Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree on Saudi Arabia. Wahabi Extremism is the scurge of Islam. But the difference in Iraq and Saudi Arabia is Saddam Hussein was a secular Sunni and was not a devout Muslim. He allowed smoking and drinking. Not so much in Saudi Arabia. So Iraq has the best chance to succeed as a secular Democracy.
Irrelevant. Besides, ever stop to think that MAYBE the "people" of Iraq, while not necessarily wishing to live under dictatorship, might LIKE an "Islamic state"? Look how many people on this board want to bring the United States back to "under God!"
Iraq probably has LESS of a chance to succeed in democracy BECAUSE of its three separate ethnic groups that can't get along. Too bad our dear Leaders aren't exactly history or sociology scholars.
And what? The Lebanese democracy not good enough to serve as a "model" for the Middle East?
Quote:
Originally Posted by American Libertarian
An Iraqi was linked to the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, where 1,000 were injured and 6 were killed. Evidence and intelligence has shown a link to Iraq & Saddam Hussein.
Please link to this "evidence and intelligence." All I've ever read was that he harbored one of the WTC suspects.... which isn't exactly him paying the bills and plotting with terrorists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by American Libertarian
How can ABC News "forget" this evidence, intelligence, and links between Sadam Hussein and Bin Laden today?
This intelligence could not be ignored after 9/11.
Like your supporting links, your intelligence is old:
Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed - 2004
The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.
[...]
The staff report said that bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq" while in Sudan through 1996, but that "Iraq apparently never responded" to a bin Laden request for help in 1994. The commission cited reports of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda after bin Laden went to Afghanistan in 1996, adding, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."
CIA Learned in '02 That Bin Laden Had No Iraq Ties, Report Says
The CIA learned in late September 2002 from a high-level member of Saddam Hussein's inner circle that Iraq had no past or present contact with Osama bin Laden and that the Iraqi leader considered bin Laden an enemy of the Baghdad regime, according to a recent Senate Intelligence Committee report.
Although President Bush and other senior administration officials were at that time regularly linking Hussein to al-Qaeda, the CIA's highly sensitive intelligence supporting the contrary view was apparently not passed on to the White House or senior Bush policymakers.
Senate report: No Saddam, al-Qaida link
Long-awaited analysis also finds that anti-Saddam group misled U.S.
WASHINGTON - There’s no evidence Saddam Hussein had ties with al-Qaida, according to a Senate report issued Friday on prewar intelligence that Democrats say undercuts President Bush’s justification for invading Iraq.
Bush administration officials have insisted on a link between the Iraqi regime and terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Intelligence agencies, however, concluded there was none.
This intelligence could not be ignored after 9/11.
No, the intelligence was "Cherry picked" and contrary intelligence was IGNORED. Bush was full steam set on overthrowing Iraq and becoming a big time War Time President that he capitalized on the natural fear and insecurity following 9/11 and we have been subject to about 5 different justification for going to war with Saddam: From WMD to Democratization to terrorist ties. The goal post seems to move with each new revelation of false motive.
British Intelligence Warned of Iraq War
Blair Was Told of White House's Determination to Use Military Against Hussein
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 13, 2005; Page A18
Seven months before the invasion of Iraq, the head of British foreign intelligence reported to Prime Minister Tony Blair that President Bush wanted to topple Saddam Hussein by military action and warned that in Washington intelligence was "being fixed around the policy," according to notes of a July 23, 2002, meeting with Blair at No. 10 Downing Street.
"Military action was now seen as inevitable," said the notes, summarizing a report by Richard Dearlove, then head of MI6, British intelligence, who had just returned from consultations in Washington along with other senior British officials. Dearlove went on, "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD [weapons of mass destruction]. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
British Prime Minister Tony Blair spoke with his country's intelligence chief about seven months before the Iraq invasion. Blair was advised that the threat from Saddam Hussein might have been overstated. (Pool Photo By Adrian Dennis)
"The case was thin," summarized the notes taken by a British national security aide at the meeting. "Saddam was not threatening his neighbours and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."
