oil production or a shiite ruled Iraq which could be like Iran and would piss of Bush Sr.'s friends the Saudis.


The above is merely your personal opinion.

Prior to and 'during' Gulf War One the stated objective as agreed to by all parties was to drive Iraq out of Kuwait and go no further. There was no authorization under the coalition to unseat Saddam.



Actually, wrong. Bush called on the radio for Iraqis to rise up, which they did, not as much because of Bush's radio address but because they noticed Saddam's regime crumbling. The goal of Bush was to weaken Saddam's regime. There was just one little problem with that plan and that was that it worked too well, the uprise was actually succeeding. That made the Saudis as well as the US leadership a little worried about the future options for an Iraq without Saddam, so what they did was to specify the ceasefire conditions specifically as such that Saddam could crush the uprise, which shows the US policy has not been consistent at all.

To illustrate clearly what is meant with this and this isn't some conspiracy mambo jambo: Schwarzkopf specifically allowed Iraqi helicopters, not their airplanes, to fly in the country when US troops and jetfighters were still in the country, as to allow Saddam to crush the rebellion. They could easily have forbidden this if they wanted to. They also allowed his republican guard, which had been relaively spared during the Gulf War as Saddam held them back, to literally drive by US troops as to go crush the rebellion.


More left-wing hogwash and 'conspiracy mambo-jambo'.

During the cease-fire negotiations, Schwarzkopf agreed to let the Iraqi military fly helicopters because the bridges and roads had been destroyed, a reasonable request at the time. This agreement does not imply 'specific' permission to go and attack the Kurds by any stretch of the imagination.
Subsequent to, and as a result of this attack the northern 'No Fly Zone' known as Operation Provide Comfort was established.





Actually, Abu Nidal was killed before the invasion, which doesn't make Iraq look all that terrorist friendly. Even more, Abdul Rahman Yasin was held in an Iraqi prison and was offeredfor exchange to the US twice, which twice turned the offer down, probably so rightwing idiots like you could keep accusing Iraq of harbouring terrorists. Abu Abbas was also responsible for a single death, which makes him a murderer, barely a terrorist, and had rejected violence before he came to Iraq. Abu Musab al Zarqawi was on top of that operating outside the reach of Saddam in Northern Iraq, Kurdistan, where according to some he was killed in a US bombardment.



-Abu Nidal, founder of Abu Nidal Organization (ANO) who had reportedly been suffering from leukemia, died at his Baghdad home of gunshot wounds. It is unclear whether his death was a suicide or an assassination. The terrorist organization he founded continued to receive safe haven in Iraq right up to the war.

-Abu Abbas, whom you allege to be 'barely a terrorist' notwithstanding his piracy, hostage taking and conspiracy, was a humble murderer turned pacifist captured in the outskirts of Baghdad.

-Abdul Rahman Yasin- Offered for exchange and rejected by the U.S. at least once and possibly twice. In the first instance, Tariq Aziz, Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq and Saddam’s mouthpiece ‘alleged’ there was an Iraqi offer to Clinton in 1994. There appears to be no official corroborating evidence in support of this other that Aziz’s personal word. Saddam’s second offer was made in the 11th hour before the war to the Bush administration as a last ditch effort to save his own ass. It was perceived to be an insincere delaying tactic. Troops were already in the process of deployment and Saddam had passed the point of no return.

-Abu Musab al Zarqawi-

From the bipartisan SSCI Pre-War Intelligence Report:

Pg. 324

“The CIA provided four reports detailing the debriefings of Abu Zubaydah, a captured senior coordinator for al-Qaida…” “…For instance, Abu Zubaydah indicated that he had heard that an important al-Qaida associate, Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi, and others had good relationships with Iraqi intelligence.”


Pg. 337

3. Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi in Baghdad

In Iraq Support for Terrorism, the CIA noted:

A variety of reporting indicates that senior al-Qaida terrorist planner al-Zarqawi was in Baghdad . A foreign government service asserted that the IIS knew where al-Zarqawi was located despite Baghdad’s claims that it could not find him.

