<p>my own quote:
Sorry this is wrong. I misrepresented CGM’s question. There are quotes from Bush saying that they have not been able to find conclusive proof of a connection between Iraq and 9/11. It is the opposite statement that the left consistently and inappropriately ascribe to him. He has not said that there was a linkage between Saddam and 9/11.</p>
<p>That being said, if you can find a Bush quote that explicitly absolves Saddam from 9/11, I’d be interested in seeing it.</p>
<p>Gnususaurus, and I’m offended by the smug complacency of those who live with a guard-gate mentality in a bubble where their assumptions are untouched by frictions of class, race, economic status, or any issue more problematic than will the train into the City be on time and can they get the tee time they want for next Saturday.</p>
<p>So why exactly are we in Iraq…please enlighten me</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>At this point in time, we have exactly two choices. To be in Iraq or to pull out of Iraq.</p>
<p>Option A: If we pull out of Iraq, we are guaranteeing the total chaos of a civil war that will ultimately be won by pro-Iranian Shiites with a radical Islamic government. In all likelihood, that government would be an enabler of terrorism.</p>
<p>Option B: If we stay in Iraq, we have the support (at least for now) of all three groups with a vested interest in a functioning government in Iraq: the Shiite leaders, the Kurdish leaders, and the Sunni leaders. We also have the support of key allies in the region whose countries would be at great risk from chaos in Iraq and the eventual Iranian-backed fundamentalist regime.</p>
<p>Forget how we got there. While that makes interesting fodder for the historians, it is, for all intents and purposes, spilled milk and irrelevant to the decisions that face our country at this point in time.</p>
<p>If you look at the “enemy” combatants in Iraq right now, you see two groups that have a ill-suited marriage of convenience: hold-outs from Sadaam’s Sunni regime and foreign Jihadists. Assuming that the Jihadists are going to strap bombs to themselves and try to blow us up somewhere, I’d rather they focus their energy on Iraq than on New York.</p>
<p>The world doesn’t always present nice clean choices and Iraq presented a particularly ugly choice: leave Sadaam in power, supported indefinitely by his financial allies in France and the UN, or take him out and turn the country over to an Iranian-backed Shiite radical Islamic control. Given that Saddaam had attempted to assassinate the President of our Country, I can understand why leaving him in power was not in our best interest. I can also understand why walking away and turning the country into a radical Islamic nation is unattractive. Avoiding both of those pitfalls is by no means a sure bet, but the best chance of a better outcome is for the US to continue to provide the necessary stablity for Iraq to put a government in place. The $64,000 question is whether some form of stable, inclusive government is possible. A tall order, to be sure. However, there is some motivation in Iraq for that to occur because it is the only viable means to economic stability.</p>
<p>Better question- Why did we go into Iraq? </p>
<p>We have created such a mess, we can’t leave, and this war is going on 4 years, how long was World War II?</p>
<p>And what progress have we made…we seem to be going backwards</p>
<p>AND why should we forget why we got there? That is the dumbest thing I have heard today!!</p>
<p>Um, lets forget why we went into World War II…why we had the American Revolution? The reasons for going to WAR are about as important a subject as staying there. We got there because we were told we were under imminent atttack, that nuclear weapons were going to be aimed at us, that the stock piles of weapons of mass destruction were going to be shot at us in missles. That the connection between AlQueda and Iraq was on going and that that AlQueda attacked the US and that Iraq was harboring those AlQueda members.</p>
<p>Spilled milk? Tell that to the tens of thousands of maimed American soldiers, the tens of thousand dead Iraq women and chilren.</p>
<p>To call the reason for going to war Spilled Milk is an insult to all those soldiers fighting.</p>
<p>THe people there fighting went for a reason. I do not agree with the war, but I would never denigrate the fighting men and women of our country by forgetting why we sent them there in the first place.</p>
<p>And, if we don’t have a consistent reason why we went in, how do we know what the end goals are? The insurgency has gotten worse. So was it freedom and safety for the Iraqi people? Was it to make Iraq less of a haven for terrorists? Well, now it is being flooded by people ON OUR WATCH!!! It is now more of a haven for terrorist and insurgrences than before.</p>
<p>So knowing WHY we went in is important to know so we can decide when we are done.</p>
<p>TheDad,</p>
<p>Perhaps you can explain to me how the name calling in your earlier post will make these people want to emerge from behind their gates and embrace the ideas that are important to you?</p>