Anyone at this point who still believes that Bush and pals went to Iraq because they ACTUALLY, TRULY believed there was this dire threat is being naive and trusting waaaay too much in an Administration that has proven time and again that it doesn't DESERVE our trust. Or respect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by American Libertarian
In 2002 Russian President, Vladmir Putin, actually warned Bush that Saddam Hussein was planning terrorist attacks for inside America:
Funny, that. Considering that even if true, the Russians were still one of the most adamant opponents of the use of force in Iraq. Seems like THEY weren't quite as tunnel-vision blinded by the saber rattling and were able to think through the consequences of a regime toppling in Iraq.
Face it: Iraq is a failed foreign policy. It WILL go down in history as one of the most poorly planned and executed clusterf---- the US has ever started. We have two sets of people to blame: The Bush Administration, and its continued enablers who bend over backwards to justify the unjustifiable.
Look, I know it must be sad and particularly hard as a veteran and American to think that all those lives and dollars have been flushed down the toilet for a mistake. But refusing to even admit it was a MISTAKE (regardless of whether you believe we should leave now or later) is pretty much a rapidly disappearing viewpoint in this world of 6 billion people.
Russia and France,I think they were more concerned with economic ties rather than preserving peace in Iraq.
With years of having the U.N picking and choosing conflicts,and having American forces deployed under U.N conditions even though it was not Americans fighting for America,when 9-11 happened I gave little regard to what the U.N thought because for once in a long time American forces were being used for American defense.
So after tragedy America was pissed off,I'm still am but I was naive thinking that all Iraqis were wanting Democracy.The U.N had proven to be unwilling to be tough,and was corrupt so America was stepping up to the plate.
After having 8 years of a president sucking up to the U.N even when it hurt American principles,the U.N charter is not above the Bill of Rights and constitution,I thought we had a president now that would lead for America first.
Well I realize now that niether party in their current condition can be the saviors,the best seems to happen when one party controls the Congress and the other the Executive branch so they can counter balance both of there inabilities.
Last edited by lionking; 09-01-2007 at 09:21 AM..
Reason: spelling,always misspelling lol!
I don't think so. 80% of our casualities are from IED's. And it's almost impossible to win a war against a road side bomb, no matter how much help the world would or could have given us.
Sorry, but I have to disagree with you on this. If we had more help from other countries, more resources could be used for patrolling the roads to make sure the terrorists don't put IEDs on the side of the roads. Sometimes strength is in numbers, and like I mentioned, this is a very tough war to fight because we're not fighting a regular army. I've heard many instances where Americans were saying that one day an Iraqi could be your friend, the next day he could drive a car loaded with explosives into a building and kill you.
My point about the Russians and Europeans is why are we and the British the only ones who are fighting to protect their interests? The French, Germans, Russians and several other countries are the primary importers of Iraqi oil. To me it would seem only fair that if they wanted oil, they're going to have to do their share in protecting their interests.
Like the majority of people here, I don't like this war and what it turned into, and I hope we can get out of there as soon as possible.
Irrelevant. Besides, ever stop to think that MAYBE the "people" of Iraq, while not necessarily wishing to live under dictatorship, might LIKE an "Islamic state"? Look how many people on this board want to bring the United States back to "under God!"
Iraq probably has LESS of a chance to succeed in democracy BECAUSE of its three separate ethnic groups that can't get along. Too bad our dear Leaders aren't exactly history or sociology scholars.
Iraq has the BEST chance of establishing a successful democracy BECAUSE of it's TRIBAL systems that many times are a mix of different ethnic groups that CAN and do get along.
Quote:
Iraqis embrace Secular Democracy
Aug. 2, 2007
Iraqi attitudes continue to shift toward secular values
ANN ARBOR, Mich.—The political values of Iraqis are increasingly secular and nationalistic, according to a series of surveys of nationally representative samples of the population from December 2004-March 2007.
Findings from a July 2007 survey are expected to be released before the end of the summer.