Pg. 338

As indicated in Iraqi Support for Terrorism, the Iraqi regime was, at a minimum, aware of al-Zarqawi’s presence in Baghdad in 2002 because a foreign government service passed information regarding his whereabouts to Iraqi authorities in June 2002. Despite Iraq’s pervasive security apparatus and receipt of detailed information about al-Zarqawi’s possible location, however, Iraqi intelligence told the foreign government service it could not locate al-Zarqawi.

…al-Zarqawi and his network were operating both in Baghdad and in the Kurdish-controlled region of Iraq. The human intelligence reporting indicated that the Iraqi regime certainly knew that al-Zarqawi was in Baghdad because a foreign government service gave that information to Iraq.

[VERITAS]

The comical charade by the rabid Bushi'ite apologists of maniacally weaving their chimerical gossamer threads into a tighrope inevitably fails to sustain them. Contrive as they may, al Qaeda operatives were rebuffed by Iraq - and actually were provided with more terrorist training within the US!

Their highwire pratfalls exceed in farcical mirth even Colin Powell's UN presentation of fraudulent excuses for invading Iraq. I strongly recommend replaying it. It is a riotous multi-faceted mockery of the truth!

O what a tangled web...



Iraq and bin Laden terror ties rejected (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/17/1087244986974.html?oneclick=true)

There were no credible links between Iraq and Osama bin Laden in the September 11 terrorist outrages in New York and the Pentagon in Washington, the independent commission investigating the attacks has found.

But it has found that Pakistan, now a US ally in the war against terrorism, supported bin Laden and gave him a haven.

The commission said bin Laden met a leading Iraqi official in 1994 but it found "no credible evidence" of a link between Saddam Hussein's government and bin Laden's al-Qaeda group.

In a report based on research and interviews by the commission staff, the panel said bin Laden explored possible co-operation with Saddam, even though he opposed the Iraqi leader's secular regime.

Agence France-Presse said the report stated: "A senior Iraqi intelligence official reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting bin Laden in 1994."

It said bin Laden asked for space to establish training camps and help in securing weapons.

The report said there were also reports of contacts with Baghdad after bin Laden returned to Afghanistan "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship".

"Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties exist between al-Qaeda and Iraq," the report said. "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaeda co-operated on attacks against the United States."

The report also said that Pakistan broke with Afghanistan's Taliban regime only after September 11, even though it knew the Taliban was hiding bin Laden.

"The Taliban's ability to provide bin Laden a haven in the face of international pressure and UN sanctions was significantly facilitated by Pakistani support," the report said.

"Pakistan benefited from the Taliban-al-Qaeda relationship, as bin Laden's camps trained and equipped fighters for Pakistan's ongoing struggle with India over Kashmir."

[SEVIL DOG]

There was no Al-queada in Iraq, repeat no Al-queada in Iraq, but there was Al-queada in Europe, Russia Asia and most other Middle eastern countries, how naive. Some how Al- Queada tippy toe around Saddam’s secret police and his informants and left Saddam’s Iraq alone.
1. Interrogations link Al Qaeda to Iraq
William Safire The New York Times
Saturday, August 24, 2002


Saddam and terrorism
WASHINGTON Brent Scowcroft and his leave-Saddam-alone acolytes on the president's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board insist that "there is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations." But here are two names of intense current interest to American counterterror agents:

One is Fowzi Saad Obeidi, an Iraqi intelligence officer. Under the name Abu Zubair, Saad headed a force of 120 Arab terrorists backed by about 400 renegade Kurds who were remnants of a defeated separatist group.

Their "Supporters of Islam" organization was sent by Saddam into the portion of northern Iraq under U.S. aerial protection to assassinate the democratic Kurdish leadership and to establish crude chemical warfare facilities in villages near the Iranian border.