<p>(It would be interesting to know if these people also pass judgement on you. Maybe they are posting on the internet somewhere that they are repulsed by your lifestyle! I seriously doubt that they are. Kind of funny to think about, though.)</p>
<p>It takes all kinds to make the world. Some people are going to be very engaged in the problems of the world. Some are not going to be. I don’t quite understand why they have to fit in your box, and if they don’t, you critisize and reject them with this kind of writing. </p>
<p>Anyway, I always thought a person could catch more flies with honey, but everybody has to have their own “style”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Although we had inserted some special forces in Iraq beforehand, the actual invasion began March 20, 2003. That’s just a little over two years ago.</p>
<p>While I know that we expect instant results in today’s world, two years is a very short period of time. There have been many accomplishments in that time frame, including the overthrow of Sadaam’s government, his capture, the implementation of a puppet transition government, elections of an interim government, and considerable progress along a timeline towards an Iraqi consistution and elections for a permanent government. </p>
<p>None of the political factions in Iraq are calling for our departure. None of the Middle East countries are calling for our departure from Iraq.</p>
<p>Upcoming milestones are the submission of an Iraqui constitution, ratification of that document in October, and elections in December. The success (or lack thereof) of that process will go a long way towards determining our future role in Iraq.</p>
<p>Suppose I’m someone in the middle. I’ve voted for Democrats and Republicans in the past. I trust my President but I also have some doubts. I support the mission but I’m liable to change my mind if the war goes on and on. How long should I reasonably wait before I can decide whether the war was a success or failure? I’m interested in responses from all sides.</p>
<p>Why is it America’s business what goes on in Iraq? I am not sending my own kid off to war because there may or may not be a link between Hussein and Bin-Laden. But really, why is it our duty to spread capitalism around the world, democracy around the world, individual rights around the world? </p>
<p>There are cultures in this world that have different values than we do. They value communities, and family over individual rights. Socialism would fit this style of society better. Many societies don’t care as much about material goods. Why is capitalism the best for them?</p>
<p>I don’t get the America is best BS. Some countries just want to be left alone. Who made us God?</p>
<p>My kid is not going to fight in Iraq. There wasn’t security at stake. And it isn’t my kid’s business to go around killing people to put certain people in power over others.</p>
<p>I support Driver for Congress.</p>
<p>Okay three years…me bad, but we have been fighting The War on Terror since
The War on Terror has been going on for over three years…isn’t that the war we are fighting, we went to Afghanistan, then to Iraq</p>
<p>“A U.S. general who commanded the U.S. allied air forces in Iraq has confirmed that the U.S. and Britain conducted a massive secret bombing campaign before the U.S. actually declared war on Iraq.”</p>
<p>Starting in late May to June of 2002 a flurry of activity began both in the United States and in the Middle East. In what appears to be an admission of covert activity, chief allied air force commander Lieutenant-General Michael Moseley divulged in a little-noticed quote in the New York Times that US/British aircraft flew 21,736 sorties between June 2002 and March 2003.</p>
<p>Citygirlsmom:</p>
<p>The build-up to the invasion of Iraq was extensively detailed in Bob Woodward’s book, written with inside access during that entire period.</p>
<p>He explained the strategy: Since it would not be possible to achieve strategic surprise (Saddam knew we were coming), the decision was made to achieve tactical surprise by constantly “spiking” military activity for the year leading up to the war. This “spiking” involved air sorties, movement of Naval vessels, etc.</p>
<p>That’s the tip of the iceburg. We had begun inserting Special Ops forces into Iraq long before the start of hostilities. One of the most riveting stories in Woodward’s book is the story of the insertion of CIA ops into northern Iraq, complete with $3 million in cash to buy information. The culmination of that mission was the accurate information of Sadaam’s location the night we bombed his palace before the scheduled start of hostiliities.</p>
<p>The book is really a terrific read.</p>
<p>Okay, it was “strategy”, what do you call a country bombing another country, for whatever reason, over a period of ten months…“air sorties”</p>
<p>InterestedDad, you forgot to mention that the pre-invasion bombing of Iraq with hundreds of tons of bombs was a deliberate attempt to provoke Saddam Hussein into a response that would provide a justification for open military action in return.</p>
<p>Forget how we got there? Not bloody likely. The word is “accountability.” </p>
