Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 172
  1. #101  
    Quote Originally Posted by chillig35
    I guess this dossier of concrete evidence can be found in the same place where the POTUS found evidence for WMD??
    Quoted below is a response I posted on another thread talking about if the reasons for going into Iraq were valid or not. Remember that this is a War on Terror, not a war on 9/11.....there is a big difference. We AQ has suffered MAJOR blows to their money flow, their leadership, their membership, their training camps, all with world wide visibility that continually adds added pressure on them that they never experienced before we went after them after 9/11.

    Again, this is a war on terror....and those who knowingly harbor and support their efforts. Those who have a history of terror tactics or support and current means of supporting attacks against the US, either directly or through support of groups who will gladly do it for them.

    That is why I find the example that we attack Germany because they are not doing as good a job as if it was the same as attacking Iraq who has used WMDs on both his own people and his enemies. Who claimed repeatedly lied about if had them and lied if he did not have them. Who had several terrorist camps and organizations in his country without any resistance to stop or leave by the gov. Who paid those who family members support terrorist attacks against innocent civilians. I find this comparison absolutely ridiculous. :

    Yes do a Google News search.......There was confirmation from over 10 nation's intelligence agencies and nation's leaders AND from the UN intel that Saddam had WMDs...including England, Russia, Iran, Israel, and France!

    What makes this hard is that we couldn't believe the lies Saddam was telling about his lies. I mean he lied when he had WMDs and tried to hide them. Then he lied that he had WMDs when he didn't have them (though it was proven with docs recovered and by his own personal testimony that he had plans in the works to get them again). In a post 9/11 world, that is not very smart. It's like standing in a dark alley in NYC and you keep on telling a cop you have gun and you might use it while keeping you hands tucked in your jacket pocket point your finger at the cops. It's just stupid.

    There comes a point (aka after 12 years of deceptions and 18 UN resolutions) when you have to call a bluff, when you have to act on the lies of the leader of a proven hostile country.

    The nature of intelligence is gathering all the facts and making a decision of the possibilities of the outcome of that information. It is extremely rare to have a smoking gun in hand whenever making a decision (cuba missile crisis being the ONLY one in modern warfare history I can recall as the exception to this rule, besides waiting to be attacked as proof such as Pearl Harbor and 9/11 which is least to say counter productive). Yes do a Google News search.......There was confirmation from over 10 nation's intelligence agencies AND from the UN intel that Saddam had WMDs and that is about as close as you can get to that though. Remember that this was in a time were we were already attacked and know that it will happen again if given half a chance. Given the nature of Saddams continual deceptions he recently admitted to on 7/25/2004 where he purposely tried to give the impression he had WMD until he could finalize his plans and bribes to get WMDs again....and given the strong probability at the time he had direct and established connections to Alq...given the fact that inspections were not working because Saddam admitted to trying to deceive them with a vengeance so that we did NOT know he did not have them and more importantly so that Iran did not find out he did not have any....this all has to be considered when analyzing the risk to national security of another homeland attack with either a bio or nuke strike on US soil by waiting until it happened as proof to go after Saddam who was trying his hardest to make it look like he was in a position to do it?

    Clinton was also an important part in the Bush's decision as he had intel from his administration that Saddam had nuke and bio WMDs and confirmed that to Bush.

    I realize that hind sight is 20/20. History has proven over and over again that if we knew then what we know now, we could have taken a straighter course. Heck hind sight has showed us that we came within 36 hours of having a nuke strike on US soil if we would have extended the time of signing the surrender papers with Japan and Germany at the end of WWII by just 2 days!
    This a damn if you do and damn if you don't situation. If Bush you acted on information that could put the country the country at risk, you will have the left say "Why", "Why not talk it out?", "This is obuse of power!", etc.... If Bush did not do anything and we were attacked again, the left would say "You had all that information, we said to act on it at that time, the world's intelligence community agreed, the UN voted unanimously to act on it....why didn't you do anything?"
  2. #102  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Remember that this is a War on Terror, not a war on 9/11.....there is a big difference. We AQ has suffered MAJOR blows to their money flow, their leadership, their membership, their training camps, all with world wide visibility that continually adds added pressure on them that they never experienced before we went after them after 9/11.
    I think there is little doubt that we have damaged Al Queada...the question remains (especially after the report yesterday from the Hill by one of the commanders that there may be more insurgents in Iraq than 6 months ago) how much more damage still needs to be done.

