Have WMDs been found in Iraq?

[Hanna]

<p>“Can we amend that to discuss the attacks on our interests, embassies, ships?”</p>

<p>And our close allies? Sure we can, both before and after 9/11.</p>

[kluge]

<p>C’mon, Hanna! You’re ruining all the fun. The point of the game is to keep moving the goalposts until you get just the answer you want. And remember - attacks on “our interests” in Iraq don’t count because… well, because.</p>

[zoosermom]

<p>

C’mon, Hanna! You’re ruining all the fun. The point of the game is to keep moving the goalposts until you get just the answer you want. And remember - attacks on “our interests” in Iraq don’t count because… well, because

</p>

<p>Wagging finger at Kluge! I didn’t say that at all. I wasn’t even referencing attacks after 9/11. My point was that the Cole and the Embassy bombings do count. As do the attacks in Iraq. Of course the attacks in Iraq are the result of our presence there. Of course they are, and the lives lost do count. But I don’t think it represents the history of this period in time to ignore the fact that there were multiple terrorist attacks aimed at America/Americans in the years leading up to 9/11.</p>

[vonlost]

<p>It seems that some have forgotten that there was no connection between Iraq and terrorism until after we invaded.</p>

[WashDad]

<p>

@vossron

It seems that some have forgotten that there was no connection between Iraq and terrorism until after we invaded.

</p>

<p>PREFACE: I’ve always opposed the Iraq war. Thought it was dumb in '03, still think it’s dumb today.</p>

<p>You chose a bad time to make the statement that Saddam and Iraq were not involved in supporting terrorism. While not involved in the 9/11 bombings, it wasn’t for lack of desire:</p>

<p>[Iraqi</a> Perspectives Project: Saddam and Terrorism](<a href=“http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/iraqi/index.html]Iraqi”>Iraqi Perspectives Project: Saddam and Terrorism)
[Terrorism</a> Havens: Iraq - Council on Foreign Relations](<a href=“http://www.cfr.org/publication/9513/]Terrorism”>http://www.cfr.org/publication/9513/)
[Saddam</a>, the terrorist’s friend | The Australian](<a href=“http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23413246-7583,00.html]Saddam”>http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23413246-7583,00.html)
[National</a> Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States](<a href=“http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing3/witness_yaphe.htm]National”>National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States)
[Report</a> Details Saddam’s Terrorist Ties - March 14, 2008 - The New York Sun](<a href=“http://www.nysun.com/foreign/report-details-saddams-terrorist-ties/72906/]Report”>http://www.nysun.com/foreign/report-details-saddams-terrorist-ties/72906/)
[Saddam</a> Hussein’s Support for International Terrorism](<a href=“http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html]Saddam”>http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html)</p>

[Bullet]

<p>vossron, whaty I think you need to actually say is “some have forgotten that there was no connection between Iraq and and the terrorist network responsible for 9/11.” At least, nothing consequential enough that justified military action on our part at the time. There has been documented proof that Sadam was in contact with known terrorist elements throughout the 90s (Washdad beat me to adding to the refernces ).<br>
Now, were these informal relations between Sadam and other terrorist elements a good enough reason to invade as well? Hindsight says “not so much”, but it IS speculation. We just don’t know what plans Sadam was concocting that may have hurt American interests after 9/11.
Don’t get me wrong, and I’ll be the first to admit it: I was one of those flag-waving, drum beating people in the front of the crowd screaming for blood. Something I’m pretty embarassed about now using rear-looking vision as my judge. This administration has made judgemental errors too numerous to count, errors that have weakened this country in ways most wouldn’t have beleived in the days after 9/11.<br>
But I was also intelligent enough at the time to understand that while Sadam wasn’t directly behind or involved in the 9/11 attacks, he seemed to be planning and coordinating other attacks, perhaps with some other terrorist network. To say this would never have happened or would have happened is also speculation.<br>
Allow me to use the analogy of organized crime. Yeah, the St. Louis family (Sadam) may have not been involved in the NY bank hiest (the NY family, Al Queda, was behind it), BUT they are active in organized crime and could pull off another bank hiest somewhere else (with or without the NY family’s help). A little simplistic, but I try. I also understand that the Organized Crime task force in this case (us) SHOULD have gone after the NY family until it was finito before they put all their efforts into St. Louis. Perhaps they thought the NY family was on its last legs (they sure seemed that way in 92!).</p>