The other name is of a senior Al Qaeda commander, Abu Omer Kurdi. Known at Qaeda headquarters in Jalalabad, Afghanistan, by the name Rafid Fatah, this aide to Osama bin Laden helped train many of these infiltrators and accompanied them on their mission.

Several of their attempts to kill the Kurdish leaders Massoud Barzani and Jalal Talabani or their deputies late last year, with the latest strike at a top aide just last week, were bloodily repulsed, with a score of the terrorists captured - including the Saddam agent, Saad, and the Qaeda operative, Kurdi.

However, the terrorist mission to set up facilities to weaponize poisons in Iraqi Kurdistan has been more successful. One produces a form of cyanide cream that kills on contact. A shipment of this rudimentary panic-spreader, produced by what interrogators say is a Qaeda-Saddam joint venture, was recently intercepted in Turkey on its way to terror cells in the West. These chemicals are not weapons of mass destruction, but for individuals who touch it - 'tis enough, 'twill do.

Such verification of data obtained from the captured terrorists awakened CIA bureaucrats who for nearly a year waved reporters away from evidence of Qaeda-Iraqi links lest it justify U.S. action. Belatedly, a CIA team interrogated some of the terrorists held in northern Iraq - comparing what they found with information gleaned from Al Qaeda prisoners at Guantánamo Bay.

Even religiously motivated terrorists crack in dismay at how much their CIA interrogator already knows. When added to prisoners' family details provided by Kurdish sources, the scope of U.S. knowledge led captives in Kurdistan to talk about poison production and Iraqi links because they figured there was little left to hide.

The new information has changed much intelligence analysis. The CIA has even stopped discrediting reports from Czech intelligence about a different point of Qaeda-Saddam :add01:

[VERITAS]

William Safire The New York Times
Saturday, August 24, 2002


Back when such Bushi'ite apologists were still mewling about finding DubyaMD stockpiles, etc. - all subsequently discredited, of course.

[Simon666]

The above is merely your personal opinion. Prior to and 'during' Gulf War One the stated objective as agreed to by all parties was to drive Iraq out of Kuwait and go no further. There was no authorization under the coalition to unseat Saddam.
That was the convenient rightwing excuse afterwards, to hide behind the UN when they're useful for once. In reality, it was Bush Sr. that asked Powell to stop the war because he and hisSaudi friends were worried the uprise wouldsucceed, not vice versa Colin Powell asking because the UN wanted it or anything.



During the cease-fire negotiations, Schwarzkopf agreed to let the Iraqi military fly helicopters because the bridges and roads had been destroyed, a reasonable request at the time. This agreement does not imply 'specific' permission to go and attack the Kurds by any stretch of the imagination. Subsequent to, and as a result of this attack the northern 'No Fly Zone' known as Operation Provide Comfort was established.
Well boo-hoo, when you have still troops in the country, you could specify as well not to have any enemy helicopters flying for the safety of your own troops, instead Schwarzkopf allowed them to fly as long as they didn't come too close to US tropsas to allow Saddam to crush the rebellion. Your argument that bridges and roads had been destroyed is ridiculous, even so, so fucking what? The Northern Fly Zone was on top of that only installed after it became clear that the uprise wouldn't succeed and as further tool to contain Saddam. On top of that, the no fly zones were also illegal.



-Abu Nidal, founder of Abu Nidal Organization (ANO) who had reportedly been suffering from leukemia, died at his Baghdad home of gunshot wounds. It is unclear whether his death was a suicide or an assassination. The terrorist organization he founded continued to receive safe haven in Iraq right up to the war.
When you have more than one bullethole in your body, you'd have to be pretty good at committing suicide don't you think?



-Abu Abbas, whom you allege to be 'barely a terrorist' notwithstanding his piracy, hostage taking and conspiracy, was a humble murderer turned pacifist captured in the outskirts of Baghdad.
Abbas was the leader of the group, he was never aboard the ship or anything. Even to say he's a murderer isn't sure as it isn't known whether he ordered the death of Leon Klinghoffer or the hijackers did that on their own initiative because Klinghoffer was causing trouble. He's merely the leader of a group that did one hijacking of a cruiseship that ended up killing one passenger and one failed attack on an Israeli beach without any victims as most spectacular exploits.



