the saddam + al qaeda connection

[dotcoma]

You post some little sarcastic diatribe choc full of doublespeak and you want an intelligent response?

justify your hate for Bush

I don't need anything to "justify my hate" (hate isn't really the word, it's called letting go of my emotions as opposed of having to justify "reality").

I love the leftist stance that WMDs is the only justification for going into Iraq

Leftists stance? Could your indoctrination be any more obvious?

the Nazi

Grandson of a Nazi. Historical fact. Not taught in the government reeducation camps (David Rockefeller's words).

, I never realized there was a statute of limitations on mass murder

No one said there was. In fact, you've got a point. We should invade and shut down the place that trained the Iraqi Republican Guard in it's disgusting tactics. Oh wait, that's in Georgia. Oh well...

New World Order

Bush 41's words (as well as Orson Wells, Hitler's and Stalin's).

Crime Family Mafia Don

Ever heard of Barry Seal?

America has no interest in a democracy in the middle east

That's ridiculous. The people of Iraq will get to choose the US puppet of there choice VERY SOON.

Lied To The American People

Obviously. But drop the "d" and add an "s"

A Socialist New World Order

According to his father.

War crimes, what a load of Bullshit.

Your right. Maybe he can plead "Innocent by Retardedness"?

[bishop]

In light of further investigation, is it any wonder the President decided to keep an open mind regarding possible connections even if the CIA was playing CYA with their recommendations?

nope, no wonder at all.. bush has proven that he's ready and willing to believe any far fetched idea that's wispered into his ear.

[Sonart]

War crimes, what a load of Bullshit.

My apologies. The war crimes comment was intended as political hyperboly, which I should not assume everyone on this board will get.

But it's not hyperboly by much. Just because Hussein was evil & nasty does not excuse us for destroying an entire nation by mistake or because we thought it was a nifty way to spread democracy. The fact remains that there was no legitimate reason to invade, overthrow and occupy a practically defenseless nation, with the resultant loss of life, because we thought it made a clever geo-political chess piece in the cause of maintaining cheap oil.

If maintaining reliable energy sources is a problem, then we should solve it by finding other solutions, ideally by reducing our needs through conservation and finding alternative sources.

Not by killing people to take over their country because it's convenient to do so. That really does strike me as criminal.

[LogicaLunatic]

RoxDog, That comment...

"Are you referring to Bush or your post?" is exactly as Comrade described it. But he forgot one thing. That was pretty damn funny. Nice flame! :)

[dotcoma]

The fact remains that there was no legitimate reason to invade, overthrow and occupy a practically defenseless nation

Dude!!! He had SUVs with guns on them!!! S-U-FUCKING-Vs!!!!!!

[Comrade]

Originally posted by roxdog, You post some little sarcastic diatribe choc full of doublespeak and you want an intelligent response? I don't need anything to "justify my hate" (hate isn't really the word, it's called letting go of my emotions as opposed of having to justify "reality"). Yes, much better to just assume you are right than involve yourself in any silly debate. Leftists stance? Could your indoctrination be any more obvious? No, enlighten me. The people against the war, the people who were initially against the war and were protesting, the people against the war in Europe, they come from the left. This is something I saw, and read about, and thought about. What is my indoctrination, and where did it come from? School? Grandson of a Nazi. Historical fact. Not taught in the government reeducation camps (David Rockefeller's words). Lots of people in Germany are grandchildren of Nazis, and yet strangely are not Nazis themselves. Judging by the sins of the forefathers? No one said there was. In fact, you've got a point. We should invade and shut down the place that trained the Iraqi Republican Guard in it's disgusting tactics. Oh wait, that's in Georgia. Oh well... You are saying our military taught them their "disgusting tactics"? Both a cheap shot and incorrect Bush 41's words (as well as Orson Wells, Hitler's and Stalin's). Yes and I'm sure Bush 41 meant them the exact same way you do, as well sa the same way as Stalin and Hitler and Wells Ever heard of Barry Seal? No, tell me about him That's ridiculous. The people of Iraq will get to choose the US puppet of there choice VERY SOON. It can be argued that the Japanese government after WW2 was a puppet of the United States, and in that it would be correct. It would be no use to remove Saddam and then put someone exactly like him in their place, hence the CIA vetting of candidates for their government. I doubt very much a "puppet," though. You can't predict the future any better than I can. Your right. Maybe he can plead "Innocent by Retardedness"? Jeez...Saying that after the Cole bombings Clinton went and got a blowjob is partisan politics and this is not?