<p>Your Option A is mostly correct but your Option B is flawed. Iranian-connected theocrats are going to have effective control of the Southern part of the country in any scenario and if Iraq somehow muddles through with some medium-grade central authority they will control that as well. Democratic, stable, pro-American: choose any two. </p>
<p>The “I’d rather fight them in Iraq than fight them here” argument is one of the biggest bits of baloney perpetrated on the American public. 95 percent of the insurgents are domestic AND IT SOLELY OUR OCCUPATION THAT HAS MOTIVATED THEM. True, it may motivate them for years to come and they may cast their eyes to our shores, but they weren’t <em>our</em> problem before the occupation. I’m willing to bet that the best and brightest of the foreign fighters are being culled before they even get to Iraq, being separated out for long-horizon ops like their 9/11 brethren. The idea that if they weren’t coming to attack us in Iraq, they’d be coming to attack us here is ludicrous. It’s easy for most of these machine-gun fodder guys from Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, etc. to get to Iraq…getting here is another problem. The sophisticates with the money and training will have no problem getting here, I’m afraid.</p>
<p>Now, as for that last extensive bit:
</p>
<p>From the well-known Commie rag, THE WEEKLY STANDARD:
The Post added to the debate in one interesting way when it reported that U.S. intelligence officials have “discounted” reports in this magazine that Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, the Iraqi at the al Qaeda meeting, was “under Iraqi intelligence control.”</p>
<p>and, as the STANDARD concludes:</p>
<p>It’s possible, of course, that there is more than one Ahmed Hikmat Shakir. And even if the Shakir listed as an officer of the Saddam Fedayeen is the same Shakir who was present at the 9/11 planning meeting, it does not mean that the Iraqi regime helped plan or even had foreknowledge of those attacks.
</p>
<p>A reported plan based on a single defector that has had no further substantiation based on post-invasion records or otherwise.
</p>
<p>In his report a year ago, Glenn A. Fine, the inspector general of the U.S. Justice Department, rejected the possibility of Attas April visit. In the document, he asserted that two days before the supposed Prague meeting, Atta flew from Virginia Beach to New York and, 70 hours later, was again in Florida. Atta could have managed the Prague meeting only with difficulty. Yet, according to new and as yet unpublished information from U.S. security services, there exists no record of Attas movement from the beginning of March 2001 to the end of April of that year.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We’ve had much better access to Iraqi documents and such, including the capture of many key people, and nothing has emerged to substantiate this. Though I bet it’s not for lack of fervent trying. Moreover, taking the first part…an agreement not to work against each other when you have a mutual enemy…as a sign of “terrorist cooperation” is just plain silly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, and I could indicate that John McCain and Chuck Hagel’s are assets, too. Doesn’t mean that we’re working together. What pathetically weak reeds.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, if harboring a fugitive counts…and I think this is pretty tepid stuff…then let’s discuss the support for Saddam Hussein by the GHWB’s administration in the Iraq-Iran war, a level of support that made the Iraqi regime much more lethal than it would have beenotherwise, and turning a blind eye to the gassing of the Kurds in 1988/1989 with US-provided helicopters.</p>
<p>
<br>
Unsubstantiated. Though it’s an article of faith in the wingnut community’s echo chamber of the Weekly Standard, Limbaugh, National Review, et alia.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You seriously believe a press release in the tradition of the enemy of my enemy is my friend constitutes proof of cooperation? Fine, I’ll start attributing everything from Gary Bauer and James Dobson to every Bush supporter.</p>
<p>
Funny, but the post-bombing forensic examination of the site was conclusive that it was, in fact, a pharmaceutical factory and thus the bombing was one big “oops!” based on one un-replicated soil sample. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That “intelligence report” in 1999 was an article by Richard Miniter in the Manchester Guardian. Single sourced, from a journalist, uncollaborated. And, fwiw, author of a book titled something like HOW BILL CLINTON UNLEASHED GLOBAL TERROR…an agenda maybe? Nah. [Referenced in testimony to the 9/11 Commission by Statement of Judith S. Yaphe, July 9, 2003. Link here: <a href=“http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing3/witness_yaphe.htm[/url]”>http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing3/witness_yaphe.htm</a> is rather devastating to most of the hodgepodge thrown up in this entire sequence. A succinct but thorough tour d’horizon.]</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Unsubstantiated. The rumormongers can’t even agree as to whether it was surgery on his leg or nasal surgery. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Interesting. There is no thread that I’ve been able to find on this that does not go back to one of two defectors from Iraq, put forward by the Iraqi National Congress, which (e.g. Ahmed Chalabi), had a vested interest in getting the U.S. to invade Iraq. The INC’s “intelligence” is now widely discredited. That fatuous blowhard, Bill O’Reilly, certainly has clung to and pumped the story enough, </p>
