What is the Mission?

To leave Iraq in a good enough state so that it can stand on its own.

To not leave Iraq until the multinational Corporations there have drained every possible penny in profits from it, totally regardless of how many human beings on either side are maimed and killed and with no regard for the destruction of the infrastructure.

What is the Mission?




http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t33/texrose752/savingyourass.gif

To make Iraq an example of what can happen when a people's
decide to Live their life,instead of Fear for it.
To no longer wear the yoke of a brutal dictator.
To go about their daily lives,actually prospering and in Peace.
Like Japan after WWII.
Iraq is a hub in the Middle East.
Make it stable and the other surrounding countries will feel
compelled to adjust or at least change their middle ages
mentality.
History will write it was,in the least,worth a shot.
History was never intended for status quo.

During a debate with then-Vice President Al Gore on Oct. 11, 2000, in Winston-Salem, N.C., Bush said: "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. . . . I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have a kind of nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not."

During a debate with then-Vice President Al Gore on Oct. 11, 2000, in Winston-Salem, N.C., Bush said: "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. . . . I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have a kind of nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not."


Reminds me of the guy & gal who voted for the war, until they voted against it.
I can't think of a politician who has not said one thing, then gone and done just the opposite, not one.

I think the General was given a very shitty job and had a very difficult stay in Washington today,military men dont do politics very well.

I think the General was given a very shitty job and had a very difficult stay in Washington today,military men dont do politics very well.

I take issue with that.I think in many a War Movie,Officers do
a Marvy job of handling politics.
It's the Pols,who stumble over every claymore mine on the
way to the lunch tent.

Yeah,but saving private Gonzales hasnt been made yet.

http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t33/texrose752/savingyourass.gif

Saving us from what, exactly?

Saddam's nonexistent WMDs?

The mythical AQI?

What new, non-existent bogeyman are you terrified of today SMW?

The mission? Help that country become stable and self-sufficient and get the hell out of there.

What is the Mission?


It's doubtful, with your antagonistic, rude presentations that a 4 star general would even listen to your questions, let alone answer them.

I think the General was given a very shitty job He is the exact right guy for this very wrong job. It's too bad his legacy will be tied to this mess.

I'm not surprised. No one, not even smartmouth, could answer the question.

Bush already declared "Mission Accomplished". Remember?

Now Betrayus says the surge is "working"... Then why the hell don't we get out?

I'm not surprised. No one, not even smartmouth, could answer the question. Seeing that your question was addressed to General Patraeus, you're not likely to get an answer since he probably doesn't post on AllForums.

However, if you're asking us what the mission is or should be, you were given answers by Phyrex, Freethinker, Foolsworth, and myself.

Betrayus I have often said that I do not support the administration's policy re Iraq. But this characterization of a decent man and fine field commander is pure T Bullshit.

What is the Mission?

I BELIEVE THEY TOLD US IT WAS TO FIND THOSE PESKY WMD's, so it appears to be an utter failure.

I have often said that I do not support the administration's policy re Iraq. But this characterization of a decent man and fine field commander is pure T Bullshit.
He wears a uniform so he's inherently evil.

He wears a uniform so he's inherently evil.There may be evil afoot, but it's usually the Suits.

Saving us from what, exactly?

Saddam's nonexistent WMDs?

The mythical AQI?

What new, non-existent bogeyman are you terrified of today SMW?

Nothing new, Dharma... the same ole ones who murdered 3000 of our countrymen six years ago today. Remember??

Or maybe you know of more terrorist attacks on our soil that've happened since then?

No?

Wonder why?


http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t33/texrose752/Bush.jpg

Bush already declared "Mission Accomplished". Remember?


do you remember when he said that?

Right after we swept through Iraq, took Saddam down, and probably performed the most successful defeat of a country in history.

I'd say that's a "mission accomplished" if you ask me...

I'm not surprised. No one, not even smartmouth, could answer the question.

Bush already declared "Mission Accomplished". Remember?

Now Betrayus says the surge is "working"... Then why the hell don't we get out?

YOu should read his testimony. He answers the question.

Wonder why?No need to come here. If you are happy taking US men and women, sons and daughters to him for his easy targeting, then you are right in line with AQ's stated objectives.

I see smartmouth is now posting the picture of the world's most wanted terrorist.

I see ...

... veracity in anything said by someone who begins with "I hate Bush..."

I'm not surprised. No one, not even smartmouth, could answer the question.

Bush already declared "Mission Accomplished". Remember?

Now Betrayus says the surge is "working"... Then why the hell don't we get out?


Because, Bush does not want to look like he lost a war while he is President -
it's as simple as that, no matter to him how many Americans are killed over there.
He has a sick ego - I doubt his own wife can even stand him anymore.