So far, the surveys show a decline in popular support for religious government in Iraq and an increase in support for secular political rule, said sociologist Mansoor Moaddel, who is affiliated with Eastern Michigan University and the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research (ISR).
"Iraqis have a strong sense of national identity that transcends religious and political lines," Moaddel said. "The recent out-pouring of national pride at the Asian Cup victory of the Iraqi soccer team showed that this sense of national pride remains strong, despite all the sectarian strife and violence."
In the March 2007 survey, 54 percent of Iraqis surveyed described themselves as "Iraqis, above all," (as opposed to "Muslims, above all" or "Arabs, above all") compared with just 28 percent who described themselves that way in April 2006. Three-quarters of Iraqis living in Baghdad said they thought of themselves in terms of their national identity, as Iraqis above all.
"This is a much higher proportion than we found in other Middle Eastern capitals," said Moaddel, adding that such high levels of national identity may counteract tendencies to split the nation based on sectarian differences.
It takes only 1 radical Muslim to load a car full of explosives and kill hundreds of innocent Iraqis.
This does not mean Iraq is in a full sectarian civil war. They are not.
Their is a small minority of Iraqis attempting to create chaos and sectarian war in Iraq and they are failing.
Again, Iraq has the highest percentage of mixed Sunni & Shia Marriages in the Middle East!!
Their nationalist pride and tribal loyalty is stronger than ethnic or sectarian violence.
Iraqis are used to living in a secular society, since Saddam
was a Secular Sunni.
Drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes are forbidden by Islam, but Iraqis
LOVE to smoke and drink.
al-Qaeda was beheading Secular Sunnis for smoking cigarettes. This is one of the many reasons the Secular Tribal Sunnis turned on al-Qaeda.
Secularism is the majority in Iraq.
Sectarianism is a small minority trying to create chaos and they are failing.
Quote:
Iraqi marriages defy civil war spectre
Arab World
By Ahmed Janabi
Some Iraqis believe that a low-intensity civil war is already on.
Many Iraqis dismiss the possibility of civil war in their country saying the Iraqi tribal, ethnic, religious and sectarian mosaic
is interconnected through blood and marriage.
Despite widespread speculation at home and abroad that Iraq is on the verge of civil war, couples
from different backgrounds have been defying the theory by marriage.
Young men and women – as was the case before the US-led invasion
three years ago - from different ethnic, religious and sectarian backgrounds
still flock to the civil courts every morning for marriage contracts.
Sahira Abd al-Karim, a civil lawyer in Baghdad, confirmed to Aljazeera.net that Iraqis
from different backgrounds are still marrying each other.
"Sectarianism is something shameful among Iraqis, especially the middle class," she said.
"As a lawyer in the civil courts in Baghdad I have seen Sunni marrying Shia, Arab marrying a Kurd.
"I myself am a Sunni Arab but my brother has been married
to his Shia Arab wife for more than 40 years, and their eldest son married a Turkmen girl.
I really cannot see how these people [Iraqis factions] would fight each other."
A civil judge in Baghdad who preferred not to reveal his identity told Aljazeera.net that
the rate of mixed background marriages has declined slightly, as has marriage in general.
Slight decline
"Definitely the number of mixed marriages has declined recently, but we have to take into
consideration that marriage cases in general have fallen due to deteriorated security
situation and immigration.
People are leaving Iraq looking for safety," he said.
The judge agreed with Sahira that urban Iraqis regard sectarianism as shameful.
"Families of young couples usually get embarrassed when I ask them do they
want the marriage to be finalised according to Sunni or Shia Islamic Sharia?
They do not want to be labelled as sectarians, and you see each
family encourages the other to tell the judge to finalise the marriage according to its sect."
Marwan Muhammad, 26, and Zainab Hussein, 25,
were declared husband and wife by the civil judge in al-Karkh Civil Court in Baghdad this month.
Marwan, a Sunni Arab, and Zainab, a Shia Arab, fell in love shortly after
they started their university studies four years ago.