<p>But, per Media Matters:</p>
<p>On March 2, 2004, Warren P. Strobel, Jonathan S. Landay, and John Walcott of Knight Ridder’s Washington bureau reported the same thing: “Iraqi defectors alleged that Saddam’s regime was helping to train Iraqi and non-Iraqi Arab terrorists at a site called Salman Pak, south of Baghdad. The allegation made it into a September 2002 white paper that the White House issued. [bold]The U.S. military has found no evidence of such a facility.”[/bold] Emphasis mine.</p>
<p>Part II…exceeded character limit.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, a pre-invasion letter, of which most of the then assumptions have proved to be bilge. And most of that reliability has proved to be piffle. Do you recall this was the same era as Curveball and the WMD’s? Chalabi and the “being greeted as liberators”?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Show me a collaboration. John McCain says that Bush should stop lying and Chuck Hagel says that we’re losing. I assure you everyone that I’m not working with McCain or Hagel for all that the enemy of my enemy may give me pleasure.</p>
<p>
[quote]
c)Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression.{/quote]</p>
<p>“Discussed.” Even <em>if</em> discussed–and so much of this pre-invasion “information” has vaporized upon examination–that does not equate with coordinated, executed, implemented. </p>
<p>
[quote]
d)Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad.
[quote]
</p>
<p>Let’s see the evidence gathered post-invasion to collaborate this claim, over and above the Ansar al-Islam in the northeast Kurdish region. This is in the same pile of claims as the aluminum tubes, the yellow cake, the nuclear program, the biological program, the cheering populace greeting us as liberators…gosh, this is a long list…and all the other pre-war bunkum from the same period that hasn’t panned out.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is part of the original buttressing of the WMD claims. Which have turned out to be thoroughly bogus & counterfeit.</p>
<p>
Uh-huh. “Baghdad’s support to extremist Palestinians” consisted of payments to the families of suicide bombers. While hardly pretty, it’s a pretty cheap way of buying support on the Arab street more than it is “supporting terrorism.” And by the same token, any government or group supporting the Palestinians against Israel would qualify as terrorists. Go ahead…I’ll watch as you try to arrest the Saudi royal family. Oh, and while you’re at it, arrest our current Shiite satraps in in southern Iraq…they’re virulently anti-Israeli too.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>More murk. “Contacts” hardly establishes a working relationship. Hell, I’ve had “contacts” with a number of people on this board and yet they’re not working with me to ensure that the Bush administration is in its last throes, even though they may agree with it. Maybe I can get wingnuts in trouble with their local thought police by openly making contacts with them on message boards so that they’ve had “contacts” with me.</p>
<p>The 9/11 Report concludes: “to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.”</p>
<p>You wind up with half of cup of warm drivel that wouldn’t satisfy anyone who wasn’t already waving a sword while riding their rocking horse and watching Bill O’Reilly at the same time. The technique includes throwing up a bunch of stuff so that a) it looks impressive and makes the casual reader think it must be true and b) hope that at least some of it sticks. The “links” to “terrorism” are so tenuous as to be laughable; it’s as if presenting a whale and holding up a minnow. There’s not a single terrorist operation, a single terrorist weapon, a single terrorist collaboration that can be tied to Saddam Hussein. There is no evidence of any collaboration regarding targets, materiel, finances, or tactics. Pfui. </p>
<p>And I laugh at the way the True Believers quote Tenet, Clarke, and the Clinton administration when it suits their interests, damn them for being hopelessly inept or plain wrong when it doesn’t.</p>
<p>We’ve broken it, we own it, and there’s no clear way out. Iraq is an open cesspool for terrorists <em>now</em>. As one dispirited Iraqi civilian recently said, “Why did you invite them all to our country?” The impolitic answer, difficult to explain, is that the current president wanted to wave his willy around the Middle East to one-up his Dad and thought it would be simple. !@#$%^&*! “Bring it on.” Well, they’ve brought it on to more than 1,700 Americans killed, more than 10,000 Americans maimed, and Iraqi civilian deaths in the tens of thousands, not less than 40,000, possibly as many as 100,000.