Nothing new, Dharma... the same ole ones who murdered 3000 of our countrymen six years ago today. Remember??

Yes, I do remember that Osama Bin Laden attacked us.

Not Iraq.

You remember Bin Laden, don't you?
You know... the guy who is still running around free, planning his next attack?

No? I wonder why...


Or maybe you know of more terrorist attacks on our soil that've happened since then?

Yes, as a matter of fact I certainly do.

Do you remember the Anthrax mailer?

How about the DC sniper?

How about the Ohio sniper?

No?

Wonder why?

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/little_grl.jpg

:thumbs:
DB

dharmabum, don't forget how the Bill of Rights has been shred without one terrorist firing a shot... Another casualty of Bush's misguided war on terror.

Like Dickless Cheney, always missing the target...and shooting a friend in the face.

Yes, I do remember that Osama Bin Laden attacked us.

Not Iraq.

You remember Bin Laden, don't you?
You know... the guy who is still running around free, planning his next attack?

No? I wonder why...



Yes, as a matter of fact I certainly do.

Do you remember the Anthrax mailer?

How about the DC sniper?

How about the Ohio sniper?

No?

Wonder why?

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/little_grl.jpg

:thumbs:
DB

Lame attempt, Dharma. Guess if we were still having planes fly into buildings and other acts of mass destruction, you'd be more supportive of the present administration, eh?

BTW, Bin Laden was the mastermind behind the attacks, but being the coward that he is, sent his lackeys to do the dirty work. If he's not already dead, why do you think he hasn't sent more? Because he can't figure out a way to work around our new Homeland Security policies, or maybe because his supply of willing terrorists have been identified and/or killed... or maybe he's just content to wipe out 3000 American infidels and willing to let the rest of us live in peace?

It's been six years now... plenty of time to launch another attack.

Of course, it might be a little hard to plan, hiding in a cave in the middle of a desert.

Maybe we should bring all the troops home so he can come out again?

Really... sometimes I just wonder what makes somebody's mind work when they sit in the comfort of their own home and complain about how terrible things are in this country.

Do you really have no vision of how terrible things COULD BE? Not to mention not giving credit to those who allow you to be so smug?

:confused:
SMW

Maybe we should bring all the troops home so he can come out again?

Bin Laden isn't in Iraq, SMW.

The best guess is that he's in Waziristan, being ignored by Pakistan. AND BY US.

If removing our troops from the deadly circumstances Mr. Bush put them in in Iraq and bringing them home is so distasteful to you, how about removing our troops from the deadly circumstances Mr. Bush put them in in Iraq and putting them to work in Pakistan, going after the actual bad guy who arranged the 9/11 attacks?

It's a novel idea, I know, but it has great merit. ;)

He is the exact right guy for this very wrong job. It's too bad his legacy will be tied to this mess.

well said. I hope that his long career doesnt suffer for it. i am at a loss as to why he even took the post

well said. I hope that his long career doesnt suffer for it. i am at a loss as to why he even took the postPromotion to full General and the challenge of a huge command/responsibility can be pretty alluring. I imagine he'd seem the mess and had hopes of being able to make a difference on the ground.

Bin Laden isn't in Iraq, SMW.

The best guess is that he's in Waziristan, being ignored by Pakistan. AND BY US.

If removing our troops from the deadly circumstances Mr. Bush put them in in Iraq and bringing them home is so distasteful to you, how about removing our troops from the deadly circumstances Mr. Bush put them in in Iraq and putting them to work in Pakistan, going after the actual bad guy who arranged the 9/11 attacks?

It's a novel idea, I know, but it has great merit. ;)
Why don't we just bury our heads in the sand and pretend there are NO terrorists waiting for us to withdraw so they can go back to planning our demise, eh Frannie? Many of our soldiers are in deadly circumstances over there... but many are also in situations where the most deadly thing they face every day is boredom. Don't go getting hysterical on me... you're smarter than that.

And I'd be careful stating exactly where Laden is NOT hiding. Someone might get the wrong idea and mistake your best guess for inside info.

;)
SMW

Promotion to full General and the challenge of a huge command/responsibility can be pretty alluring. I imagine he'd seem the mess and had hopes of being able to make a difference on the ground.

i guess he is working on his medal for optimism. Its a fucking train wreak over there. There is plenty of blame to go around.

Its a fucking train wreak over there. There is plenty of blame to go around.No doubt.

Shiloh,

Everyone with half a brain knows that Uncle Al-Qaeda wants to attack the US
on US soil. If you tell me that they don't you are either dumb or a liar.

We have killed alot more of them than they have of us, but people like you can't even give the US credit for that.




No need to come here. If you are happy taking US men and women, sons and daughters to him for his easy targeting, then you are right in line with AQ's stated objectives.