[Comrade]

Also, treating Saddam as if he were the cause of the problems in the Middle East, and that he was our only objective, is to treat the symptom and not the cause. That's the reason for our bases there, not to create some "puppet" state but for the same reason we kept bases in Germany and Japan for the last 60 years, to put down militarism and traditionalism (which are very much a part of Islamic fundamentalism). Japan is certainly better off, and if Germany would get off the socialist pipe dream so would it.

[dotcoma]

You are saying our military taught them their "disgusting tactics"? Both a cheap shot and incorrect

Not at all. Ever hear of the "School of the Americas"?

The people against the war, the people who were initially against the war and were protesting, the people against the war in Europe, they come from the left. This is something I saw, and read about, and thought about. What is my indoctrination, and where did it come from? School?

The left and the right don't exist. School? Not sure. My indoctrination came from school. All types of people were against the war. The media only focuses on the two phony choices.

Lots of people in Germany are grandchildren of Nazis, and yet strangely are not Nazis themselves. Judging by the sins of the forefathers?

I'm not talking about Germany.

Yes and I'm sure Bush 41 meant them the exact same way you do, as well sa the same way as Stalin and Hitler and Wells

I don't know how he "meant them"...all I know is what he said. Which is that we will one day be ruled by the UN. That means no US Constitution or Bill of Rights (like they exist anyway anymore).

Ever heard of Barry Seal? No, tell me about him

google: Barry Seal, Bush....
According to ex DEA and FBI, he smuggled cocaine for George H. W. Bush. Are you gonna say we should't blame Dubya for his father's actions?

It can be argued that the Japanese government after WW2 was a puppet of the United States, and in that it would be correct. It would be no use to remove Saddam and then put someone exactly like him in their place, hence the CIA vetting of candidates for their government. I doubt very much a "puppet," though. You can't predict the future any better than I can.

Argued? It still is. No use? Pinochet? Chile? I can't predict the future, but I know how the team played last quarter.

Jeez...Saying that after the Cole bombings Clinton went and got a blowjob is partisan politics and this is not?

Not too sure what you're saying. Clinton? What about him? I didn't know we were talking about Clinton.

[dotcoma]

to put down militarism and traditionalism (which are very much a part of Islamic fundamentalism

And that has what to do with Iraq? Iraq was created and held together by the United States and Britain right up until the first Gulf Annexation and was a secular regime.

[Sonart]

Nazi Germany was the superpower of it's day (the U.S. was about the 12 largest military power) and had invaded, occupied and conquered most of Europe. Meanwhile, their ally, Japan, then attacked us in their bid to invade, occupy and conquer all of Asia. Needless to say, Comrade, they posed an actual threat. We garrisoned them first as conquerers. As they struggled to grow as democracies, we then garrisoned them to maintain strategic military positions against the expansionist Soviet Union, who was also out to take over the free world, including us.

I'm not exactly sure how Iraq fits as a comparison. Garrisoning Iraq defends us against no one. It merely positions us as the dominant neo-imperial power in the oil producing mideast.

[giuliano]

Originally posted by Comrade, I love the leftist stance that WMDs is the only justification for going into Iraq. See, I never realized there was a statute of limitations on mass murder, that Saddam isn't accountable because he didn't commit those crimes yesterday (oh, wait). Or that America has no interest in a democracy in the middle east with which to pressure other ME regimes, or to continue to import the oil that our country runs on. How many of you drive cars, use electricity, use products made with electricity, and have thus contributed to "Big Evil Oil Companies" with your money?

do you seriously believe saddam's crimes in the 80s against the kurds were even a factor in the US decision to invade iraq? the kurds are just one big collective political football. the US helped saddam develop the very weapons he used on the kurds in the first place.