Security fears
"Due to the current situation in Iraq, I and Zainab agreed to live in a room at my parents' house.
My family promised Zainab's family to treat her like a dear daughter," Marwan said.
Despite their happiness, the couple were disappointed not to have been able to had celebrate
their wedding properly because of the security situation.
"Curfew starts at eight in the evening, and that would not allow us to hold a proper wedding party," Marwan said.
Iraqi wedding parties usually kick off early in the evening, with a band singing until dinner time.
Singing and dancing continues after dinner until late at
night and sometimes until dawn, but due to ongoing partial curfew people tend
to end their weddings early evening.
Ban Haddad, 35, a neighbour, said: "We missed the scene of dozens of nicely decorated cars touring
the streets of Baghdad after midnight to celebrate a newly married couple."
Haddad, a Shia Arab, graduated from Baghdad University in 1991 and in 1995 she married a Sunni Arab man.
"Believe it or not the Sunni and Shia thing is mentioned in our house for sake of humour, you know like
I joke with my husband and tell him that Sunni are not good husbands or they are stingy …
Things like that just to laugh, I do not know how they introduced sectarianism to all aspects of life,
the situation is awful now," she said.
Tribal factors
Some Iraqis say the tribal factor is crucial in pushing away the danger of civil. All Arab countries are tribal societies which value the blood bond more than sect.
Tribal leaders dismiss the possibility of civil war between ordinary Iraqis, saying they all belong
to tribes that contain Sunni and Shia clans.
Shaikh Muhammad Ahmed al-Mislit, a senior tribal leader, ruled out the possibility
of Iraqi clans fighting each other because of different sectarian belief.
Al-Mislit belongs to the Arab tribe of al-Jobur which numbers about three million Iraqis and contains Sunni and Shia clans.
MWC News - A Site Without Borders - - Iraqi marriages defy civil war spectre (http://mwcnews.net/content/view/5582/231/ - broken link)
Iraqis did embrace freedom and democracy. Iraqis were threatened with death and beheadings, if they voted, and were caught with ink on their fingers!!!
Iraqis waited in line with their children all over Iraq. They risked their own lives under threat by al-Qaeda to vote for the first time in their lives.
Whenever the question of Iraq comes up, we have to ask ourselves - was it worth a trillion dollars, Iranian domination of the country, and 4,000 American lives? Is that a fair price to pay for the outcomes we have experienced there?
Iraqis waited in line with their children all over Iraq. They risked their own lives under threat by al-Qaeda to vote for the first time in their lives.
There are about 1.4 million Iraqis who don't even LIVE in their own country anymore because they've fled the civil war that was never planned for.
1773 Iraqi Civilians have "officially" been counted among the dead in the month of August 2007 alone, and that's not counting god knows how many that have been kidnapped and will turn up beheaded in a field somewhere, and elections have been overshadowed by a meddling Iranian influence.
Happy pictures of people voting do NOT make either the justification for invasion, NOR the botched occupation any different.
Besides, what kind of "Libertarian" espouses the use of American military power to invade and "transform" other countries?
Quote:
Originally Posted by American_Libertarian
12 million Iraqis experienced Freedom, for the first time in their lives, if you like it or not.
Like your supporting links, your intelligence is old:
Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed - 2004
The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.
[...]
.
The Downing Street Memo was a British Official's opinion in a memo.
Intelligence is never 100% and is many times circumstantial. The 9/11 Commission Report stated many "links" and "contacts" between al-Qaeda and Iraq. Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank, from the Washington Post, are giving their own spin to the report.
I don't need anyone to tell me what to believe. I get the actual documents, read them for myself, and form my own opinion not based on anyone else's influence.
Dana Milbank is the jack a** that went on Keith Olberman dressed like this when Dick Cheney shot his friend as a joke when he is supposed to be a serious NON-PARTISAN journalist:
I don't like Dick Cheney, but this unprofessional conduct reveals Milbank for the hack that he is.
The guy is a partisan hack and is being disengenuous in analyzing the 9/11 Commission Report.