Shiloh,

Everyone with half a brain knows that Uncle Al-Qaeda wants to attack the US
on US soil. If you tell me that they don't you are either dumb or a liar.Sure he does, but this is even better. In the current situation he gets to inflict real wounds, show America as militarily incapable, promote his cause among Arabs without the risk of provoking sympathy toward the US from the international and especially Pan-Arabian communities (like after 9/11), and drive a wedge between America and her allies.

We have killed alot more of them than they have of us, but people like you can't even give the US credit for that.I can both give credit for success and recognize failures. And the number of them we kill is not the issue. Herein lies the problem: a bunch of people who think they understand this conflict as based on numbers of casualties. For every one of them we kill, several more will rise up out of indignation and revenge, driven by the deep-seated belief that martyrdom is preferable to being influenced/occupied/"polluted" by "Western capitalism and American depravity."

there is no military solution to this quagmire. Counting casualties reminds me of Vietnam, how President Johnson thought we were "winning" if we killed more (or at least reported that we did) of the enemy.

General Petraeus has yet to define this "mission." If he can't, then what the hell are we doing there? It is time we got out.

Shiloh,

Everyone with half a brain knows that Uncle Al-Qaeda wants to attack the US
on US soil.

I'd be more interested in finding out what people with whole brains think.

I'd be more interested in finding out what people with whole brains think.

:lolhit:

Good one, Vile. I'm sure you'll find that whole brain in Truthout's skull. Along with an extraordinary amount of air.

:hula:
SMW

Why don't we just bury our heads in the sand and pretend there are NO terrorists waiting for us to withdraw so they can go back to planning our demise?

When this country stop exporting terrorism, stops killing Muslims by the hundreds of thousands, the terrorists will stop "planning our demise".

This issue will never be resolved until the people in this country wake up and realize that the Muslims are not attacking us because they are "jealous" of us or because they think that these attacks will somehow have the effect of converting us all to Islam.

The dimwitted among us need to remove their goddamned heads from the sand and recognize and acknowledge --to everyone else, but primarily to themselves-- that these attackers from the Middle East did not suddenly formulate the idea ---"Gosh, I think I will highjack a plane and commit suicide attacking the US, simply because I have a different religion and do not like them very much!!"---, but were instead incited to attack this country because of the political policies and actions that THIS country has carried out in the Middle East.

Thank you for finally confirming you really don't have a clue about the real issue, FT. I suspected it, but now I know.

Do you really believe the garbage you just wrote? Do you not know KILL THE INFIDELS is part of their religious beliefs? Are you so anti-American that you actually believe they give a flying flip about our political policies when the majority of them have been content to live in mud huts and caves in the middle of the desert for thousands of years? Do you think if we had not sent troops to Iraq to hunt them down, they would have stopped with 9/11?

I've always given you the benefit of the doubt because others seems to be convinced you're truly concerned for the well-being of the U.S. But with one post, you changed all that.

My initial opinion of you was right. You're a friggin nutjob.

SMW

Thank you for finally confirming you really don't have a clue about the real issue, FT. I suspected it, but now I know.

Do you really believe the garbage you just wrote? Do you not know KILL THE INFIDELS is part of their religious beliefs? Are you so anti-American that you actually believe they give a flying flip about our political policies when the majority of them have been content to live in mud huts and caves in the middle of the desert for thousands of years? Do you think if we had not sent troops to Iraq to hunt them down, they would have stopped with 9/11?

I've always given you the benefit of the doubt because others seems to be convinced you're truly concerned for the well-being of the U.S. But with one post, you changed all that.

My initial opinion of you was right. You're a friggin nutjob.

SMW Who are we hunting down for 9/11? Not Osama who suppsedly masterminded it! That is not even a priority according to Bush! That should tell you something. How many of the highjackers were from Iraq? Do you know the answer to that? And certainly their religious beliefs play a part in it just as Bush's beliefs do. I mean he said god told him to invade Iraq! So you could say it is a religious war! Even Bush senior was smart enough to know that he should let Saddam stay in power because it would be worse without him. And it is!

Do you think if we had not sent troops to Iraq to hunt them down, they would have stopped with 9/11?Sending troops to Iraq has diverted us from pursuing those responsible for 9/11. People keep mixing this up in their minds/arguments: Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Well done Shiloh,Ive been saying that all along.
Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11.

Like Nazi Germany had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor?

Morning waldo.
I dont think the Nazi's were involved in Pearl Harbour,but I know what u mean.

Look,

They are teaching their kids that the US and it's allies are evil. It is in their religion to kill innocent people. If you want to stick your head in the sand and leave Iraq and pretend that if we leave them alone, they will leave us alone, go ahead and do that. I am not dumb enough for that.