<p>Again, hindsight clearly shows that we were wrong in our overall strategy, and what has me most upset about this administration is their hubris in refusing to admit it. But please don’t try to paint a picture that Sadam was a sweetie-pie with nothing but good intentions for the US. I spent too much time being shot at in the skies over Iraq in in the 90s to know that he wasn’t just sending an invite to land and share tea. :)</p>

[mapesy]

<p>

“There have been no terrorist attacks in the US in the last 7 years.”

</p>

<p>And why would there be? The terrorists are able to achieve their goals in Iraq as measured in terms of blood, treasure, and increased anti-American sentiment. Bin Ladin says his basic strategy is to “provoke and bait” the United States into “bleeding wars” throughout the Islamic world and bankrupt our country in the process. He’s got us right where he wants us.</p>

<p>Interesting that a 2007 government report says Al Qaeda is now stronger than it’s been at any time since 9/11:</p>

<p>[Government</a> report: Al Qaeda strongest since September 11, 2001 - CNN.com](<a href=“http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/11/al.qaeda.report/index.html]Government”>Government report: Al Qaeda strongest since September 11, 2001 - CNN.com)</p>

<p>Here’s an excellent article in Foreign Affairs that discusses how Washington has unwittingly helped strengthen Al Qaeda in the years post-9/11:</p>

<p>[Foreign</a> Affairs - Al Qaeda Strikes Back - Bruce Riedel](<a href=“http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070501faessay86304/bruce-riedel/al-qaeda-strikes-back.html]Foreign”>Al Qaeda Strikes Back)</p>

[fundingfather]

<p>“Again, hindsight clearly shows that we were wrong in our overall strategy, and what has me most upset about this administration is their hubris in refusing to admit it.”</p>

<p>Bullet, which hindsight do you refer to? The hindsight offered by the captured documents certainly refute the pre-war view of those who argued against the war that Saddam and al Qaeda would never collaborate because they were enemies. They also confirm that he had thoughts of using terrorists attacks against the US. (i.e., the nexus of terrorism and state-provided WMD was a real threat.) The hindsight offered by the interview of former Saddam officials certainly confirm that Saddam had every intent to rebuild his WMD capabilities and could have done so fairly quickly. The hindsight offered by interrogations of Saddam himself confirm that he had plans to rebuild his WMD capabilities. So, based on hindsight, the world that we would be facing right now, were it not for the war, is one with Saddam in power, the sanctions long gone/erroded, the WMDs (bio and chemical) replenished and the nuclear program re-established. </p>

<p>If anything, the hindsight view proves the anti-war crowd to have been mostly wrong. The only thing that gives the anti-war people any legs to stand on is that the cost of the war in terms of sacrifice and duration has been greater than expected - but, even that is a post-war re-writing of history since the anti-war people were predicting tens of thousands of US casualties.</p>

[fundingfather]

<p>mapesy,</p>

<p>Your information is old.</p>

<p>

Less than a year after his agency warned of new threats from a resurgent al-Qaeda, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden now portrays the terrorist movement as essentially defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and on the defensive throughout much of the rest of the world, including in its presumed haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.</p>

<p>In a strikingly upbeat assessment, the CIA chief cited major gains against al-Qaeda’s allies in the Middle East and an increasingly successful campaign to destabilize the group’s core leadership.</p>