-Abdul Rahman Yasin- Offered for exchange and rejected by the U.S. at least once and possibly twice. In the first instance, Tariq Aziz, Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq and Saddam’s mouthpiece ‘alleged’ there was an Iraqi offer to Clinton in 1994. There appears to be no official corroborating evidence in support of this other that Aziz’s personal word. Saddam’s second offer was made in the 11th hour before the war to the Bush administration as a last ditch effort to save his own ass. It was perceived to be an insincere delaying tactic. Troops were already in the process of deployment and Saddam had passed the point of no return.
There is also no offficial US denial which ought to make you pretty suspicious. The second offer was by the way made in October 2001 after the 9-11 attacks as to counter US suspicions that Iraq had a hand in the September 11 attacks. It seems useful propaganda - Iraq holding terrorists - for getting to war with a regime for whatever reasons - Israel, oil, defense contracts, who knows - is more important than bringing terrorists to justice for the US regime.



A variety of reporting indicates that senior al-Qaida terrorist planner al-Zarqawi was in Baghdad . A foreign government service asserted that the IIS knew where al-Zarqawi was located despite Baghdad’s claims that it could not find him.
You seem to forget my dear Ike, that in that same report it was claimed Al Zarqawi went to Baghdad for treatment for his leg, wounded in Afghanistan, which allegedly consisted outof amputation. Later, US intelligence led to further politically motivated claims that Al Zarqawi was the man in the Nick Berg beheading video, which seems to have the full use of both legs. Currently, US intelligence believes Al Zarqawi has the use of both legs so that would make the first report which you use baloney, just like most of the rest of prewar US intelligence. Which makes one wonder whether US intelligence is an oxymoron, doesn't it?

[ike]

That was the convenient rightwing excuse afterwards, to hide behind the UN when they're useful for once. In reality, it was Bush Sr. that asked Powell to stop the war because he and hisSaudi friends were worried the uprise wouldsucceed, not vice versa Colin Powell asking because the UN wanted it or anything.


'In reality', it was bush senior who kept his word to abide by the terms of the coalition when he ‘ordered’ Powell to stop the war.



Well boo-hoo, when you have still troops in the country, you could specify as well not to have any enemy helicopters flying for the safety of your own troops, instead Schwarzkopf allowed them to fly as long as they didn't come too close to US tropsas to allow Saddam to crush the rebellion. Your argument that bridges and roads had been destroyed is ridiculous, even so, so fucking what? The Northern Fly Zone was on top of that only installed after it became clear that the uprise wouldn't succeed and as further tool to contain Saddam. On top of that, the no fly zones were also illegal.


Boo-hoo?

First you whine that we didn't protect the kurds from Iraqi copters and then when we do you whine that it was illegal. Your credibility has taken a nosedive.

You wouldn't happen to be part of the 'blame America first' crowd, now would ya?




When you have more than one bullethole in your body, you'd have to be pretty good at committing suicide don't you think?


After Abu Nidal died the Iraqi’s held a big press conference and photo-op over his corpse while signifying it as proof of their cooperation in the war on terrorism. Nobody knows how or when he received those wounds. Coming from Saddam it warrants just a little bit of skepticism, don’t you think? He could just as well have recently died from his leukemia. I don’t know one way or the other and neither do you. It’s at the very least no more far-fetched than some of the craziness you’re promoting.





Abbas was the leader of the group, he was never aboard the ship or anything. Even to say he's a murderer isn't sure as it isn't known whether he ordered the death of Leon Klinghoffer or the hijackers did that on their own initiative because Klinghoffer was causing trouble. He's merely the leader of a group that did one hijacking of a cruiseship that ended up killing one passenger and one failed attack on an Israeli beach without any victims as most spectacular exploits.


