Talk Elections

I am posting to counter the repeated assertionn by anti-war liberals that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and therefore should not have been a target for regime change.  Here is the evidence I believe irrefutably counters that idea.

First, there is of course the meeting in Prague between an Iraqi intelligence agent and Mohammed Atta, the lead 9/11 hijacker.  The CIA does not believe the meeting took place, increasing the probability that the story is true.  The Czechs have a video of the meeting taking place, records showing the two men in question were both in Prague, and stand by the evidence two years after it was first presented.

Then there is the fact that Abu Musab Zarqawi, Al Qaeda's chemical weapons expert was in Baghdad before the US invasion, received some medical attention, and trained with some Iraq intelligence officers.  Zarqawi is still in Iraq, coordinating the Al Qaeda side of the anti-US resistance.

After the war ended, we learned that Zarqawi was not the first Al Qaeda emissary to take a trip to Baghdad.  In 1998, a top aide to bin Laden traveled to Iraq to discuss possible cooperation.  We learned this from a stack of documents found after the fall of Baghdad that detailed Iraq's history with Al Qaeda that you can read about here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq27.xml
(for some reason, the link doesn't work right, so you have to type in the address manually)

Let us now move to the most damaging piece of evidence that Iraq played a role in 9/11, the training camp at Salman Pak.  You can read an in depth description of the camp here: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/salman_pak.htm

And see a picture here: ()

Here, you can read the comments of Iraqi defector Sabah Khodada (a former Army Captain) about the camp: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html

Located 15 miles southeast of Baghdad, the camp became a part of the Iraq war debate when former CIA Director (1993-1995) R. James Woolsey, a former Democrat congressman from Oklahoma, began discussing the camp as a key element of Iraqi cooperation with Al Qaeda.  Woolsey said on March 3, 2003, "It is more likely than not that some degree of common effort in the sense of aiding or abetting or conspiracy was involved here between Iraq and Al Qaeda." He cited Salman Pak as the core of his case for cooperation.

On that same day, Laurie Mylroie, a former Harvard, said that "It took a state like Iraq to carry out an attack as really sophisticated, massive and deadly as what happened on 9/11"  Mylroie has long warned about Iraq as a threat to America via state sponsored terrorism.  She wrote a highly regarded book some years ago detailing Iraqi involvement in the 1993 Al Qaeda attack on the WTC, including connection between lead bomber Ramzi Yousef and the Iraqi Mukhabarrat, how Iraq took in another bomber and provided safe have for him, and how the attackers got their Kuwaiti passports from the Iraqi government (with the exception of Yousef who, being ever so deceptive to authorities, just took a regular old Iraqi passport.  You see, while occupying Kuwait, Iraq printed thousands of fake Kuwaiti passports at Kuwait's own ministry building and gave them to terrorists around the word.

Why these two high profile people making such similar comments on the same day?  It is not coincidence.  They were testifying under oath in a civil suit filed by 9/11 victim's families in a Manhattan federal court.  The families were suing Iraq's government for culpability in the death of their loved ones.  The case was presided over by Judge Harold Baer, who was appointed by President Clinton to the Federal Court.  Judge Baer ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, and the decision was upheld last week by the 2nd Circuit Court.

In other words, my argument has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt in TWO federal court cases!  How can anyone argue with this simple fact- Iraq and Al Qaeda cooperated extensively on many projects of terror, and cooperated specifically on the 9/11 attacks.  The connection was there, for those willing to see it

ok...this is a dead horse, and you sir/madam are beating it quite hard. Let's face the facts: we went there, the damage has been done, we f---ed up, and now to fix the place up. Instead of namecalling and divisively trying to create wedge issues, let's look forward and try and end this nasty quagmire asap.

I think you posted on the wrong thread, because you obviously were not reading the above post. I accept your apology for making us all a little dumber with your extremely partisan and laughable comments

how is a call to step forward and not dwell in the past partisan? ???