<p>While cautioning that al-Qaeda remains a serious threat, Hayden said Osama bin Laden is losing the battle for hearts and minds in the Islamic world and has largely forfeited his ability to exploit the Iraq war to recruit adherents. Two years ago, a CIA study concluded that the U.S.-led war had become a propaganda and marketing bonanza for al-Qaeda, generating cash donations and legions of volunteers.</p>

<hr>

<p>A landmark study last August by the 16 U.S. intelligence agencies described the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area as a de facto al-Qaeda haven in which terrorist leaders were reorganizing for attacks against the West. But Hayden said counterterrorism successes extend even to that lawless region. Although he would not discuss CIA operations in the area, U.S. intelligence agencies have carried out several attacks there since January, using unmanned Predator aircraft for surgical strikes against al-Qaeda and Taliban safe houses.</p>

<p>“The ability to kill and capture key members of al-Qaeda continues, and keeps them off balance – even in their best safe haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border,” Hayden said.</p>

<p>

[U.S&lt;/a&gt;. Cites Big Gains Against Al-Qaeda](<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/29/AR2008052904116_pf.html]U.S”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/29/AR2008052904116_pf.html)</p>

[fundingfather]

<p>There have not only been fewer (i.e., no) attacks on US soil since 9/11 but terrorism around the world is down:

In both the START and MIPT data, non-Iraq deaths from terrorism have declined by more than 40 percent since 2001. (The NCTC says the number has stayed roughly the same, but that too is because of a peculiar method of counting.) In the only other independent analysis of terrorism data, the U.S.-based IntelCenter published a study in mid-2007 that examined “significant” attacks launched by Al Qaeda over the past 10 years. It came to the conclusion that the number of Islamist attacks had declined 65 percent from a high point in 2004, and fatalities from such attacks had declined by 90 percent.

[Zakaria:</a> The Only Thing We Have to Fear … | Newsweek Voices - Fareed Zakaria | Newsweek.com](<a href=“http://www.newsweek.com/id/138508]Zakaria:”>Zakaria: The Only Thing We Have to Fear ...)</p>

<p>So much for Bush making the world a less safe place.</p>

[mapesy]

<p>

Your information is old.

</p>

<p>How about this?</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/06/washington/06intel.html[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/06/washington/06intel.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Also, I feel it’s somewhat disingenuous to exclude Iraq from terrorism statistics.</p>

<p>Still, it’s becoming increasingly apparent that Islamic fundamentalism doesn’t hold the same allure for young Muslims that it once did, although I fail to see how the US can claim responsibility. I would think it has more to do with rising standards of living in terrorist recruitment areas, among other things.</p>

[k_amp_s]

<p>

The hindsight offered by the interview of former Saddam officials certainly confirm that Saddam had every intent to rebuild his WMD capabilities and could have done so fairly quickly.

</p>

<p>You forgot to include the very impt. part that the intent to rebuild was w/ regard to the perceived continued threat from …**IRAN<a href=“even%20today,%20the%20former%20elements%20of%20Saddam’s%20Revolutionary%20Guard/Sunni%20insurgents%20rather%20kill%20the%20%22infidel%22%20Persians%20than%20Americans”>/b</a>.</p>

<p>

There have been no terrorist attacks in the US in the last 7 years. Who takes a census on terrorists anyway? Even if there are more, they are less effective.

</p>

<p>Uhh, it was always very DIFFICULT to pull off a terrorist attack in the US (if certain people weren’t asleep on the watch, 9/11 should have been stopped).</p>

<p>Nonetheless, the no. of terrorist attacks in the rest of the world since 9/11 have INCREASED substantially - London, Glascow and Madrid; numerous bombings in Turkey, Algeria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Morocco, Pakistan, Indonesia/Bali, etc.</p>

<p>And that’s not counting the foiled attacks in the US (i.e. - the Brooklyn subway bombing plot), London, Germany, etc.</p>

<p>Gee, I wonder if is this any indication that recruitment for Al Qaeda or groups affiliated with AQ increased substantially after the invasion of Iraq?</p>