I wish no one had to die, but that's not the real world. We need to take the fight to them, so the fight is not on our soil.

Sure he does, but this is even better. In the current situation he gets to inflict real wounds, show America as militarily incapable, promote his cause among Arabs without the risk of provoking sympathy toward the US from the international and especially Pan-Arabian communities (like after 9/11), and drive a wedge between America and her allies.

I can both give credit for success and recognize failures. And the number of them we kill is not the issue. Herein lies the problem: a bunch of people who think they understand this conflict as based on numbers of casualties. For every one of them we kill, several more will rise up out of indignation and revenge, driven by the deep-seated belief that martyrdom is preferable to being influenced/occupied/"polluted" by "Western capitalism and American depravity."

However indirect, I'm sure the Natzis had somthing to do with Pearl Harbor.


Morning waldo.
I dont think the Nazi's were involved in Pearl Harbour,but I know what u mean.

Morning sisko,
ah,actually if memory serves,the Nazi's were as surprised as anyone else,but we'll not fall out over it.

Look,
We need to take the fight to them...Exactly what they want.

Like Nazi Germany had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor?AQ and Iraq were not allies, like Germany and Japan. AQ and Iraq were bitter opponents.

You might want to familiarize yourself with the actual relationship( as documented by spooks and real historians and experts) between iraq and AQ. It's in the 9/11 report, you can read about it in Richard Clarke's book, Ghost Wars has it, Peter Bergen and Rohan Gunaratna's books document the dance they did with each other. Never fully embracing, always looking.

To quote the 9-11 report:

"There was no operational relationship between Saddam's regime and Al Queda."

If it says in the 9/11 report that Iraq and AQ were linked,then the report was politically motivated.

If it says in the 9/11 report that Iraq and AQ were linked,.

It does not.

To quote the 9-11 report:


Is this supposed to demonstrate that AQ and Hussein had no connections, had not held discussions, that Hussein had not invited obl to come to iraq?

If it says in the 9/11 report that Iraq and AQ were linked,then the report was politically motivated.

Good morning to you paul.
It's not just the 9.11 report. It's all the other sources as well. Are Clinton's former head and deputy of the NSC also politically motivated? Is Richard Clarke politically motivated? When you spout stuff like this it makes you sound like one of the kooks.

Waldo,no matter who it is,Republican or Democrat,that tries to justify invading Iraq,then its politically motivated,and had nothing to do with the war on terror.
PS Its 17:36 here haha

Never fully embracing, always looking.Using, mistrusting one another? Bin Laden openly opposed Sadam Hussain.

It does not.


my grandfather once said better to be silent and thought a fool than to speak and confirm it. drama, you might want to give that one some thought next time you have the urge.

With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Laden himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in late 1994 or early 1995....As described below, the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections.p.

There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, ofering some cooperationp.61

In mid-1998, the situation was reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's fatwa against the United States, two Al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one or both of these meetings were arranged through Bin Ladin's Eygptian deputy Zawhairi who had ties of his own to the Iraqis.p.66

and the really telling part, because it comes directly in front of your offeringSimilar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin and his aides may have occured in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq.Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging his circumstances remained more favorable in Aghanistan than the Iraqi alternative.p.66

And it's not just he 9/11 report. I've mentioned several other books to which I'll also add the one written by Simon and Benjamin (Clinton's NSC guys) The Age of Sacred Terror. They all say the same thing.

Isn't the internet an amazing tool? No wonder every kook with a computer can spout off things like HUSSEIN HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE 9/11 ATTACK ON THE U.S. like it's a real fact.

Maybe he did... and maybe he didn't. One thing's perfectly clear in my mind. Nobody at ALLFORUMS knows for sure, one way or the other. This is for all the deskchair generals out there. Read it if you like... or ignore it and go on acting like you know everything. (You don't, you know?)

*************

Saddam Hussein's Ties to Terrorism: Myths vs Truths

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has reached a sort of "Scot's Verdict"- Not Proven -on the subject of pre-9/11 ties between the Iraqi government and Osama bin Laden.

I'm not going to pretend I can prove the existence of such ties ; but I will lay out the available evidence , and let you draw your own conclusions.

(more)

http://insidestraight.typepad.com/the_inside_straight/2006/09/saddam_husseins.html

my grandfather once said better to be silent and thought a fool than to speak and confirm it.

Obviously your grandfather knew you quite well.

Too bad you didn't take his advice.

P.120
Although there have been claims made of an operational relationship between Saddam's regime and Al Queda, there is no evidence to support them.

So let's do a quick recap here.
Shiloh says AQ and Iraq were bitter opponents.

He gets shown innumerable quotes from the 9/11 report as well as numerous books and authors which totally refute his contention.

drama arrives and asserts the 9/11 report does not say there was any relationship.