The administration premises for invading Iraq were lies, every milestone they’ve given about turning the corner has been a lie, from “Mission Accomplished” to “elections” to “Iraqi government” to “last throes of the insurgency.” For anyone who still believes that twaddle, I have a proposition for you: the last throes will still be on-going when George Bush leaves office and the end-state of Iraq when our troops finally leave will be something that Americans will be horribly embarrassed and angry about, as in, “We fought for THIS?”</p>
<p>Meanwhile, the situation in Iraq is much worse than the administration would have you believe, we do not control much of the country, the political situation is ugly and getting uglier, tactical successes are no indication of strategic progress (hey…seen any photos of Fallouja lately? I thought not) and the casualties will keep on coming.</p>
<p>I would for once like the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth from our government. That would be nice.</p>
<p>One of the reasons for going to war was the assasination attempt on George Bush Sr in 1993. You want us to forget choices our government made 3 years ago, but we are to accept those choices partly based on something that happened 12 years ago</p>
<p>So, by your logic, if someone made decisions three years ago, we are to call it spilled milk, but we are to hold OTHERS accountable for something that happened 12 years ago.</p>
<p>Gnususaurus, people seldom emerge from behind smug complacency…that’s what the gates are for. Putting out honey merely makes them feel validated that they’re “okay.” As it is, they’re off light with merely a harsh characterization when a vinegar bath might be more apropos. A year ago, my CEO brother in-law grandly announced that the Republicans would sweep to 60 seats in the Senate and bet dinner on it. Of course, he welched on the bet. Typical.</p>
<p>And if my posts with social/political content manage to offend you, then I suggest you either ignore them or, if you can’t, go and pound sand. Makes no difference to me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course. Heck, we’d been flying combat missions over Iraq since the end of Gulf War I, under the guise of patrolling the no-fly zone. Everytime Sadaam sneezed, we took out a radar installation in response. </p>
<p>As Woodward’s book makes clear, we did a tremendous amount of softening-up before the official start of the war, including a pretty large contingent of troops on the ground in western Iraq. Much of the “spiking” was designed to get a read on air defense systems.</p>
<p>Woodward’s book also makes clear that the decision take out Sadaam was effectively made shortly after 9/11. If I recall, much of the early part of the book describes Rumsfeld getting a read on the thinking and putting his planners to work. Bush only reluctantly agreed to hold off long enough for the sham process in the UN to play itself out.</p>
<p>I agree with you that the likely outcome is only a semi-stable government in Iraq. However, the thing that gives me a little optimism is the lack of any pronounced hue and cry from Iraq or anyone else in the Middle East. Sometimes it’s easy to forget that most of these countries have some very educated people with a desire to be part of the world economy. For the most part, these people did not want Sadaam Huissein OR a radical Islamic state in Iraq. They are more than happy to let us do the dirty work. And, when you get right down the brass tacks, we are probably the only country that can do it. The simple fact of the matter is that all of the parties in Iraq need the US right now. Whether they like us or not is really a non-issue, which is why a Sistani has been cooperative.</p>
<p>As to “provoking the insurgents”…well, of course. We kicked their sugar-daddy into a hole in the ground. Their days as fat cats in the Bathist regime are over and they don’t like it one bit. Rumsfeld indicated last week that car-bombings could very well be a part of life in Iraq for years and years. There’s no way to stop people who are willing to blow themselves up. The Iraqis will just have to learn to deal with it, much the way the Israelis have learned to deal with it as a part of everyday life.</p>
<p>In any case, I’ll take a semi-stable government under the thumb of the US for my two choices. That would be a very good outcome, IMO. It’s unrealistic to expect anything more than lip-service to a true democracy. I think, that as long as the US is involved in the occupation, there will be some protection for the Sunnis and the Kurds in the makeup of the government.</p>
<p>“You wind up with half of cup of warm drivel that wouldn’t satisfy anyone who wasn’t already waving a sword while riding their rocking horse and watching Bill O’Reilly at the same time.”</p>
<p>Hey, let’s be fair - Bill O’Reilly went on national tv and openly apologized to the American people when it was found there were no WMD and no workings links between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. </p>
<p>"Right before U.S. forces invaded Iraq, O’Reilly made a bold promise on ABC about Iraq’s WMDs: “If the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it’s clean, he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush Administration again, all right?”</p>
<p>Last week, thanks to persistent needling from ABC host Charlie Gibson, O’Reilly mustered a half-hearted apology: “Well, my analysis was wrong and I’m sorry… I was wrong. I’m not pleased about it at all.”</p>