After 9/11 the intelligence showing links between al-Qaeda and Iraq had to be taken seriously.
Did the CIA have photos of Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein hanging out together? Hell no, but intelligence is never an exact science.
Let's look at the 9/11 Commission Report's analysis of "LINKS" between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein/Iraq:
On Page 58 of the 9/11 Commission Report is states -
Quote:
"Bin Laden built his Islamic army with groups in various countries, including Iraq."
On Page 61 of the 9/11 Commission Report is states:
Quote:
"Bin Laden willing to explore a relationship with Iraq"
Quote:
"Bin Laden agrees to stop supporting activities against Saddam; Reports indicate Saddam may have supported, or at least tolerated, Ansar al-Islam."
"To protect his own ties with Iraq,Turabi reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad’s control.
In the late 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Ladin’s help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam.There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy."
Quote:
"Bin Laden met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer, and asked for assistance. No evidence of an Iraqi response. This was not the last attempt."
I posted this previously from the Clinton Administration 3 1/2 years before the Iraq War invasion:
The CIA found evidence of Iraqi Scientists aiding al-Qaeda in the production of VX nerve gas in Sudan.
The CIA took a "soil sample" outside of the plant and showed it conatained O-Ethyl Methylphosphonothioic Acid (VX Nerve Gas precursor)
The evidence the administration has cited as justification for the attack consisted of a soil sample secretly obtained months ago outside the pharmaceutical factory, the Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries, the officials said. Officially the administration has refused to describe its evidence in any detail, or to say how it was obtained.
The sample contained a rare chemical that would require two more complex steps to be turned into VX, one of the deadliest nerve agents in existence, and the chemical, whose acronym is EMPTA, has no industrial uses.
The United Nations and the United States have long agreed that Iraq is extremely skilled at many kinds of VX production, having worked for years to perfect the best process.
The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, also said there was evidence that senior Iraqi scientists had aided the efforts to make VX at that factory, and at another plant a couple of miles away.
In May of 2003, in a piece called The Al Qaeda Connection, he broke an otherwise underreported story of what appeared to be an inadvertent publication in Uday Hussein's newspaper of a listing by name of Iraqi regime officials, including the envoy to Pakistan:
In its November 16, 2002, edition, Babil identified one Abd-al-Karim Muhammad Aswad as an "intelligence officer," describing him as the "official in charge of regime's contacts with Osama bin Laden's group and currently the regime's representative in Pakistan." A man of this name was indeed the Iraqi ambassador to Pakistan from the fall of 1999 until the fall of the regime.
Hayes reports that early in 1998:
Quote:
then-President Bill Clinton traveled to the Pentagon, where he gave a speech preparing the nation for war with Iraq. Clinton told the world that Saddam Hussein would work with an "unholy axis (sound familiar? - ed.)of terrorists, drug traffickers, and organized international criminals." His warning was stern:
We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. . . . They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein.
The timing, once again, is critical. Clinton's speech came on February 18, 1998. The next day, according to documents uncovered earlier this week in Baghdad, Saddam Hussein reached out to bin Laden. A document dated February 19, 1998, and labeled "Top Secret and Urgent" tells of a plan for an al Qaeda operative to travel from Sudan to Iraq for talks with Iraqi intelligence. The memo focused on Saudi Arabia, another common bin Laden and Hussein foe, and declared that the Mukhabarat would pick up "all the travel and hotel costs inside Iraq to gain the knowledge of the message from bin Laden and to convey to his envoy an oral message from us to bin Laden." The document further explained that the message "would relate to the future of our relationship with him, bin Laden, and to achieve a direct meeting with him." The document also held open the possibility that the al Qaeda representative could be "a way to maintain contacts with bin Laden."
There is certainly much more to learn about the "contacts with bin Laden" after this meeting. What is clear, though, is that it is no longer defensible to claim there were no contacts. The skeptics, including many at the CIA, who argued that previous evidence of such links was not compelling, ought to be convinced now.