Iraq has been invaded, it's too late to debate whether the war is correct or not, we need to work together to see this thing be resolved.

If it's too late to debate whether the war was wrong or not, then I think you should look at the other side of the aisle. They are the ones blasting this president with this "He betrayed us!","He mislead us" talk. Ford is just defending his party against the Democrat slime machine with facts. He said nothing partisan in his post.

Word.

Very interesting, Ford. I'd like to see what this will reveal in the future.

I think the most condemning counterpoint is that if there were a valid reason to think that Iraq was involved, our President would make sure every man, woman, child, and household pet in this country knows it.

The President, for some reason, chose the weakest possible case for war (WMD).  My support was entierely contingent on Iraq's support for terrorism, which extends well beyond Al Qaeda.  I will never know why Bush didn't use this in his case for war, and if he had, I don't think anyone would doubt why we were there.  The reality, I think, is that sometimes people make mistakes.  Not talking about Al Qaeda was a mistake.

I guess this is what someone posts when defending the indefensible.

Bush has admitted:
1. No WMDs have been found
2. They have found no link between Iraq and 9/11

Both of those were just things they said to get approval for a war they wanted to do anyway. They had to get the US troops out of Saudi Arabia, and felt that they needed a friendly government in the region and so they chose to 'regime change' Iraq. Regime changing SA, Iran or Syria would have all been fine but those were not politically sellable.

If the Bush Admin are no longer pushing the WMD and 9-11 link thing....then it is pretty obvious it never existed.

Neither did Carey...

I'm not just talking about before the war.  If he were to discover this minute that there was a serious link he would stand up on the battlements and cry out for all the world to hear.  Why the heck wouldn't he?

Saddam was among many people - in fact a large majority of the muslim world - who rejoiced to see the World Trade Center destroyed and America harmed.  Reason enough to identify them as enemies and kill them.

A good question, and one I do not have an answer to.  My best guess is that if people were told "We need/needed this war because of the training Saddam gave to terrorists, they might wonder why nothing was done by the careerists at DoS and DoD about the camps long ago.

That said, is there a hole in the evidence I am presenting?  No one has found one yet, except to say that Bush was too dumb to use it.  But I already knew Bush was an idiot, so he isn't a factor to me.

Here is Carey's post:


To describe the decision to go to war as a  up, the results of the war as "damage", accusing me of trying to put forth a "wedge issue" when all I did was post my case that Iraq was cooperating with Al Qaeda on the 9/11 attack and past attacks, and then decalring the war a "quagmire", sounds to me like a recitation of Democratic talking points.  If you think reciting Democratic talking points is not partisan, so be it.

Bush may say this, and if he wants to defend himself, he can get a username on the forum and rebut you.  I am not George Bush's Press Secretary, so I will not defend or attack his comments.

Would someone please have the guts to offer a reasoned criticism of the evidence I have presented?

Every counter has been some kind of comment to the effect of "Well, Bush said there isn't, and even though I say everything else he believes is wrong, it is convenient for me to quote/paraphrase him here, because there is nothing better I can offer as a rebuttal to your God-like, well reasoned post."

no, that was me generally not liking the plight of soldiers and civilians being killed in a war that is appearing to have no immediate end.

If I were to be partisan I would say something along the lines of "This is a failure of a war that resident Bush and the rest of the Republicans lied to getting us into"

or

"Republicans are a bunch of whiney totalitarians who can't stand any point of view that is in anyway different from their own. They make mindless, baseless smears against any political opposition, as well as indict them in pathetic ad hominem accusations. If the tables are turned on them, however, the rules change and they will cry foul and claim partisan bashing at the slightest sign of negativity and when somebody makes a point they can't refute, they just attack the messenger rather than the message."

those two are partisan remarks. What I made wasn't. However, if you want to turn this into a childish whinefest, be my guest - I am above that.

The fact that you responded shows that you are not actually above such things.

shhh! Don't point out my inconsistencies! :P

But he has smart people working for him.  Cheney certainly isn't an idiot, and neither is Rove.