Direct quotes from the 9/11 report showing that AQ and Iraq had numerous discussions, that Hussein had invited OBL to move to iraq. Richard Clarke even asserting that obl and iraq were working together in the sudanese 'aspirin' factory.

And drama still insisting that there was no relationship between the two.

Tell us drama is it only a relationship if it's consensual sex conducted in your presence with a video camera and 10 friends?:rolleyes:

So let's do a quick recap here.
Shiloh says

He gets shown innumerable quotes from the 9/11 report as well as numerous books and authors which totally refute his contention.

drama arrives and asserts the 9/11 report does not say there was any relationship.

Direct quotes from the 9/11 report showing that AQ and Iraq had numerous discussions, that Hussein had invited OBL to move to iraq. Richard Clarke even asserting that obl and iraq were working together in the sudanese 'aspirin' factory.

And drama still insisting that there was no relationship between the two.
:rolleyes:

And you're still insisting there was. :rolleyes:

Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed

By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 17, 2004; Page A01

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. --WaPo (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html)

Tell me when hussein invites him to move to iraq what does that mean to you?

So let's do a quick recap here.
Shiloh says

He gets shown innumerable quotes from the 9/11 report as well as numerous books and authors which totally refute his contention.

drama arrives and asserts the 9/11 report does not say there was any relationship.

Direct quotes from the 9/11 report showing that AQ and Iraq had numerous discussions, that Hussein had invited OBL to move to iraq. Richard Clarke even asserting that obl and iraq were working together in the sudanese 'aspirin' factory.

And drama still insisting that there was no relationship between the two.

Tell us drama is it only a relationship if it's consensual sex conducted in your presence with a video camera and 10 friends?:rolleyes:

A great many are looking only for evidence that would stand up in front of the most hard-nosed judge in the country, rather than accepting that such is not available in the shady world of spy vs spy.

The US Administration would benefit more than anyone if it were able to prove a connection between alQaeda and Saddam,even they have said there was none.

What they said was there was no connection between hussein and 9/11.

A great many are looking only for evidence that would stand up in front of the most hard-nosed judge in the country, rather than accepting that such is not available in the shady world of spy vs spy.

The great irony here is they will cite the people who say there is no 'operational' connection yet these same people say there was indeed a connection. Can't have it both ways.

If there was NO connection between Saddam and alQaeda,how could there be a connection between Saddam and9/11?

Just like politicians, fools spend days, weeks even, arguing about the past, which can not be changed, rather than the present, and future, when can.
Even if understanding the past were critical, such argument is futile, as politicians must reinvent everything anyway.

Did you not read the quotes from the report?

Why do you think the three must be tied together? Hussein and AQ can have a relationship apart from 9/11.

Did you not read the quotes from the report?

Why do you think the three must be tied together? Hussein and AQ can have a relationship apart from 9/11.They can yes,point is they didnt,I think your grasping at straws here waldo.

when iraqi intelligence agents travel to afghanistan to talk with bin laden that's nothing. When hussein invites obl to move to iraq that's nothing. (I'm sure you and drama both invite strangers/adversaries to move in with you all the time eh? When obl agrees not to move against hussein that's nothing.

No wonder there is such a divide between left and right.

If it was a one off i'd agree with you. when you have multiple, repeated discussions about thoughts, plans, attitudes.... that's a relationship.

Ive never seen any evidence of these actions.

Of course you won't. You think the spies are gonna give up their sources and methods?

By the same token you haven't seen anything to dispute it either!

So in the end all you can say is you don't know if they did or didn't.

So for you to sit there and say if it's in the report it's because of politics is complete hypocrisy. Either you're lying now or lying then. Are you sure you know why you beleive something and have the facts to back it up?

I dont usually lie in general,and never on the net,but anyway.
Every single item on 'Saddam/alQaeda that I find states-there were no links.

No wonder there is such a divide between left and right.The Baathists were Left; Bin Laden and his crew are Right. And never shall the twane meet.

By the same token you haven't seen anything to dispute it either!

Your own report says there were no operational ties. A few hand jobs to feel each other out, which were rejected you might notice, do not equal allies or even a "relationship."

I dont usually lie in general,and never on the net,but anyway.
Every single item on 'Saddam/alQaeda that I find states-there were no links.

Because there weren't any meaningful ties between the two..

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.


Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was "overwhelming."

But the report of the commission's staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation. In yesterday's hearing of the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, a senior FBI official and a senior CIA analyst concurred with the finding.

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."

The finding challenges a belief held by large numbers of Americans about al Qaeda's ties to Hussein. According to a Harris poll in late April, a plurality of Americans, 49 percent to 36 percent, believe "clear evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda has been found."