america's interest in ME democracy is highly questionable. it props up the regime in saudi arabia (not that democracy is a current alternative), and has previously sponsored the regime (shah) in iran. it has up until now never paid anything more than lip service to promoting democracy there.

two of the great symbols of emerging arab democracy are:
1. al jazeera in qatar. despite being far from perfect, this TV network is a huge step forward for freedom of the media, a key element in developing democracy. US response: heavy criticism, resistance and even military retaliation (claimed to be accidental).
2. the reform movement in iran. what support has the US offered this movement? i see and hear nothing, except general stereotypes of iran in general being an 'axis of evil', a label that led to a collective sigh of frustration from iranian reformists, as it just fed anti-american sentiment there, hindering the very cause america claims to support.

Here's an idea. http://denbeste.nu/essays/strategic_overview.shtml Read this...

this is a comprehensive, but poor analysis of the WoT.

it makes conclusions that draw heavily on support from now debunked intelligence.

the author only recognises one of the two key western interests in the ME: namely security and economic interests. he makes the classic conservative mistake of trying to define US policy in the ME in terms of security needs only. in my eyes, he could only ever possibly score 50/100 if i was taking his class.

[Osborn F Enready]

Sonart, Rox, great posts for the most part. Thanks.

Comrade seems to always forget the facts from all the OTHER threads.

[Osborn F Enready]

Why not just abolish all unconstitutional agencies in our government, and privatize those that have legitimate purpose?

That would reintroduce ACCOUNTABILITY, something our government doesn't like to offer in the payment plan.

[JoshuaRGodinez]

Originally posted by Sonart, Or most misled the American people. So you have no problem with invading a country that was no threat to anyone, killing 10,000 innocent civilians, and occupying that country at huge cost to us in lives, treasure, increased terrorism, the good faith of our allies, and quite possibly the complete collapse of Iraq into anarchy, all by MISTAKE?! 'Oops, my bad. Sorry about all the dead people'? Nah, I don't think the President should be excoriated either. I think he should be charged with war crimes.

That's a fantastic web site. That's the kind of research and justification for figures I've always looked for when researching the opposing view. Thank you. I must disagree with some of what was listed there, though, even though the site tries to be as honest as possible. Some of the figures listed refer to casualties reported by AP as told to them by Iraqis at the scene. While this seems reasonable, the same have also stated that the casualties were the result of American sniper fire on innocent Iraqis walking down the street. This makes me question the truthfulness of the source. There is no possible military or political gain from randomly shooting Iraqis which means the people supplying body counts are probably not telling the whole truth which may include their counts. Also, at least one of the sources listed had completely different figures when I looked up the story so I had a hard time figuring out what numbers were being used from where and why. Third, the figures are shown regardless of who engaged and for whatever reason, for instance the deaths of Iraqi police by terrorists or Shia by Sunni, incidents that may have occurred even if we had never set foot in the country (allowing for Saddam not being the leader. With him in charge, the same number of deaths would have come from a completely different source: those he needed to suppress to keep hold of power). Some of the larger counts seemed like recaps of long time periods and may actually have been double-counting stories that had already been referenced and counted. Finally, the whole number is placed at the feet of the Americans with no responsibility assigned to the various parties who actually created individual incidents. All that being said, it was the best review of civilian casualties I've seen. For fairness sake, however, a review of the sources and figures done by an opposing viewpoint (Americans are responsible for those civilian casualities as a result of direct American action), and then a citation of both figures would be necessary to use it as a referable body count.

Also, your assertion was "killing 10,000 innocent civilians" implying that we killed 10,000 civilians which by the admission of the source you cited was not the case. There may have been 10,000 civilian deaths, but that's not the same thing. Your tone suggests that X number of deaths is horrible, but I don't know what X is in your mind. Is any unintended innocent death an unacceptable cost to attain a greater good? Is all war inherently evil and never justified under any circumstances because all military action invariably results in the unintended deaths of innocent people?

In that light, Bush could only be viewed as a war criminal based on something other than what you have stated.