I disagree about Rove, but that may just be me asking too much out of my team.

As I said, I really don't know why the White House chose the line of attack that they did.  I will probably never know.  But I think MY case is solid.

Here is Carey trying to impersonate me (I assume).  Quote:

"Republicans are a bunch of whiney totalitarians who can't stand any point of view that is in anyway different from their own. They make mindless, baseless smears against any political opposition, as well as indict them in pathetic ad hominem accusations. If the tables are turned on them, however, the rules change and they will cry foul and claim partisan bashing at the slightest sign of negativity and when somebody makes a point they can't refute, they just attack the messenger rather than the message."

Let me ask you, precisely what is your "message"?  As I said before, you seem to jut recite Democratic talking points while contributing nothing to the discussion.  Then, you defense of this stupidity is to claim that I was mean to you.  There is no "message" in your posts.

Look, if you have somthing legitimate to say, say it.  But don't just try to get in a pissing contest with me, that is not what this board is for.

listen, don't be so deluded for crying out loud. My comment yesterday was not an attack on you, nor an attack on any political institution. It was a call to look forward. I am not hijacking your thread with negativity - you are managing to do that all by yourself. I don't know you, I don't care about you, I am not stalking you, pardoying you, nor trying to pick a fight with you. All I did was make one neutral comment (which I confess may have seemed a little harsh) and you go and attack me with labels. I wasn't the one who made a spiel about partisanship, nor was I the one who wrote the slur about me doing lewd things with kangaroos (yes, I caught that childish comment.)

However, I don't want your threwad to be bogged down with anymore of this crap, so if it ends this nonsense I am willing to apologise for posting negatively on this thread:

I am sorry for causing you grief and I am sorry if you thought I was singling you out for negativity or something. Please forgive me.

Ford, you selectively quote and interpret a lot of shady sources there (conservatives have also proven that Bill Clinton was responsible for the murder of some 60 people), but if the establishment wanted to it could find connections between Al Qaeda and Libya (or any other shady Arab country), where Tony Blair announced intentions to visit for a friendly trip. Hell the wool was pulled over all of our eyes on WMD last year. After reading pages of "evidence" onlline posted by pro-war supporters I honestly believed there were WMD in Iraq (along with about 30 other anti-American dictatorships). The bottom line is you never proved that Iraq was involved with 9/11. Just because a federal judge ruled that some 9/11 victims should get some money, doesn't prove that Saddam did it.

In my mind if there was such compelling evidence, the Bush administration would make it very clear. It would be all over the headlines. Because newspapers won't print a story unless they're ready to stand by it. On the other hand if the story really were true, the newspapers would be all over it. And since we have Mr. Hussein in custody, he would be charged with it. But that's not the case. It's wishful thinking on your part.

Here is the reality.  As far as WMD goes, we have found precursor chemicals, delivery systems, research facilities, scientists who worked on the programs, etc.  I don't know what it will take to convince liberals that we found sufficient WMD to satisfy their expectations.

I also think my case for this is far more solid than the Bush WMD case ever was.  Bush never had satellite imagery of weapons facilities that he could show to people.  He didn't have mountains of documents.  He didn't have a bunch of defectors spilling the beans on WMD (I can think of only one, Khdir Hamza).  All he really had was the UNSCOM people, who said 10% of Iraq's arsenal was still out there somewhere.

As for newspapers not printing the story because it isn't reliable, did you even notice that one of my sources WAS a newspaper?

As for "selectively quoting" my "shady" sources.  Is a Harvard professor a "shady" source?  If so, why was she on the faculty?  Is James Woolsey a "sahdy" source"?  If so, why did Bill Clinton make him CIA director?  I Judge Harold Baer a "shady" soource?  If so, why is he on the federal bench?