Hell, they should have given the guy a fvcking medal!




There is also no offficial US denial which ought to make you pretty suspicious. The second offer was by the way made in October 2001 after the 9-11 attacks as to counter US suspicions that Iraq had a hand in the September 11 attacks. It seems useful propaganda - Iraq holding terrorists - for getting to war with a regime for whatever reasons - Israel, oil, defense contracts, who knows - is more important than bringing terrorists to justice for the US regime.

The alleged Oct. 2001 offer is also uncorroborated. Mr. Aziz asserts there was an offer. If there really were offers, why didn’t the Iraqi’s make them public at the time the offers were made? They sure made a lot of hay over Abu Nidal. For propaganda purposes it certainly would have been in their interest to do so.

The absence of either an official confirmation or a denial, unfortunately, is fuel for the fevered imaginations of left-wing idiots to disseminate conspiracy theories.

The actual offer I was referring to was made in Feb. 2003. I direct your attention to the NY Times:

THE STRUGGLE FOR IRAQ: DIPLOMACY; Iraq Said to Have Tried to Reach Last-Minute Deal to Avert War

By JAMES RISEN (NYT) 2649 words
Published: November 6, 2003

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/06/politics/06INTE.html




You seem to forget my dear Ike, that in that same report it was claimed Al Zarqawi went to Baghdad for treatment for his leg, wounded in Afghanistan, which allegedly consisted outof amputation. Later, US intelligence led to further politically motivated claims that Al Zarqawi was the man in the Nick Berg beheading video, which seems to have the full use of both legs. Currently, US intelligence believes Al Zarqawi has the use of both legs so that would make the first report which you use baloney, just like most of the rest of prewar US intelligence. Which makes one wonder whether US intelligence is an oxymoron, doesn't it?


The report I quoted from was the:

The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq,

From the U.S. Senates Select Committee on Intelligence.

It took its information from a very large variety of intelligence reporting. It makes no mention of the amputation. You should read it.

[Simon666]

'In reality', it was bush senior who kept his word to abide by the terms of the coalition when he ‘ordered’ Powell to stop the war.
That is indeed the excuse he used. You ought to know better reality often doesn't match the word of politicians.



First you whine that we didn't protect the kurds from Iraqi copters and then when we do you whine that it was illegal. Your credibility has taken a nosedive.
I'm not whining it is illegal, I was just noticing it. Many people don't know that. On top of that it illustrates that they were only "protected" when their uprise no longer had a chance to succeed. Before that, no fly zones would have been just as illegitimate so there is no UN resolution or coalition terms to hide your cowardly face behind this time. I wonder what excuse you'll come up with now.



You wouldn't happen to be part of the 'blame America first' crowd, now would ya?
I would be part of the "America isn't the morally enlightened white knight it claims itself to be", which a lot of you people hate into the marrow of their bones. Put me in a corner with the "blame America first" group should you desire so.



He could just as well have recently died from his leukemia.
If that isn't doing anything about terrorism, well, capturing Abu Abbas didn't do much as well as he died from bad health within months without facing trial. Considering him, your notion they should give him a medal is ridiculizing my comments. He is however far less important than some would like you to believe as Abbas may have only been indirectly responsible for a single death.



It took its information from a very large variety of intelligence reporting. It makes no mention of the amputation. You should read it.
Whether that report on prewar intelligence mentions it or not - perhaps because it wasn't considered important - the amputation was mentioned by prewar intelligence.

[Eat Me]

We invaded Iraq for many reasons

- we thought they had WMDs (cause we gave them WMDs during the war with Iraq actually)

- they have oil that we need and bad guys like Saddam shouldn't have oil money to do bad things

- they tried to assasinate George Sr and needed a good bitch slapping

- they are middle eastern people and therefore fare game in the post-911 world

- better to fight Islamic extrmists in the heart of Islam than anywhere else, so it might as well be Iraq where we can snag some oil in the process

I think that about sums it up.