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    That is why I find the example that we attack Germany because they are not doing as good a job as if it was the same as attacking Iraq who has used WMDs on both his own people and his enemies. Who claimed repeatedly lied about if had them and lied if he did not have them. Who had several terrorist camps and organizations in his country without any resistance to stop or leave by the gov. Who paid those who family members support terrorist attacks against innocent civilians. I find this comparison absolutely ridiculous. :
    Hobbes, first off, if you reference something like this, can you at least quote it. I had to go back 3 pages to find what you were talking about.

    This is what I said:
    Stopping terrorism is great and most support stopping terrorism. However, that doesnt mean we have the green light to go into any nation we see fit to stop it. Imagine if you will a nation state like Germany...what if they were fighting terrorist but werent doing as good as a job as the US would like? Do you advocate invading Germany and doing it for them? Do you think that just because they have terrorists that its an imminent threat to the US that allows us to make a preemptive strike? Do you see where I am going with this?
    First, this discussion was in reference to idea that its arguable that we violated international law by invading Iraq. The argument I was making is that IF Iraq is a sovereign country, then the only legitimate way we can invade it is under the policy of preemption. Preemption requires there to be an imminent thread. Its arguable that Sadaam and Iraq were NOT about to attack the U.S. If the a country acts (as we did) you have to have evidence. Arguably we didnt have the evidence (and produced very little proof) to substantiate our claim.

    Second, I threw the idea of invading another sovereign nation in there to show the example of how, under the argument that we can go anywhere to stamp out terrorism and how its a global war, that we could run the risk of looking illegitimate and illegal. If you look at what I wrote, I was asking 1911 "Do you advocate invading Germany..."

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    This a damn if you do and damn if you don't situation. If Bush you acted on information that could put the country the country at risk, you will have the left say "Why", "Why not talk it out?", "This is obuse of power!", etc.... If Bush did not do anything and we were attacked again, the left would say "You had all that information, we said to act on it at that time, the world's intelligence community agreed, the UN voted unanimously to act on it....why didn't you do anything?"
    No one said it would be an easy decision (I certainly don't think so) but you and anyone else should not be so sensitive if we critique OUR decisions on foreign policy.

    Correct me if I am wrong but: You seem to be saying that because it was a tough decision, we shouldnt second guess it.??? If that is the case, I don't think I could ever buy that. We should always be asking ourselves how we can do it better and more transparent. We talk about the global war on terrorism...that right and the world is watching us. We need to be fair, consistant and transparent in what we do. As usual, we are setting the example and the world is watching. My only desire (all politics aside) is that that we bring honor and integrity to the US.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  3. #103  
    You're right that Saddam did have WMD during the first Gulf war and that since then it has been problematic to confirm that he had completely dismantled them. All the intelligence reports that you have mentioned below have clearly stated that while the majority of the Iraqi WMD programs were dismantled, they could not be sure that there was a 100% compliance.

    However, if it was WMD in the wrong hands that was the key driver after 911, then more appropriate focus should have been on countries such as Pakistan and NKorea (which were confirmed to have WMD) and others such as Iran, Syria, Libya - all the above countries being openly hostile to the Western nations and especially USA. For crying out loud - folks in Pakistan were dancing in the street after 911! They have a tinpot dictator who can barely control his own people - and has become the nuke supermarket for the islamic world. Plus Osama has made his home there. But nothing has been done in dealing with these much more dangerous countries - and they now know that we don't have the bandwidth to deal with them because of Iraq.

    Frankly, even though Saddam was a power hungry brutal dictator, he was more focused on regional hegemony than any particular religious hatred towards the West. His main intent for WMDs was against his own people who tried to rebel against him, against Iran with whom he's waged a decades long war, and potentially as a hedge against Israel, which IS the regional superpower. In fact during his regime Iraq was among the most secular islamic countries in the world - and they did not have the virulent hatred of the west as did Iran and other islamic countries. Sure Saddam may been seething because of the humiliation of the first Gulf war, but there has not been any evidence (none of the intelligence reports have drawn that conclusion) that he was planning a terrorist attack on the USA.

    The Administration did absolutely the right thing in knocking out the Taliban in Afghanistan - it was a terrorist breeding ground. It would have been nice if they could have finished the job and got Osama. And if they looked at other potential threats to our security, then most other place would have topped the list such as Iran (they had an active nuclear program underway), Pakistan, Syria among others.