Again and again, your last point gets brought up by people.  As I keep saying, I do not know why Bush didn't forcefully link Iraq to Al Qaeda and other global terrorist groups.  I will likely never know.  He didn't, though.  And I don't believe that if he did, any liberals would suddenly jump up and say "Well, golly-gee, if Bush says it, it must be true!" and that seems to be the crux of most people's counter argument.  But we all know that you WOULDN'T just leap up and agree with Bush, solets not pretend you all would.

Are you kidding?  You preface your "apology" by calling me deluded, claiming to be above my level of debate, claiming that I am the root cause of all problems with negativity here, and accusing me of "labeling" you.  This is not a serious apology, do not expect it to be treated as one.

As for the kangaroo bit, I deleted that, thinking it best to keep raw emotion out of the debate.  You, I noticed, did not delete your F-bomb, deciding instead to throw around profanity in place of ideas.

At no poiint in this thread have you said a single meaningful thing.  You have been a distraction from minute one.  If you really want to show you are sorry, get off the thread so serious people can talk about serious things.

Huh? The Kay report said there were no WMD found. Bill O'Reilly is the most stubborn man in the universe and he already apologized over this.


You have satellite imagery of weapons facilities? You have mountains of documents and defectors who came to talk to you? Or you mean the US government has these things? The US government is not claiming that it's been "proven" that Saddam or Iraq was involved in 9/11. If they did, they would be denying justice to the families of 3,000 victims.

If you are so convinced WMD were found, send it to the New York Times, I'm sure they'll print a story as big as that. As for one of your sources being a newspaper, your assertion is that Iraq was involved in 9/11. That is not what the newspaper source says. It said Iraq secretly invited an Al Qaeda person to Baghdad in 1998. That's it. Sounds bad, but after conquering the entire country, that's what we found. If we conquered Libya (or Syria, or Algeria, or Sudan), we would probably find the same thing.

Harvard Professor, newspaper & former CIA director: If you read closely you will find that NONE of those people/sources claimed that Iraq was involved in 9/11. One of them said something about Iraq and a Al Qaeda member possibly cooperating...but didn't say the nature of the cooperation. Another one was talking about the WTC bombing in 1993, or what Iraq did after the Persian Gulf war... none of this stuff proves your assertion at the top of the post, and some of which has a pretty weak connection with the topic at hand. The assertion that "only a government" could be sophisticated enough to carry out something like 9/11 doesn't make sense because after 9/11 and up to today the entire global establishment seems to think it was not done by only a government. The only evidence you have is from an Iraqi defector claiming "I can assure you" that people trained by Saddam did 9/11, but he has no evidence, all he has is photos of a plane. So these witnesses were called on to testify in a trial we know nothing about in terms of background, or the specific charges. If Hussein's government was a defendant (if that's even possible), Hussein himself was not present. What kind of trial is this? It can't be a criminal trial because there's no defendant. To sue for money damages means a civil trial, but that's between two private parties, who are US citizens. If I remember correctly the familites of 9/11 also sued the pants off the Saudi government for trillions of dollars. Does that mean we should go charging into Riyadh? Overall, it looks like the entire trial and judgment was a political ruling.

As for your last point, you claim we would never believe Bush if he compelling made an argument that Iraq did 9/11.... hmmm, how do I know Osama bin Laden did 9/11? How did I know that on September 12? It was because my government, led by George W. Bush, told me! And guess what, I believed him, and still do, and would even without the videotapes. I believe because the story was picked up by the global press, because it is widely accepted, because a global diversity of sources and experts has had the opportunity to challenge it and have not substantially done so. I also believed Colin Powell after his presentation that there probably were WMD in Iraq.

First of all, I wasn't talking about my case on WMD being stronger, I never thought the case was impenetrable.  I was talking about my case for war by basing it on Iraq's ties to terror is stronger than Bush's case as based on WMD.  I should have spoken more clearly.