[death2aq]

We're there, and we're square. So get used to it.
:add09:

[VERITAS]

The neocons' PNAC-stated objective, the establishment of a permanent US military presence in Iraq, is of course the primary reason for their unprovoked attack and bloody occupation. The highly-touted purported pretext, the non-existent DubyaMD stockpiles, fit their agenda of exploiting the unrelated al Qaeda terrorism of 9/11/01. That agenda comported with the self-interest of Ahmad Chalabi who fed false intelligence to the Bushies, lies they were clearly eager to embrace. Thus, the current ongoing disaster delights the theocratic leadership in Iran as Islamic fundamentalism envelops a formerly secular neighbouring nation, now fertile recruiting ground for increased terrorism directed at the US by the neglected Mr bin Laden on extended holiday in the Hindu Kush.

Meanwhile, rendered militaristically flaccid by the Iraqi fiasco, Junior Bush of necessity now adopts a submissive posture before a potent Iran - vying for precedence in the administration of favours with frisky Mr Kim, of course.

[abbood]

Iraq was invaded because the sick Saddam and sons were pure murderers and terrorist supporters.

But they all gone now!!
So , what next??

[abbood]

I thought we invaded because, if there is one thing the neocons can't stand more than filthy arabs, it is filthy arabs that are not able to vote.

Nothing is filthy but your mouth and your brain and sick thoughts,:food_06::food_08:Complete Idiot :mad_12:.

[OldGit]

Nothing is filthy but your mouth and your brain and sick thoughts,:food_06::food_08:Complete Idiot :mad_12:.

Some information for you Abood. Philobus is being ironic. He has posted here for two years about the deceit, corruption and wickedness of the neocon position. He is posting in the style of his opponent.

[abbood]

(1)Bad people like Saddam shouldn't have something as good as a huge oil reserve.(2) They might use the money for something stupi and dangerous. (3) Also, he treats his people like shit.

(1)Agrees (2) How would you know are you an expert in State and oil strategy!!
(3) That is so right.

Since we are the good guys, we were right to step in and straighten it all out.

We caused more dammage than it was before, check with the casuality families.
And look at your tax money and your government budget for war!!


Look at Europe and Japan and South Korea. They're glad we straightened them out.
Yeah right, their are damming us day and night and celeberating the day that we got the hell out of their, Get real!!!


Wow! America! Thank god, huh?

Wow.......huh????? whatever dude.

[abbood]

Some information for you Abood. Philobus is being ironic. He has posted here for two years about the deceit, corruption and wickedness of the neocon position. He is posting in the style of his opponent.

Thanks my friend for clearing that out. How you been I dont see you around in the religous Discussion any more , I hope that we didnt upset you or something??:)

[OldGit]

Thanks my friend for clearing that out. How you been I dont see you around in the religous Discussion any more , I hope that we didnt upset you or something??:)

I avoid wasting my time with psychotic obsessives like Chaos Troll and the inappropriately named poster known as 'Sage'.

I'm fine thank you, as I hope are you and Cali Girl.

[abbood]

I avoid wasting my time with psychotic obsessives like Chaos Troll and the inappropriately named poster known as 'Sage'.

I'm fine thank you, as I hope are you and Cali Girl.

We are just great and thanks for asking, Caligirl said hello:happy_11: .
As far as the Ignorants group I dont blame you at all, but I see you got some in rant and rave as well, I hope you are handling things like you do always on the very top of them, I know you do although we do miss you, and kinda hope that you could stop by sometimes, it would be an honor for all of us, and we all could be enriched of your knowledge:rolleyes: .

Yours Abbood.