    The problem is that the administration has not only made a tactical error in Iraq (because of the unexpected insurgency), but also a more dmagaing strategic error in going after Saddam in the first place.
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
  4. #104  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    there may be more insurgents in Iraq than 6 months ago) how much more damage still needs to be done.
    Thanks a great deal to Iran's apparent and/or alleged support of these terrorist groups.

    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    Hobbes, first off, if you reference something like this, can you at least quote it. I had to go back 3 pages to find what you were talking about.
    Sorry about that...I always do quote...but being at work I ran out of time.

    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    This is what I said:
    First, this discussion was in reference to idea that its arguable that we violated international law by invading Iraq. The argument I was making is that IF Iraq is a sovereign country, then the only legitimate way we can invade it is under the policy of preemption. Preemption requires there to be an imminent thread. Its arguable that Saddam and Iraq were NOT about to attack the U.S. If the a country acts (as we did) you have to have evidence. Arguably we didn’t have the evidence (and produced very little proof) to substantiate our claim.
    To the best of my understanding, legally were still at war with Iraq as the first Gulf War was only suspended with a cease fire agreement and not a surrender by international war. This one reason why Clinton was able to bomb the heck out of Bagdad back in 98 or 99. The no fly zones were also part of the cease fire agreement and gave us the option to use force if violated, which Clinton and both Bushes used as needed.

    Second is that the UN voted unanimously to take extreme measures against Iraq if Saddam did not comply. France, Germany, (the main nations pointed to with the Oil for Food scandal) and Russia (with a vast investment in Iraq and who owed a huge debt to Russia) started sqawking when Saddam played his old tune for the last 12 years...saying "we know he has lied to for the last 12 years and has ignored the last 18 resolutions, but trust him, he will come around"....and it was time to act on they approved.

    Again please read my quote above for the proof and intelligence available at the time.

    Second, I threw the idea of invading another sovereign nation in there to show the example of how, under the argument that we can go anywhere to stamp out terrorism and how its a global war, that we could run the risk of looking illegitimate and illegal. If you look at what I wrote, I was asking 1911 "Do you advocate invading Germany..."
    Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought that you were saying that both situations were on equal ground, which they obviously are not.

    No one said it would be an easy decision (I certainly don't think so) but you and anyone else should not be so sensitive if we critique OUR decisions on foreign policy.

    Correct me if I am wrong but: You seem to be saying that because it was a tough decision, we shouldn’t second guess it.???
    No, you misunderstood what I meant....or probably more true to the point I didn't express it very good.

    I always think we should question our foreign policy, whether it is bombing an aspirin factory on the day a deposition is being taken against the president on a personal matter or whether it was valid to conduct a pre-emptive strike against another nation.

    The point I didn't really have the time to make was that the Liberals have always held a radiating hatred against Bush and anything he does. To the point that the Dems killed themselves last election because they put themselves in a position that if anything good happened for America it was a bad thing or at least down played it anyway possible because it might look like Bush did even one good thing. The only point I was making is that no matter what, Bush was in a position to be criticized by his opponents. If he didn't do anything and something happened there is no doubt he would have been attacked by all sides. And when he did act, with the information available at the time in the aftermath of a 9/11 world, he is attacked. I was just saying that politically He couldn’t win for trying.

    Believe me when I say that certainly things could have been handled differently, as is true with any conflict, which is what I alleged to when I mentioned hindsight is 20/20. If Bush knew then that Saddam was lying about his lies that had no WMDs then I think he would of held off. If in 12 years from now we find a huge underground pile of bio and chem weapons, then I think he will happy he acted as he did, when he did.

    We look at so many historical situations when nations did what they did because of current knowledge (or lack of) with a given political environment at that time. Look at Pearl Harbor. England had confirmed knowledge that we were going to be attacked but they did not tell us because they wanted us in the war and because they did not want to tell us that they did not tell us that they broke the Jap's code. It is also in question whether Roosevelt knew as well, but did not act because he knew given the political status of US internal politics, this was probably going to be the only way to get the US into the war as well.

    Again, yes it should always be reviewed and questioned, but in light of the internal and international political environment, intel at that time a decision was made, the pros for the nation vs the potential cons for the American People, and the motivations that may have influenced those decisions......and not just because of political biases or gain.