As recently as Monday, Cheney said in a speech that Hussein "had long-established ties with al Qaeda." Bush, asked on Tuesday to verify or qualify that claim, defended it by pointing to Abu Musab Zarqawi, who has taken credit for a wave of attacks in Iraq. (emphasis mine)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

Despite the fact that the 911 Commission made these findings public 3 years ago, there are still people making this spurious claim.

Despite the fact that the 911 Commission made these findings public 3 years ago, there are still people making this spurious claim.They have to -- it's the only way they can justify the wanton idiocy of this war.

when iraqi intelligence agents travel to afghanistan to talk with bin laden that's nothing. When hussein invites obl to move to iraq that's nothing. (I'm sure you and drama both invite strangers/adversaries to move in with you all the time eh? When obl agrees not to move against hussein that's nothing.


According to you,

When the 911 Commission states there were no ties, that's nothing.

When the FBI and CIA agree with those findings, that's nothing.

So far, what you've offered as proof of your contention is...nothing.

This reminds me of my favorite denial of reality by the Right. Suicide Bombers become Homicide Bombers. A wonderful exercise in trying to ignore critical, telling realities through the power of reduntant-speak.

According to you,

When the 911 Commission states there were no ties, that's nothing.

When the FBI and CIA agree with those findings, that's nothing.

So far, what you've offered as proof of your contention is...nothing.

Vile you're in over your head on this.

NOt according to me, according to the 9/11 report. I gave you the direct quotes earlier. Did you miss them or are they simply inconvenient to your opinion?

And some other cites, from 1998 and 1999, long before the admin ever came to office about the nature of the relationship between AQ and Hussein.

Newsweek magazine ran an article in its January 11, 1999, issue headed "Saddam and Bin Laden?" "Here's what is known so far,
Saddam Hussein, who has a long record of supporting terrorism, is trying to rebuild his intelligence network overseas--assets that would allow him to establish a terrorism network. U.S. sources say he is reaching out to Islamic terrorists, including some who may be linked to Osama bin Laden, the wealthy Saudi exile accused of masterminding the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa last summer.

ABC news reported on 15 Jan, '99 "Intelligence sources say bin Laden's long relationship with the Iraqis began as he helped Sudan's fundamentalist government in their efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. . . . ABC News has learned that in December, an Iraqi intelligence chief named Faruq Hijazi, now Iraq's ambassador to Turkey, made a secret trip to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden. Three intelligence agencies tell ABC News they cannot be certain what was discussed, but almost certainly, they say, bin Laden has been told he would be welcome in Baghdad."

I think it was in '98 that NPR reporter Mike Shuster interviewed Vincent Cannistraro , former head of the CIA's counterterrorism center, and offered this report:

Iraq's contacts with bin Laden go back some years, to at least 1994, when, according to one U.S. government source, Hijazi met him when bin Laden lived in Sudan. According to Cannistraro, Iraq invited bin Laden to live in Baghdad to be nearer to potential targets of terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. . . . Some experts believe bin Laden might be tempted to live in Iraq because of his reported desire to obtain chemical or biological weapons. CIA Director George Tenet referred to that in recent testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee when he said bin Laden was planning additional attacks on American targets.

The Washington Post quoted Richard Clarke in '99,

T]he same Richard Clarke who would one day claim that there was "absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever," told the Washington Post that the U.S. government was "sure" that Iraq was behind the production of the chemical weapons precursor at the al Shifa plant. "Clarke said U.S. intelligence does not know how much of the substance was produced at al Shifa or what happened to it," wrote Post reporter Vernon Loeb, in an article published January 23, 1999. "But he said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to al Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts, and the National Islamic Front in Sudan.....The Clinton administration sought to dispel doubts about the targeting and, on August 24, 1998, made available a "senior intelligence official" to brief reporters on background. The briefer cited "strong ties between the plant and Iraq" as one of the justifications for attacking it. The next day, undersecretary of state for political affairs Thomas Pickering briefed reporters at the National Press Club. Pickering explained that the intelligence community had been monitoring the plant for "at least two years," and that the evidence was "quite clear on contacts between Sudan and Iraq." In all, at least six top Clinton administration officials have defended on the record the strikes in Sudan by citing a link to Iraq.

In 1998, when the Clinton administration indicted OBL their indictment read, "Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.

As for books aligning AQ and Hussein i've already mentioned "The Age of Sacred Terror" by Benjamin and Simon, former NSC members during Clinton administration. You can also read Peter Bergen's Holy War Inc. and Rohan Gunaratna's Inside AQ.

Too many sources from too many time frames saying the same thing.

At the time all the democrats agreed on the relationship. Now they don't? Why is that praytell?

Vile you're in over your head on this.

I'm not the one treading water, waldo.