Iran, Syria, North Korea, and Bush's best friends who he refuses to release any information about their /11 involvment (the Saudi's) were and still are a much bigger terror threat than Saddam was

Was North Korea a bigger threat?  I don't think so.  They are a problem, sure, but they don't have any involvement with Islamic terrorism.  Iran and Syria are threats, I agree, and I wish Bush would deal with them.  As for Saudi Arabia, I agree again, but there are (unfortuneately) real practical constraints that limit our options there.  Like, for example, an exceedingly anti-US population (you think occupying Iraq was bad?  Just try Saudi Arabia.).  And yes, Buhs is too close to the Saudis.

What really took the cake with the Saudi's was the blacking out of any Saudi related material in the documents.  Even Shelby R ALA who was one of the heads of the Joint Intelligence Committe that made the report sharply criticized Bush over the Saudi secretevness.  Anyway I don't know if we should have invaded Saudi Arabia or not, we shoul have put a hell of a lot more pressure on them.  Also when your figthing a war on terror doesn't it make sense to get rid of your bigger threats first.  Saddam is a piece of crap evil tyrant, but as far as threats to the United States he was way down the list

I'd say Saudi was the #2 terror sponsor after Afghanistan when we started this campaign.

If I were to list the threats, I'd say
1. Afghanistan
2. Saudi Arabia
3. Iran
4. Iraq
5. Syria
6. Libya
7. Sudan

We did the right thing going into Afghanistan right away.  I also think we were right to make Iraq the second to go, because Iran and Saudi, IMHO, are tough nuts to crack.  Saudi has a hostile population, and Iran has hostile terrain.  If you can get yourself in a position to threaten those guys by putting forces in Iraq, and in the process, take out a state sponsor of these groups, you've made a solid move.

Still, I wish there was an easy answer to the Saudi problem, because you and I know they are sending cash to Al Qaeda and these other groups as I sit here typing, and I can't begin to estimate how many could die because of it.

I would put Syria ahead of Iraq, and although they aren't Islamic Fundamentalists North Korea because of their dangerous weapons program.  Pakistan would also be high up on that list I don't trust Musharaff..  We were never going to do anything with Syria or Iran by going into Iraq

Saudi Arabia is a mess, by befriending the government Bush has turned a mess into a disaster.  Going to war with them would have been very tough no quuestion about it, but all the secretive stuff is miind boggiling.  He says that we will do everything to we can to stop terrorism and get the ones that attacked us.  Meanwhile #1 in both has become our allies.  He said we will find out everything about the attacks, but refuses to relase info, blacks info out from reports vital to that

That's right, I forgot Pakistan.  Yeah, they are right up there.  Not because I don't trust Musharraf, but because I don't trust those around him.

Although I am a supporter of the war, I agree with California Dreamer that WMD and any specific connection to the 9/11 plot were hyped.

However, we didn't go to war because we needed a friendly government in the Middle East to park our troops in, although years from now we may look back and see that as one good outcome.

This is about projecting American power into a region that has been subjugating it's own people through tyranny, whether secular or theocratic, stealing oil revenues to fatten the friends of the regimes while using educational and religious institutions to brainwash it's populations with virulent anti-American and anti-Israeli propaganda that shifts the blame.

Only a thorough political reconstruction of the region offers the possibility that the press, the schools, the mosques and other institutions that have been hijacked by corrupt and extremist influences can return to their more natural function of serving and educating the population.

There really is no choice - we're not going get anywhere with a strategy of chasing bands of militants through the mountains and into villages that they choose because they're friendly to them.

A strategy of regime change, military stabilization, and quick return to political self-rule is the right way for America to wage this war, as the sole remaining super-power, and as a nation with a system of government that guarantees basic rights for it's people.

It's not all that different than World War II, except that we're fighting sub-government elements spread out over multiple tyrannical regimes. It is, in fact, classic liberal foreign policy - only after Vietnam, the right and left have changed sides, and now we call it neoconservatism.

Carey, Angus is going to eat you, he prefers the taste of alapacas to llamas, you are an alpaca, hence, you = his dinner tonight.