    Quote Originally Posted by chillig35
    However, if it was WMD in the wrong hands that was the key driver after 911, then more appropriate focus should have been on countries such as Pakistan and NKorea (which were confirmed to have WMD) and others such as Iran, Syria, Libya - all the above countries being openly hostile to the Western nations and especially USA.
    I fully agree that there are several threats and that all must be taken care of. I assume that you would agree that all cannot be taken care of at once. Then it comes down to what to do first.

    IRAN: I personally think that the US has always been all too aware of the threat of Iran, which has lead to many of our decisions in dealing with both Iraq and Iran. I personally think that is one (among a mountain of others) consideration why during the first Gulf war, we did not go all the way to take out Bagdad, is that Iraq offers a political buffer between the US and Iran and helps to stop a full head on toe to toe situation.

    To tell you the truth Iran possibly scares me more than any other immediate threat for a couple reasons. NK obviously can hurl nukes our way, but I feel is unable to wage any other long term war because of their economy being so bad, food so scarce, and energy resources always low. But Iran I feel has the economy, political momentum, and the man power to wage a VERY serious war against the US. This would make the Iraq war look like game a Risk compared to it, if it came to feet on the ground.

    NKorea: The big difference between Iraq and NK is that NK, as you stated, already has up to 8 unconfirmed nukes with an unconfirmed delivery capability to launch a strike against the entire West Coast of the US with a push of a button. Iraq was claiming (or at least not allowing confirmation that they were not) to be really close to nuke capability and we still had a chance to act before they got it.

    Syria: I think this could have been a possibility, not because of their political, or economical, or military factors, but for making their county a safe haven for terrorist. It may be a target soon because of their continual support of terrorist while thumbing their nose at the rest of us.

    Pakistan: This again falls into a NK category as they also have nukes and have proved with 5 tests in 1998. http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/nuke/ . Again a country that already has nukes is a whole different situation than one on verge of getting them, like Iran and Iraq.

    Lybia: After seeing that the US meant business with those playing games with WMDs, already gave theirs up and welcomed us in to make sure there they had it all. This is an example of what can happen when we stand up to threats and follow through on what we say we are going to do.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 06/24/2005 at 04:22 PM.
  5. #105  
    We talk about the global war on terrorism...that right and the world is watching us. We need to be fair, consistant and transparent in what we do. As usual, we are setting the example and the world is watching. My only desire (all politics aside) is that that we bring honor and integrity to the US.
    I'm with you T2 - with great power comes greater responsibility. We're proud to be American - and the great thing about our nation unlike many others is that we do not stoop to pettiness (e.g France) nor should we use brute force simply because we can

    I agree with Hobbes that sometimes a president has to do whatever is necessary in a time of (imminent) war if he feels that is the right thing - in spite of public opinion. FDR had to mislead the American public initially, to be able to get into the war against Germany, as he rightly assessed that Hitler was a threat to Western civilization. Once he did commit America to the war nobody ever questioned him whether it was the right thing. The fact is that almost half of the people in this country do not believe that the president made the right decision in Iraq - it's not just a small minority of whining liberals.

    I have no doubt that our troops will make Iraq a better place than it was, and I agree with the president that they should stay course and finish the job before the come back home. And I pray that my brother-in-law (in the Rangers) and my two friends in the Marines (already on the their 2nd tour!) come home safe and sound.

    I believe that we accomplished the most (in terms of dismantling the terrorists) when went into Afganistan - but I (and about half of America) don't think we've made the world a safer place since then, by going into Iraq.
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
  6. #106  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Does it really bother you guys this much? How bout this?

    I will bust out a new one.
    THAT IS TOO COOL A circle moves until I actually look right at it and then it stops!!!!!! Man I am going to share this one!
  7. #107  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    THAT IS TOO COOL A circle moves until I actually look right at it and then it stops!!!!!! Man I am going to share this one!
    Find the hidden WMD in the circles!!
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
  8. #108  
    Quote Originally Posted by chillig35
    Find the hidden WMD in the circles!!
    I can't.......they are being walked out the back door each time I try looking!
  9. #109  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    I can't.......they are being walked out the back door each time I try looking!
    ahh - that's called bait-and-switch!
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
  10. #110  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Does it really bother you guys this much? How bout this?

    I will bust out a new one.
    Reminds me of a bowl of Gagh...

    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  11. #111  
    Where's Waldo...