NOt according to me, according to the 9/11 report. I gave you the direct quotes earlier. Did you miss them or are they simply inconvenient to your opinion?

The 9/11 report's conclusion was that there were no substantive ties between AQ and Saddam. That's not inconvenient to me...


Too many sources from too many time frames saying the same thing.

Wow...that's convincing.


At the time all the democrats agreed on the relationship. Now they don't? Why is that praytell?

For the same reason we no longer believe the Earth is flat, or that the Earth is the center of the universe. Because we have better information now.

Waldo believes the earth is flat.

Waldo believes the earth is flat.

How about you?

How about you?
He thinks that it used to be round, until the Republicans squashed it.

:D

He thinks that it used to be round, until the Republicans squashed it.


He has a point.

"The world is flat." - Thomas Friedman (http://www.amazon.com/World-Flat-Updated-Expanded-Twenty-first/dp/0374292795/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-9154741-8064602?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189922232&sr=1-1)

I'm not the one treading water, waldo.

I can tread some more while waiting for you.



The 9/11 report's conclusion was that there were no substantive ties between AQ and Saddam. That's not inconvenient to me...

NO the 9/11 report stated that there were no operational ties. That's much different from 'substantive' ties. That there were ties is indisputable. The discussion has gone from no ties whatsoever- they opposed each other, to no operational ties, to no substantive ties. That's progress.

What is up for discussion is the strength of those ties. If you think two camps that are interested in acquiring (and one of which has already acquired and used) wmd, that have openly expressed their hatred of the US would, that have used or supported terrorism in the past to attack the US and have clearly had discussions about possibly collaborating in the future is insignificant you should carry on. Just stay out of the way of those who think it is cause for concern and think something should be done about it.


Wow...that's convincing.[?QUOTE] Enough to shatter your contention that there were no ties between the two.



[QUOTE=Vilepagan]For the same reason we no longer believe the Earth is flat, or that the Earth is the center of the universe. Because we have better information now.

Oh yeah, what would that be? You could provide the cite i'll be happy to read it.

I can tread some more while waiting for you.

No doubt. :)


NO the 9/11 report stated that there were no operational ties. That's much different from 'substantive' ties. That there were ties is indisputable. The discussion has gone from no ties whatsoever- they opposed each other, to no operational ties, to no substantive ties. That's progress.

Forgive me waldo, but I'm not interested in any "ties" that weren't "substantive".


What is up for discussion is the strength of those ties. If you think two camps that are interested in acquiring (and one of which has already acquired and used) wmd, that have openly expressed their hatred of the US would, that have used or supported terrorism in the past to attack the US and have clearly had discussions about possibly collaborating in the future is insignificant you should carry on. Just stay out of the way of those who think it is cause for concern and think something should be done about it.

If you wish to lose sleep over a relationship that was described by George Tenet earlier this year thusly: (The Bush Administration) "could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al-Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America, period."...be my guest.


Enough to shatter your contention that there were no ties between the two.

That's because I'm only interested in a relationship between the two that was a threat to the US or another country. There apparently was no relationship between AQ and Saddam that fits that descriptor.


Oh yeah, what would that be? You could provide the cite i'll be happy to read it.

An interesting timeline on the rumors of a connection between AQ and Saddam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda

No doubt. :)



Forgive me waldo, but I'm not interested in any "ties" that weren't "substantive".

That's not surprising. That would fall into the same category of the admin suffering from a lack of imagination in regards to their ability to anticipate they'd use planes as bombs. Having been accused of it once, by many in your crowd, you now object for them trying to anticipate such an event.



If you wish to lose sleep over a relationship that was described by George Tenet earlier this year thusly: (The Bush Administration) "could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al-Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America, period."...be my guest.

That's a description of a role in an event, not a relationship.



That's because I'm only interested in a relationship between the two that was a threat to the US or another country. There apparently was no relationship between AQ and Saddam that fits that descriptor.

See above.



An interesting timeline on the rumors of a connection between AQ and Saddam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda

That's not new information. That's merely a another description of everything we've talkied about. You said something new.

At the time all the democrats agreed on the relationship. Now they don't? Why is that praytell?And you guys are always bitching about the Democrats and "liberal media." Now they are your sources. Why is that, praytell?:cool:

You ususally have something more substantive to offer. Just pissed that your beleif that AQ and Saddam weren't enemies?

You ususally have something more substantive to offer. Just pissed that your beleif that AQ and Saddam weren't enemies?
No, I was in a hurry and it was just easier to point out the inconsistency in the Right on this issue. But since we're here...

Have you noticed all the "may haves" and "lower levels" involved in any supposed contact between AQ and Iraq? That's because there was no clear linkage between major players, but rather feelers in attempts to use the other party involved, while keeping them at arm's reach.