Your statement that the reasons for going to war was a mistake or a deliberate deception I also disagree with, but this post is probably too long already so I'll leave that to another reply.

[PatrickHenry]

Josh, try Waxman for how Bush lied about Al Qaeda/Iraq: http://www.house.gov/reform/min/feat...on_the_record/

[dotcoma]

These morons just won't stop...

Bush Disputes al Qaida-Saddam Conclusion

By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - President Bush on Thursday disputed the Sept. 11 commission's finding that there was no "collaborative relationship" between Saddam Hussein and the al-Qaida terrorist network responsible for the attacks.

"There was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida," Bush insisted following a meeting with his Cabinet at the White House.

"This administration never said that the 9-11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al-Qaida," he said.

"We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, for example, Iraqi intelligence agents met with (Osama) bin Laden, the head of al-Qaida in the Sudan."

The independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks said Wednesday that no evidence exists that al-Qaida had strong ties to Saddam Hussein _ a central justification the Bush administration had for toppling the former Iraqi regime. Bush also argued that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, which have not been found, and that he ruled his country by with an iron fist and tortured political opponents.

Although bin Laden asked for help from Iraq in the mid-1990s, Saddam's government never responded, according to a report by the commission staff based on interviews with government intelligence and law enforcement officials. "There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," the report said. "Two senior Bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al-Qaida and Iraq."

Bush said Saddam was a threat because he had not only ties to al-Qaida, but to other terrorist networks as well.

"He was a threat because he provided safe haven for a terrorist like al-Zarqawi who is still killing innocents inside Iraq," he said, referring to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who is considered the most dangerous foreign fighter in Iraq and one of the world's top terrorists.

Attention on al-Zarqawi has increased in recent months as he became a more vocal terror figure, due in part to three recordings released on the Internet, including the video showing the beheading of American businessman Nicholas Berg. The State Department and other agencies that handle counterterrorism are considering raising the reward for al-Zarqawi from $10 million to $25 million, putting him on par with two al-Qaida leaders and Saddam, now jailed.

"The world is better off and America is more secure without Saddam Hussein in power," Bush told reporters in the Cabinet Room where he met with his advisers to discuss Iraq and the economy.

It was Bush's 25th meeting with the Cabinet since the start of his presidency in January 2001.

Bush said he told Cabinet members that he continues to have a "firm resolve" in Iraq, the scene of escalating violence less than two weeks before the handoff of political power to the interim Iraqi government.

On Thursday, a sport utility vehicle packed with artillery shells blew up in a crowd of people waiting to volunteer for the Iraqi military, killing dozens and wounding over a hundred. Another car bomb north of the capital killed several members of the Iraqi security forces.

"We fully understand terrorists who try to shake our will, who try to shake our confidence to try to get us to withdraw from commitments we have made in places like Afghanistan and Iraq," Bush said. "They won't succeed. Iraq will be free. And a free Iraq is in our nation's interest."

Asked whether he was disappointed that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had improperly held an Iraqi prisoner in secret for more than seven months in violation of the Geneva Conventions, Bush replied: "The secretary and I discussed that for the first time this morning. ... I'm never disappointed in my secretary of defense. He's doing a fabulous job and America's lucky to have him in the position he's in."

[dotcoma]

al-Zarqawi....The Limping Ghost.

[bishop]

pakistan and saudi arabia have well known links to terrorism. gotta love how they're ignored, and even called allies!

logic 101 right there.

at this point, it's all about saving face. the world may be better off without saddam, but that doesn't vindicate him for all the lies and bullshit he's spewed/caused.

[Osborn F Enready]

More importantly, the world would be better off if those at fault in OUR system were HELD ACCOUNTABLE, and tried for their FAILURES.

Bush needs to stand before a jury for war crimes, and treason against his oath of office.

[bishop]

accountability.. too many ironies in this administration. bush campaigned on restoring honor and integrity to the white house - and on holding government/people accountable. and his actions since iraq have been a complete 180..

it's amazing that they continue to try and push their lies.

i can only hope (read: pray) that the voters hold him accountable in the fall.