    Well behaved women rarely make history
  12. #112  
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
  13. #113  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    To the best of my understanding, legally were still at war with Iraq as the first Gulf War was only suspended with a cease fire agreement and not a surrender by international war. This one reason why Clinton was able to bomb the heck out of Bagdad back in 98 or 99. The no fly zones were also part of the cease fire agreement and gave us the option to use force if violated, which Clinton and both Bushes used as needed.
    Its debatable. If you have read any of the British Memo, that was the concern by Tony Blairs advisors and it was shared (and assumed discussed) by then NSA Condi Rice.

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Again please read my quote above for the proof and intelligence available at the time.
    I am not saying we didnt have anything but I thought when Colin Powell presented photos at the UN, we eventually lost credibility because of the intel we relied on. (Plus, if you have an open mind..there seems to be a lot of evidence (not conclusive) that whatever intel we did have was being 'interpreted' in the best light possible to implicate Sadaam so we could justify an invasion)

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought that you were saying that both situations were on equal ground, which they obviously are not.
    No they arent (and usually your posts are pretty level-headed...so I thought something was up. ).

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    I always think we should question our foreign policy, whether it is bombing an aspirin factory on the day a deposition is being taken against the president on a personal matter or whether it was valid to conduct a pre-emptive strike against another nation.
    Then we agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    The point I didn't really have the time to make was that the Liberals have always held a radiating hatred against Bush and anything he does.
    I am not sure why (I can only support it if there is evidence and a valid argument.)

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    To the point that the Dems killed themselves last election because they put themselves in a position that if anything good happened for America it was a bad thing or at least down played it anyway possible because it might look like Bush did even one good thing.
    Bad policitical move IMO.

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    The only point I was making is that no matter what, Bush was in a position to be criticized by his opponents.
    And as President, you gotta know that going in.

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    If he didn't do anything and something happened there is no doubt he would have been attacked by all sides. And when he did act, with the information available at the time in the aftermath of a 9/11 world, he is attacked. I was just saying that politically He couldn’t win for trying.
    I understand that. But that doesnt mean that conservatives should get all wrapped up when policies are questioned.

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Believe me when I say that certainly things could have been handled differently, as is true with any conflict, which is what I alleged to when I mentioned hindsight is 20/20. If Bush knew then that Saddam was lying about his lies that had no WMDs then I think he would of held off. If in 12 years from now we find a huge underground pile of bio and chem weapons, then I think he will happy he acted as he did, when he did.
    No doubt there.

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Again, yes it should always be reviewed and questioned, but in light of the internal and international political environment, intel at that time a decision was made, the pros for the nation vs the potential cons for the American People, and the motivations that may have influenced those decisions......and not just because of political biases or gain.
    My hang up is the imminent threat argument of Sadaam against the U.S. I just dont see it and I don't think I have read or heard of a very persuasive argument. Now, if we argue the whole 'Sadaam is a bad guy and we should have regime change'...then thats a better argument.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  14. #114  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    My hang up is the imminent threat argument of Sadaam against the U.S. I just dont see it and I don't think I have read or heard of a very persuasive argument. Now, if we argue the whole 'Sadaam is a bad guy and we should have regime change'...then thats a better argument.
    I found this pretty interesting:

    The monetarization of foreign policy
    http://powerlineblog.com/archives/006589.php#006589

    News regarding the foiled al Qaeda attack in Jordan has been slow to make its way into the mainstream news. One must be an avid consumer of news via the sources available on the Internet to deduce how the story connects the dots regarding the Bush administration's case for war on Saddam Hussein.

    Today's column by Jack Kelly of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, just one step removed from the bigfoot media, should help the slow learners in the audience: "They're out there." http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04123/309356.stm (Courtesy RealClearPolitics.)

    Kelly adds one piece of information I have not seen elsewhere. Kelly notes that intelligence expert John Loftus said the nerve agent in the chemical cocktail to be used by the al Qaeda conspirators was VX. "Syria doesn't make VX. Saddam Hussein's Iraq did." Kelly also suggests that the WMD secreted in Syria have made their way to the Sudan and, perhaps, back to Syria.

    Kelly also observes that Charles Duelfer, the chief weapons inspector in Iraq, has identified kickbacks on contracts set up under the United Nations' Oil-for-Food program as a primary source for funding Saddam Hussein's illicit weapons.