[abbood]

There was no Al-queada in Iraq, repeat no Al-queada in Iraq, but there was Al-queada in Europe, Russia Asia and most other Middle eastern countries, how naive. Some how Al- Queada tippy toe around Saddam’s secret police and his informants and left Saddam’s Iraq alone.
1. Interrogations link Al Qaeda to Iraq
William Safire The New York Times
Saturday, August 24, 2002


Saddam and terrorism
WASHINGTON Brent Scowcroft and his leave-Saddam-alone acolytes on the president's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board insist that "there is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations." But here are two names of intense current interest to American counterterror agents:

One is Fowzi Saad Obeidi, an Iraqi intelligence officer. Under the name Abu Zubair, Saad headed a force of 120 Arab terrorists backed by about 400 renegade Kurds who were remnants of a defeated separatist group.

Their "Supporters of Islam" organization was sent by Saddam into the portion of northern Iraq under U.S. aerial protection to assassinate the democratic Kurdish leadership and to establish crude chemical warfare facilities in villages near the Iranian border.

The other name is of a senior Al Qaeda commander, Abu Omer Kurdi. Known at Qaeda headquarters in Jalalabad, Afghanistan, by the name Rafid Fatah, this aide to Osama bin Laden helped train many of these infiltrators and accompanied them on their mission.

Several of their attempts to kill the Kurdish leaders Massoud Barzani and Jalal Talabani or their deputies late last year, with the latest strike at a top aide just last week, were bloodily repulsed, with a score of the terrorists captured - including the Saddam agent, Saad, and the Qaeda operative, Kurdi.

However, the terrorist mission to set up facilities to weaponize poisons in Iraqi Kurdistan has been more successful. One produces a form of cyanide cream that kills on contact. A shipment of this rudimentary panic-spreader, produced by what interrogators say is a Qaeda-Saddam joint venture, was recently intercepted in Turkey on its way to terror cells in the West. These chemicals are not weapons of mass destruction, but for individuals who touch it - 'tis enough, 'twill do.

Such verification of data obtained from the captured terrorists awakened CIA bureaucrats who for nearly a year waved reporters away from evidence of Qaeda-Iraqi links lest it justify U.S. action. Belatedly, a CIA team interrogated some of the terrorists held in northern Iraq - comparing what they found with information gleaned from Al Qaeda prisoners at Guantánamo Bay.

Even religiously motivated terrorists crack in dismay at how much their CIA interrogator already knows. When added to prisoners' family details provided by Kurdish sources, the scope of U.S. knowledge led captives in Kurdistan to talk about poison production and Iraqi links because they figured there was little left to hide.

The new information has changed much intelligence analysis. The CIA has even stopped discrediting reports from Czech intelligence about a different point of Qaeda-Saddam :add01:

copy and paste is very bad especially when you cant write the same word that was listed in the original post,
your post;

There was no Al-queada in Iraq, repeat no Al-queada in Iraq, but there was Al-queada in Europe, Russia Asia and most other Middle eastern countries, how naive. Some how Al- Queada tippy toe around Saddam’s secret police and his informants and left Saddam’s Iraq alone.
The original post;

1. Interrogations link Al Qaeda to Iraq
William Safire The New York Times
Saturday, August 24, 2002
Sorry but I know it hurts. wake up!!

[Bman]

If a beachhead of democracy can be established in Iraq, there's an excellent chance that we'll see Democratic reforms start to sweep across the region where anti-American tyrants are keeping their populations in control by the skin of their teeth. The influence of a free Iraq could in time help lead to a free Iran, a free Syria, a free Lebanon, a free Saudi Arabia, a free Egypt, etc, etc. We're not just shooting for an Iraqi Democracy, we're hoping to see freedom spread across the entire region. In summary, what we must remember about Iraq is that it's not simply an optional war like Bosnia or Haiti, it's an essential part of the war on terrorism and the linchpin of our efforts to help bring democracy to the Middle-East. Potentially, what we're doing in Iraq could be as important as the work the "Greatest Generation" did in Japan and Germany after WW2, perhaps more so. The Bush administration's decision to take down Saddam and help the Iraqi people build a better, freer country was not just the right thing to do, it is without question in America's interests.



Totally, 100% delusional

There's something spreading across the region alright... and it ain't democracy