[fundingfather]

<p>Your NY Times article is still old relative to the latest assessment.</p>

<p>“Also, I feel it’s somewhat disingenuous to exclude Iraq from terrorism statistics.”</p>

<p>Why so? As indicated in the article, it is a war zone. Certainly you can’t equate a war zone with the rest of the world. The bottom line is that for the rest of the world, terrorism is down. Al Qaeda recruitment is down. Al Qaeda leaders are being captured and killed. So, how do you support the theory that Bush has made the world less safe?</p>

[k_amp_s]

<p>^ Are you DELUSUONAL?</p>

<p>

On a global scale: terrorist activity and violence has grown worse, not better since 11 September 2001. Average levels of terrorist violence that would have been considered extreme in the period prior to 9/11 have become the norm in the years since. And there is no sign that this trend is abating. This much is evident from a review of the terrorism incident database maintained by the Rand Corporation for the National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism (MIPT), which is funded by the US Department of Homeland Security. Surveying incidents for the period January 1998 through 11 August 2006 shows that:</p>

<p>The rate of terrorism fatalities for the 59 month period following 11 September 2001 is 250 percent that of the 44.5 month period preceding and including the 9/11 attacks. This figure has been adjusted to account for the different length of the two periods and it implies an increase in average monthly fatalities of 150 percent. (Only in January 1998 did the database begin to include both national and international terrorism incidents.)
The rate of terrorist incidents for the post-9/11 period is 268 percent that of the period prior to and including 11 September 2001. This implies a 167 percent increase in what might be called the average monthly rate of incidents. </p>

<p>A fair portion of the increased activity is related to the war in Iraq – but not all. Removing Iraq from the picture shows an increase in the average monthly rate of terrorism fatalities of more than 10 percent for the post-9/11 period. The increase in the rate of incidents not counting Iraq is 75 percent. </p>

<p>Another way of analyzing the data is to treat the 9/11 attacks as a dependent variable or as a “pivot point”. This allows us to ask: “What was the baseline incidence of terror prior to 9/11 and how has it changed since?” The baseline prior to 9/11 is indicative of the level of organization, capability, and activity that eventually expressed itself in the 9/11 attacks. </p>

<p>Removing 9/11 from the picture shows a 300 percent increase in fatalities for the post-9/11 period (including Iraq) or an 80 percent increase (excluding Iraq) when compared with the pre-9/11 period. The comparable change with regard to incidents is 168 percent increase with Iraq and 76 percent increase without.

</p>

<p>Furthermore…</p>

<p>

Among British and American intelligence agencies there is little question that the post-9/11 wars – **and the Iraq war, especially – have contributed significantly to post-9/11 terrorist activity and capabilities – not only inside Iraq, but outside as well. In early 2005 the directors of both the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Defense Intelligence Agency testified to this effect before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, saying that the Iraq war was serving to recruit terrorists.</p>

<p>Subsequently, both the Central Intelligence Agency and the State Department concluded in classified assessments that Iraq had become a prime training ground for terrorists.** A principal concern of these assessments was the problem of terrorist dispersal or “bleed out” to other countries. In this regard, it is noteworthy that the incidence of tactical activity most typical of small terrorist cells is much higher in Iraq than was the case in Afghanistan during the 1990s. These tactics include assassination, kidnapping, suicide-bombing of various types, and the use of remote-control bombs.