    Kelly concludes: "These developments have received little attention from the major media, perhaps because they are unhelpful to Democratic prospects in the fall. But what if the Jordanian attack had succeeded? What if the target had been Chicago instead of Amman? Some things are more important than domestic politics." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html

    Today's Telegraph has several interesting reports related to the monetarization of foreign policy at the UN and elsewhere. Glenn Reynolds calls it a sleazefest doubleheader, but three stories fall under the umbrella of the sleazefest. First, the Telegraph reports on the magnitude of the corruption involved in UNscam: "Iraq oil-for-food kickbacks 'higher than suspected.'" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html .

    The Telegraph also reports on the connections of the authors of a letter on foreign policy published in the paper last week: "Diplomats failed to disclose their own Arab links." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../ixportal.html . The Telegraph reports:

    In a letter published last week, 52 former British diplomats condemned the invasion of Iraq and the Government's support for Israel. The letter failed to disclose, however, that several of the key signatories, including Oliver Miles, the former British ambassador to Libya who instigated the letter, are paid by pro-Arab organisations. Some of the others hold positions in companies seeking lucrative Middle East contracts, while others have unpaid positions with pro-Arab organisations.

    Finally, the Telegraph reports on Kofi Annan's threats to fire officials who wrote an expose of corruption in its 1990s peacekeeping missions: "UN threatens authors of 'racy' exposé." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../ixportal.html . Does anyone have second thoughts about relying on Brandini to help us escape from our Iraqi handcuffs?
    And.....

    June 23, 2005
    Pay No Attention to the Terrorists Behind the Curtain

    The other big news story of the day is the trial in Jordan of a group of terrorists who are accused of attempting to unleash a chemical weapons attack in that country. The Associated Press reports:

    Islamic militants planned to detonate an explosion that would have sent a cloud of toxic chemicals across Jordan, causing death, blindness and sickness, a chemical expert testified in a military court Wednesday.

    Col. Najeh al-Azam was giving evidence in the trial of 13 men who are alleged to have planned what would have been the world's first chemical attack by the al-Qaida terror group. The accused include al-Qaida's leader in Iraq, Abu-Musab Al-Zarqawi, and three other fugitives who are being tried in absentia.

    This is from one of the early news reports:

    A televised confession by the terrorist allegedly responsible for carrying out the operation included information that closely tracks the testimony about Zarqawi and his operations in Iraq that Secretary of State Colin Powell presented to the United Nations Security Council on Feb. 5, 2003.
    In Herat, [Afghanistan]," Jayousi told Jordanian TV, "I began training under Abu Musab [al Zarqawi] which involved high-level instruction in explosives and poisons. Then I promised my loyalty to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. I agreed to work for him -- no questions asked. When Afghanistan fell, I again met up with al-Zarqawi in Iraq."

    "There in Iraq," said Jayousi, "I was told by Abu Musab to travel to Jordan with Muwaffaq Udwan. We were to get ready for a military action in Jordan."

    "When I arrived in Jordan, I met with another person with ties to Abu Musab by the name of Haytham Omar Ibrahim -- a Syrian -- who secured our safe houses," said Jayousi.

    "Next Muwaffiq and I began reconnaissance on the targets," said Jayousi. "Then we began to gather chemicals needed to make explosives. . . . amassing almost 20 tons, which was sufficient for all our plans in Jordan. Then I began manufacturing."


    So, after the fall of Afghanistan at the end of 2001, Zarqawi and other al Qaeda veterans made their way to Iraq, where, secure under the wing of Saddam Hussein, they plotted chemical weapons attacks on countries friendly to the U.S., as well as the murder (successfully carried out) of an American diplomat. And yet, to this day it remains an article of faith on the left that Saddam's Iraq was a kite-flyer's paradise with no connection to international terrorism, no relations with al Qaeda, and, of course, no chemical weapons. Maybe the current trial will reveal where the chemicals assembled for the attack on Jordan came from; maybe it won't. But we don't need any new information to understand that Saddam's regime protected and supported the deadliest of al Qaeda's terrorists.

    Additional links on this same connection:

    Click Here
    Click Here
    Click Here
  15. #115  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    I found this pretty interesting
    Hobbes: thanks for the links. I read over both articles that you quoted. A couple of questions/comments:

    The monetarization of foreign policy:

    On this one,

    Kelly adds one piece of information I have not seen elsewhere. Kelly notes that intelligence expert John Loftus said the nerve agent in the chemical cocktail to be used by the al Qaeda conspirators was VX. "Syria doesn't make VX. Saddam Hussein's Iraq did." Kelly also suggests that the WMD secreted in Syria have made their way to the Sudan and, perhaps, back to Syria.
    First off, just because Syria doesnt make it and Saddam evidently did does not lead to the conclusion that it came from Iraq. (although its circumstantial at least.)

