Goose From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 1840 posts, RR: 16 Reply 2, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1041 times:
Iraq has had a pretty long connection to terrorism - but not necessarily al-Queda, but rather some other upstandingcitizens (on the second link, the pertinent information is almost at the bottom....) ......
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1014 times:
Never could understand how people so blindly discounted the idea that they could be working together at some level.
I never could understand, James, how so many blindly accepted the word of the President and his staff, that there WAS a connection, when for years, OBL had a huge hatred for Saddam Hussein, yet so many Americans bought it hook, line and sinker, without any proof. And there is no proof. As Bob Woodward said tonight on CNN, even the President doesn't believe there was collaberation between the two anymore.
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 995 times:
Does it matter, The war on Terror is bigger the Al-quinto.
And like it or not, Iraq was giving 20 grand to palistinians who blew themselves up, and was harboring Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal.
Yes, but funny, L-188, none of that was mentioned BEFORE the war in Iraq. It was, 24/7, about WMD's, which we've yet to find, save one shell. Again, the post-facto changing of the reasons about the war, by those, beginning with the president, who are less-than-honest about the true nature of the alleged reason we went to war (hint-the U.S. got a UN resolution passed on the subject).
Bush has diverted billions of dollars, put 800 GI's in the grave, not to mention thousands of Iraq's, becuase he didn't keep his eye on the REAL war on terror, and not concentrating all our resources on Al Qaeda worldwide, and getting rid of OBL.
It isn't that far fetched, and shouldn't be too difficult for even mildly intelligent people to understand.
Perhaps it isn't far-fetched, James, but your wishful thinking doesn't make it fact, either.
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 989 times:
Actually it was.
But the media didn't play it up.
Bullshit. Bush, Cheney, Rice, Wolfitz, Powell, et al, were out daily, after 1441 was passed, until the war started, pushing the imminent danger of all these WMD's. Or was Powell's presentation at the UN just a sideshow for othe issues? Another great lie being foisted by "I'm not a Republican".
The fact is, L-188, WMD's were the only game in town, until the Administration found out they were taken for a ride, then started to change their tune. And you swallowed it that load like a cheap porn starlett doing a take to a bad porn movie.
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29514 posts, RR: 59 Reply 12, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 983 times:
Actually Alpha1, I was in favor of waiting till the second term for the war.
It would have solve several issues.
No election or reelection to worry about.
It would have placated the demmands of the world to allow the UN to again work ineffectively
We could still concentrate on the unfinished buisness in Afghanistan
We could have placed more resources in the desert
We could have planned a bit better
We might have been able to operate from two fronts, given more time to negotiate with Turkey.(I wonder how many GI's died over that)
And at the time, despite your apparent seasonal Alzheimers I proported waiting.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 982 times:
L-188, I wasn't even willing to wait till a second term. We would have 800 find young Americans alive today, and billions save, or spent on something more worthwhile, had Bush pused for a 2nd UN Resolution, authorizing a few thousand UN weapons inspectors, and found out the truth about this alleged WMD program before we went to war.
Had we given it one more year-till early this year, and found out the truth, we wouldn't be in this mess we're in today, would we? And, had Saddam actually been found to have these weapons, then he would have looked like the bad guy, in the eyes of the world, and the U.S. would not have looked like it thirsted for this war, which is what it looked liked when Bush told the UN to go fuck itself, and he started the war at the first possible moment he did.
But the fact is, Bush wasn't interested in the truth about WMD. He wanted this war, to even the score because Saddam tried to kill Daddy, and because he thought it would be quick and easy as his dad's war in '91 was, and would look good on his re-election resume.
Tbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7011 posts, RR: 27 Reply 15, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 966 times:
((ignoring Alpha1 and L-188 generic political tirades))
When I read the article, it makes me mad when I see our government knew so much information about the terrorists, and didn't do anything to capture or kill them. This isn't a problem with Bush or Clinton, its a problem with the CIA and FBI. There are some serious problems in those two organizations if they know the whereabouts and information, but don't do anything to act upon that information.
Why do you think George Tenet recently resigned? Personal reasons? I think its because there's been so many fuckups in the CIA that he's had enough at the top.
Lehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 22 Reply 17, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 962 times:
In a way I thought that Tenet resigned as a fall-guy for the "fuck-ups"; I do not think anyone was pressuring him to boot, just it may be his personal reason to leave before the real political mud-slinging begins.
Still, it kinda puts another damper on the Admin. Bush won't let Rumsfeld go cuz he's needed, wasn't Tenet needed too? Guy's got experience in things the next guy doesn't, he should have stayed. What's up with that?
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12956 posts, RR: 79 Reply 18, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 944 times:
Saddam didn't worry about offing his own family if they stepped out of line, so the idea of having any links (save for a few has-beens in retirement) with external terrorist groups is laughable, the cash he sent to HAMAS was purely to raise his stock in the Arab street.
Co-operating with OBL, while keeping a very divided nation under an iron fist?
I don't think so, then there was OBL's denouncing of Saddam, who was a secular ruler remember.
Judging by the rather twisted logic of some in here, Saddam sending cash to HAMAS and keeping a couple of aging terrorists (both of whom's network were defunct) in homes, being a reason to attack Iraq, then presumably in the 70's and 80's the UK would have quite within their rights to send a Vulcan bomber across the Atlantic to drop some high explosive on the H.Q. of NORAID.
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 944 times:
The problem is that I don't believe that we would have found anything else out differently then we did.
EXACTLY! And we would have been spared this politically-driven war! But it's a "problem" with you because you, and a whole bunch of right-wing nuts WNATED this war, no matter what the outcome on WMD's was. Cheney, Wolfwitz, Perle, Rice, etc, WANTED this war, and convinced Bush it was a good thing, be damned the facts on th weapons he said it was about!
Score one for me. You don't care about the truth-you wanted this war.
The only reason why Iraq let Blix back in in 2002 is that the US started to mass forces on the border for the invasion. If they where never deployed there nothing would have changed.
Fine, then you leave those forces in the region in case Saddam did anything stupid, but he didn't did he? WE were the ones that were the aggressors here, not anyone else. WE pushed for this war, when it was obvious that inspections didn't have anywhere near enough time to be effective, or to find squat.
We should have left troops there, given inspections a lot more time. Then, had Saddam lashed out, or we had found weapons, we could have fully justified the war to the world, and, more than likely, avoided the rift we caused with our allies and with the UN. And, more than likely, in such a case, Turkey would have allowed us to use their bases for an invasion.
But when we went in at the first moment, instead of giving inspections and diplomacy a decent shot, WE looked like the thugs, we looked like the ones thirsty for a war (which, of course, the Administration was, of that there's no doubt).
Not only has this war become a military problem, the way we started it was a political and diplomatic clusterfuck, and so damaged our reputation in the world, it could take years (after another President takes over, becuase it will NEVER be restored under Bush) for us to fix the damage.