</p>

<p>[War</a> & Consequences: Global terrorism has increased since 9/11 attacks](<a href=“http://www.comw.org/pda/0609bm38.html]War”>War & Consequences: Global terrorism has increased since 9/11 attacks)</p>

[fundingfather]

<p>k&s,</p>

<p>It sometimes pays to update your data rather than just hold on to the old piece of data/opinion that serves your purposes. To do otherwise fosters “delusional” thinking.</p>

[k_amp_s]

<p>ff -</p>

<p>LOL!</p>

<p>Do you mean update or IGNORE (I guess according to you - the bombings in London, Glascow, Turkey, Algeria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Morocco, Pakistan, Indonesia/Bali, etc. never happened)?</p>

<p>Btw, if Saddam having WMDs were such a big deal - why did this admin make sure there were troops guarding the oil facilities in Iraq, but NOT the facilities which had the remnants of Saddam’s nuclear program?</p>

<p>When the looting began, Iraqis were able to get into these facilities and take away lab equipment and (unfortunately for them) even drums which stored nuclear waste.</p>

<p>

NEAR KUT, Iraq, May 3 – A specially trained Defense Department team, dispatched after a month of official indecision to survey a major Iraqi radioactive waste repository, today found the site heavily looted and said it was impossible to tell whether nuclear materials were missing. </p>

<p>The discovery at the Baghdad Nuclear Research Facility was the second since the end of the war in which a known nuclear cache was plundered extensively enough that authorities could not rule out the possibility that deadly materials had been stolen. The survey, conducted by a U.S. Special Forces detachment and eight nuclear experts from a Pentagon office called the Direct Support Team, appeared to offer fresh evidence that the war has dispersed the country’s most dangerous technologies beyond anyone’s knowledge or control. </p>

<p>In all, seven sites associated with Iraq’s nuclear program have been visited by the Pentagon’s “special nuclear programs” teams since the war ended last month. None was found to be intact, though it remains unclear what materials – if any – had been removed.

</p>

<p>[washingtonpost.com:</a> Iraqi Nuclear Site Is Found Looted](<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A10888-2003May3?language=printer]washingtonpost.com:”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A10888-2003May3?language=printer)</p>

[hops_scout]

<p>

the remnants of Saddam’s nuclear program?

</p>

<p>I see you all have changed your minds again. Just the other day there was no evidence of Saddam having anything destructive. Now he does? Make up your mind before you go on about how wrong everything was…</p>

[kluge]

<p>Bullet - re: your post #46 - you’re going to want to read Phase II of the Senate’s report into pre-war intelligence - released today.</p>

[jerushs]

<p>fundingfather and your cohort-</p>

<p>i’m just thankful there’s a new generation in the rising.</p>

[mapesy]

<p>

Your NY Times article is still old relative to the latest assessment.

</p>

<p>They’re only a few months apart, so I’m not buying it. Still, it begs the question: How could two assessments released within a few months of each other come to such divergent conclusions? </p>

<p>The major difference in our links is the source: yours is from the CIA, while mine is from the Director of National Intelligence. From the Washington Post: “National Intelligence Estimates are the most authoritative documents that the intelligence community produces on a specific national security issue, and are approved by the director of national intelligence. Their conclusions are based on analysis of raw intelligence collected by all of the spy agencies.”</p>

<p>It will be interesting to see if the latest information from the CIA is a precursor of things to come.</p>

<p>

Why so? As indicated in the article, it is a war zone. Certainly you can’t equate a war zone with the rest of the world.

</p>

<p>Why not? It’s an unprecedented “war on terror”. According to the Bush administration, we’re taking the fight to the terrorists in Iraq so they won’t attack us here at home. Terrorists are supposedly traveling from many Middle Eastern countries to fight the US in Iraq. The terrorists aren’t fighting using traditional methods, but are instead using acts of terror against our soldiers, as well as against Iraqi citizens. </p>

<p>Here are the latest stats I could find that include Iraq: In 2006, 45% of 14,338 reported worldwide terrorist attacks took place in Iraq; in 2005, 30% of worldwide terrorist attacks occurred in Iraq.</p>

<p>

So, how do you support the theory that Bush has made the world less safe?

</p>

<p>Do I say that anywhere? In my opinion, the world isn’t more OR less safe. It only takes a few terrorists to create mass mayhem. I also believe the only effective methods of fighting international terrorism are to improve standards of living in recruitment areas and to stop meddling in Middle Eastern affairs (not going to happen.)</p>