Hayes published a more detailed accounting of a) what was alleged in Powell's February presentation at the U.N., b) what evidence they had but didn't use in that session, and c) what was learned since the war.
The CIA has confirmed, in interviews with detainees and informants it finds highly credible, that al Qaeda's Number 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, met with Iraqi intelligence in Baghdad in 1992 and 1998. More disturbing, according to an administration official familiar with briefings the CIA has given President Bush, the Agency has "irrefutable evidence" that the Iraqi regime paid Zawahiri $300,000 in 1998, around the time his Islamic Jihad was merging with al Qaeda. "It's a lock," says this source. Other administration officials are a bit more circumspect, noting that the intelligence may have come from a single source. Still, four sources spread across the national security hierarchy have confirmed the payment.
In interviews conducted over the past six weeks with uniformed officers on the ground in Iraq, intelligence officials, and senior security strategists, several things became clear. Contrary to the claims of its critics, the Bush administration has consistently underplayed the connections between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Evidence of these links existed before the war. In making its public case against the Iraq regime, the Bush administration used only a fraction of the intelligence it had accumulated documenting such collaboration. The intelligence has, in most cases, gotten stronger since the end of the war. And through interrogations of high-ranking Iraqi officials, documents from the regime, and further interrogation of al Qaeda detainees, a clearer picture of the links between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein is emerging.
Dr. Lauria Mylroie is the author of "Study of Revenge: Saddam Hussein's Unfinished War Against America" (American Enterprise Institute Press, 2000). It was recently published in paperback, as The War Against America (HarperCollins, 2001).
SADDAM'S TERRORIST TIES
by Laurie Mylroie
New York Sun
October 19, 2004
The central issue in the presidential race is, arguably, the legitimacy of
the Iraq War. Is this conflict a necessary part of the war on terrorism? The
answer is decidedly yes, although this seems to be a fight the White House
would rather duck, even as documents now trickling out of Baghdad suggest
Saddam Hussein had extensive ties with terrorists, including with Islamic
militants.
One source for this claim is the widely discussed, but scarcely read, report
of the Iraq Survey Group, the coalition intelligence team that went into
Iraq after the war. As Richard Spertzel, an Iraq Survey Group member who
also had served with the United Nations Iraq weapons inspections team,
explained in the Wall Street Journal, "Documentation indicates that Iraq was
training non-Iraqis at Salman Pak in terrorist techniques, including
assassination and suicide bombing. In addition to Iraqis, trainees included
Palestinians, Yemenis, Saudis, Lebanese, Egyptians and Sudanese."
Soon after September 11, 2001, two Iraqi defectors came forward, explaining
that Iraqi intelligence had trained non-Iraqi Arab militants at itsextensive
compound at Salman Pak, an area south of Baghdad. Among the skills taught
there was hijacking airplanes. One defector even drew a sketch of the area,
showing a passenger plane parked in the southwest corner of a large
compound.
When American marines took over Salman Pak in early April 2003, they indeed
found the terrorist training camp, the airplane, and the foreign terrorists.
An American military spokesman affirmed, "The nature of the work being done
by some of those people we captured. ..gives us the impression that there is
terrorist training that was conducted at Salman Pak." The marines "inferred"
that the airplane "was used to practice hijacking," the Associated Press
reported. Saddam's apologists claim the camp was for counterterrorism
training, but that seems highly improbable.
Iraqi documents, dating from January to May 1993, suggest that Baghdad's
training of terrorists goes back over a decade - at least to the period
following Iraq's August 1990 invasion of Kuwait. That training was
interrupted by the 1991 war, but appears to have resumed not long
afterwards.