Did you notice that Bin Laden didn't move to Iraq? Maybe because he knew he'd be killed the minute he got within the realm of control of a guy he'd branded as a religious fraud.

For anyone to say they were allies based on these slim connections is, I suppose, the Right wing version of Conspiracy Theory. It is like saying Germany and Russia were really allies in WWII because they'd agreed not to attack one another, until the deal went sour. Or that Japan and the US were secretly allies because in the days before Pearl Harbor there were meetings between the representitives of each government. And, hey, you did notice that first we went after the Nazis, right? :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=Vilepagan]No doubt. :)



Forgive me waldo, but I'm not interested in any "ties" that weren't "substantive".

No,Waldo makes an excellent point.Leftists LOVE to take comments and
Reports and gloss-over the gist to merely blurt-out the grizzle.
al-Zarqawi was indeed In Iraq {Northern Iraq} setting up his
Jordian Terrorist network,which eventually was renamed and given
sanction personally by OBL,and given Numero uno Al Qaeda status.
OBL was also offered safe-haven In Iraq before the War in
Afghanistan started.






An interesting timeline on the rumors of a connection between AQ and Saddam.


- Rumors of War -.You've been watchin too many cruddy
contemporary movies.Rumors are what Liberals Live and amake
daily hay over.Yes,It's definately a Rumor that Clinton actively
was engaged in capturing or Killing OBL.
Just ask Miss Albright or Sandy Berger.
I'm sure they'll give out the straight dope.
Yeah,and The Yellow Brick Road was actually sky-blue-pink and
led into Cambodia.

No, I was in a hurry and it was just easier to point out the inconsistency in the Right on this issue. But since we're here...

Have you noticed all the "may haves" and "lower levels" involved in any supposed contact between AQ and Iraq? That's because there was no clear linkage between major players, but rather feelers in attempts to use the other party involved, while keeping them at arm's reach.

Did you notice that Bin Laden didn't move to Iraq? Maybe because he knew he'd be killed the minute he got within the realm of control of a guy he'd branded as a religious fraud.

For anyone to say they were allies based on these slim connections is, I suppose, the Right wing version of Conspiracy Theory. It is like saying Germany and Russia were really allies in WWII because they'd agreed not to attack one another, until the deal went sour. Or that Japan and the US were secretly allies because in the days before Pearl Harbor there were meetings between the representitives of each government. And, hey, you did notice that first we went after the Nazis, right? :rolleyes:

Some on the right do believe the media is biased. AFIC the media mostly wants to sell ad space.

The issue you and/or vile face with your arguement is twofold.

1) You have to downplay the seriousness of the connection. To acknowledge that there is any type of potential means that you would have to do something about it. As we've seen with iraq the democrats/liberals don't have any alternatives. They want something different to be done but they can't tell you what or why it's better. And the same thinking applies with this issue.

2) if one ignores the AQ-Saddam connection and later on something diabolical truly happens you'd would be so far up shit creek they'd never let you or any admin that adopted that position come back.

The prudent thing is to act. We can argue about what should be done and that is certainly fair discussion but so far the democrats/liberals haven't put forth anything that one can discuss/argue about.

The issue you and/or vile face with your arguement is twofold.Or, allow me to flip that coin over for you...

1) You have to downplay the seriousness of the connection. To acknowledge that there is any type of potential means that you would have to do something about it. As we've seen with iraq the democrats/liberals don't have any alternatives. They want something different to be done but they can't tell you what or why it's better. And the same thinking applies with this issue.Your side has to playup very wispy feelers in order to trot out yet another failed excuse for a "preemptive" attack on Iraq, against international law and forging a new policy which causes much of the world to mistrust us and view the US as bullies, potentially as dangerous as the real bad guys. Then you have to completely ignore the obvious fact that your own report states Iraq had no hand in attackng the US. Then you have to somehow explain why US policy is so inactive when it comes to attacking the countries which really do have ties to AQ and terrorism, like say, Iran and the Kingdom of the Sauds.

2) if one ignores the AQ-Saddam connection and later on something diabolical truly happens you'd would be so far up shit creek they'd never let you or any admin that adopted that position come back.Paranoia is a poor foundation for a Foreign Policy position, particularly when it invokes new privileges which offend so much of the world, makes the president of the US look like he's just fishing for some excuse for war, and turns US State Department figures into laughing stocks throughout international diplomacy circles.

The prudent thing is to act.Not in the wrong fight for the wrong reasons, then show oneself to be a fraud, dishonest and incapable of getting the job done.
We can argue about what should be done and that is certainly fair discussion but so far the democrats/liberals haven't put forth anything that one can discuss/argue about.Right now we're discussing the people who most influence our position in the world. If the Dems are put into that position, it'll be their turn.