WMDs are in existence as per my prediction. Today chemical weapons were found in an artillery shell modified to be a roadside bomb. A mustard shell round was also found about 2 weeks ago.

North Korea was way more dangerous than Iraq. Who knows what sort of nightmarish stuff goes on there. There have even been reports of street hawkers selling human flesh, not to mention prisoners being used to test out chemical weapons. Evil place.

Its an evil place, sure.  But more dangerous than Iraq?  I don't think so.  They have a more capable military, and can project force better, but that doesn't make then more dangerous.  Israel has more military capabilities than either Iraq or North Korea, but I don't consider them a threat.  Part of what makes me think of the Islamo-facsist states as bigger threats right now is the nature of the governments, not just their capabilities.  Iraq is more aggressive than North Korea, as they were actively funding terrorism on the West Bank for example.  North Korea is a reprehensible bunch, but its been 51 years since they started a war, but only 14 years since Iraq did (Kuwait), and they have started two wars in the last 24 years (Kuwait and Iran).  If one accepts myy premise of Iraq as state sponsor of terrorism in the case of 9/11, it is 3 wars in 24 years that they have started.  It grows to 4 and 5 if you include the civil war against the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs respectively.  Iraq was more aggressive, so they are more dangerous.

1. Starting with Bush's speech to the UN in 9/2002, the goal was to get the UN to enforce its resolutions. These resolutions were centered on WMD. Therefore, UN approval centered on WMD. Inspections were restarted to see if Iraq had WMD programs. Everyone agreed that Iraq had WMD. So that was the reason most talked about. Human rights violations or support of terrorism (911 included or not) was not going to be enough for the UN to support the Iraq war, for the UN, it had to be WMD. Therefore, the discussion was primarily about WMD.

2. The election is in November, not May. Time can only improve the evidence of a terrorist-Iraq-911 connection and WMD. To make the case now and continue to make the case in a piecemeal fashion from now until November only weakens the argument. Bush would be better off waiting for the next update from the inspectors, gathering all of the evidence to that point, and then making a stronger case. The public will not listen if it comes out in bits and pieces. The argument is best made all at once in August/September.

3. As for the quotes from Bush supposedly admitting that there were no WMD STOCKPILES, I don't recall such a quote.  My recollection is that he did make some statements that WMD STOCKPILES had not been found so far and that they MAY never be found in IRAQ. That still leaves the very real possibility that the WMD stockpiles were moved to Syria just prior to the Iraq War or that additional WMD stockpiles will be found.

4. As for the "No link between Iraq and 911" admission by Bush, again, please provide the quote. My recollection is that was in reference to US intelligence evidence available BEFORE the Iraq War. Secondly, there is a difference between a LINK between Iraq and 911, EVIDENCE of a connection beween Iraq-911, and a LINK between Iraq and TERRORISM.

I would suggest that is more likely than not that there is a connection between Iraq and 911. (As found by the Federal Court)

I would suggest that is clearly a LINK between Iraq and TERRORISM, both before and during the Iraq War.

I would lastly suggest that even though there is evidence of such, the level of evidence does not reach the level of indisputable proof that Iraq instigated 911.

Saddam's Iraq wasn't behind al Quaeda, it was just behind every other terrorist org on Earth.  That's justification enough for me.

If he wasn't behind Al Qaeda why was their a camp in northern Iraq? If Saddam had such a strong hand in most of Iraqs actions wouldn't he have known they are there?

Its pretty clear that Iraq and Al Qaeda worked together.  I wouldn't say Iraq was their #1 sponsor, but they cooperated.

North Korea do sponsor terrorism. Didn't they blow up a Korean Airliner a few years ago?

That is a truly terrifying place and it's populace are brainwashed, unlike in Iraq were 60% of the population hated Hussein.

If we went after N. Korea we would basically be attacking China since that is their biggest sponser. I don't think any nation is ready to take China on head to head.