These documents, leaked by a Pentagon official to Scott Wheeler of Cybercast
News Service, are posted on its Web site. Bruce Tefft, a retired CIA
counter-terrorism official who worked on Iraq; MEMRI's Nimrod Raphaeli;
Middle East scholar Walid Phares; and this author have all expressed their
confidence in the documents' authenticity. They are on official Iraqi
letterhead and are essentially a 40-page correspondence between Iraqi
intelligence and Saddam's office.
n the PBS interview, Mylroie discusses the way that the Clinton administration simply refused the notion that Iraq was involved with acts of terror against the U.S., that would have required a response, and Bill had other priorities:
"The reason that the Clinton administration did not want the evidence of Iraqi involvement coming out in the Trade Center bombing was because, in June of 1993, Clinton had attacked Iraqi intelligence headquarters. It was for the attempt to kill George Bush. But Clinton also believed that that attack on Iraqi intelligence headquarters would take care of the bombing in New York, that it would deter Iraq from all future acts of terrorism. And by not telling the public what was suspected of happening -- that New York FBI really believed Iraq was behind the Trade Center bombing -- Clinton avoided raising the possibility the public might demand that the United States do a lot more than just bomb one building. And Clinton didn't want to do more. Clinton wanted to focus on domestic politics, including health policy.
The Clinton administration's unwillingness to identify Iraq as the suspected sponsor of the Trade Center bombing was a terrible blunder. Not only did the 1993 attack on Iraqi intelligence headquarters not deter Saddam forever; indeed, Saddam was back already in January of 1995 with that plot in the Philippines...
...It didn't deter Saddam forever, and equally important, it generated a false and fraudulent explanation for terrorism called "the loose network theory" -- that terrorism is no longer carried out by states, that the Trade Center bombing was a harbinger of a new terrorism carried out by individuals or loose networks without the support of state.
And once that notion took hold, Saddam could easily play into it by working with Islamic extremists like Osama bin Laden, putting them front and center, leaving a few bin Laden operatives to be arrested. That also played into this fraudulent theory and led directly to the events of September 11"
And again this ABC News report repeats all of the Clinton Adminstration's known evidence of a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq 3 1/2 years before the Iraq Invasion:
You are entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts. Saddam Hussein has a long history of aiding and harboring terrorists.
There were known and stated links between al-Qaeda and Iraq.
This could not be ignored after 9/11.
We don't need CIA Intelligence to tell us that it's a fact that Saddam's top nuclear scientist Dr Obeidi in 2003 revealed he was hiding key nuclear plans, nuclear blue prints, and nuclear centrifuge parts to restart the Nuclear Weapons Program at Saddam's order.
My Father was killed in that bombing. I am from WV, and only now 25 years later are the victims families finally going to gain redress from the terrorists who did it. I am torn between what is right and what is wrong because it is too personal an issue with me. I was only 2 1/2 when he died, and I never knew him because of it. Personally I feel like they got away with murder, and now they have to pay.
After 243 Marines were blown up in the Beirut barracks bombing of October 1983, Reagan simply walked away. He wisely saw the situation in Lebanon as a messy civil war where further American action - even if successful - would simply cost needless American lives and money. Yes, it was painful not to "avenge" the deaths of those 243 Marines, or to "finish their mission." But you see, that would have been playing into the 'sunk costs fallacy' - and Reagan was not fooled.
Also note that the main retaliation against Hezbollah for the bombing came from FRENCH fighter pilots, who bombed Hezbollah positions they had identified on our behalf. So much for the idea that France never 'helps us out.'
This is almost comical. Pulling out of Labanon was the biggest mistake of the Reagan administration. All you have to do is look to Lebanon, which has many similiarities to Iraq - primarily the sectarian issues) as evidence of everything that could go wrong if we pulled out of Iraq prematurely.
- Civil war would ensue as did in Lebanon.
- Terrorist groups would be created and already existing terrorist groups would find a training safehaven as did Hezbollah in the south of Lebanon and Sunni terrorist groups in the mountain regions.
- Terrorist operations would be launched from Iraq as skyjackings, assassinations were launched from Lebanon.
- A hostile country (Iran) would soon install a puppet government and run the country through their intelligence network as Syria did in Lebanon.
-25 years from now Iraq will still be trying to find peace as Lebanon is now.
That is what happens if a President decides to pull out of Iraq like Reagan chose to pull out of Lebanon.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
[/quote]
Oh spare me. Seriously.