    And on this one:
    Kelly concludes: "These developments have received little attention from the major media, perhaps because they are unhelpful to Democratic prospects in the fall. But what if the Jordanian attack had succeeded? What if the target had been Chicago instead of Amman? Some things are more important than domestic politics." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai.../ixnewstop.html
    This implies that all of the media is Democratic? Because if its not, why wasnt this reported by the media that are favorable to Pres. Bush? Why didnt Bush bring it out himself through Scott McClellan and his press corps?

    On the second article you quoted:

    Pay No Attention to the Terrorists Behind the Curtain
    So, after the fall of Afghanistan at the end of 2001, Zarqawi and other al Qaeda veterans made their way to Iraq, where, secure under the wing of Saddam Hussein, they plotted chemical weapons attacks on countries friendly to the U.S., as well as the murder (successfully carried out) of an American diplomat. And yet, to this day it remains an article of faith on the left that Saddam's Iraq was a kite-flyer's paradise with no connection to international terrorism, no relations with al Qaeda, and, of course, no chemical weapons. Maybe the current trial will reveal where the chemicals assembled for the attack on Jordan came from; maybe it won't. But we don't need any new information to understand that Saddam's regime protected and supported the deadliest of al Qaeda's terrorists.
    Because terrorists were in Iraq does not necessarily link Sadaam to them (or the 9/11 attacks). Arguably there are terrorists in every country in the ME. Its not like the borders are that closed (we know this because Al Queada slips in and out of Pakistan at their leisure). It doesnt even link them to him in monetary/support ways either. Plus if what this article says is true, then why didnt the 9/11 commission find this link (or did they)?
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  16. #116  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    First off, just because Syria doesn’t make it and Saddam evidently did does not lead to the conclusion that it came from Iraq. (although its circumstantial at least.)
    Isn't that what intelligence is? The nature of intelligence is gathering all the facts, hints, and circumstantial evidence that point to the most probable truth and making a decision of the possibilities of the outcome of that information. It is extremely rare to have a smoking gun in hand whenever making a decision (cuba missile crisis being the ONLY one in modern warfare history I can recall as the exception to this rule, besides waiting to be attacked as proof such as Pearl Harbor and 9/11 which is least to say counter productive).

    This implies that all of the media is Democratic? Because if its not, why wasn’t this reported by the media that are favorable to Pres. Bush? Why didn’t Bush bring it out himself through Scott McClellan and his press corps?
    No, I think that was a bold and exaggerated statement, but I think that it is generally recognized that a vast majority of the MSM (main stream media) does lean left. I am baffled as well as to why the LA Time, NY papers, etc...have not even mentioned it, especially after the testimonies of those in custody. I have already heard 2 interviews on radio and one on TV about this.

    There was a survey down within the last 8 months about the political unbalance in the media...i.e. giving Dems free passes on major issues and drilling Rep on minor issues. I would have to find the exact link again, but I did save the results:

    Members of the Media (taking from TV, Newspapers, and Radio):

    85% Admit liberal standing or affiliation
    7% Admit Conservative standing or affiliation
    4% Independent standing or affiliation
    2% Refused to answer

    As far as Bush is concerned, I don't know. When I listened to an interview on this, he was saying that they were still consulting with the CIA and the Pentagon on this issue to confirm the circumstances, further interrogate those in custody, and gather even more facts. With all the political finger pointing they might just want to make sure of all the facts before they bring it up. Or they may have sources in place that could be jeopardized if it hits MSM. Who knows. But they have not denied these reports either.

    Pay No Attention to the Terrorists Behind the Curtain
    Because terrorists were in Iraq does not necessarily link Saddam to them (or the 9/11 attacks). Arguably there are terrorists in every country in the ME. Its not like the borders are that closed (we know this because Al Queada slips in and out of Pakistan at their leisure). It doesn’t even link them to him in monetary/support ways either. Plus if what this article says is true, then why didn’t the 9/11 commission find this link (or did they)?
    There is a difference between a country who has an open policy against terrorists and acts on it when they are discovered vs a country who gives them a safe haven to operate, ignore their training camps, and have reports of high ranking officials affiliating with them. For example if a terrorist camp was found in Germany or even France, I do not think they would let it continue to operate and give them free rein.

    Again, this is still breaking news and more investigation and research is still happening right now.
  17. #117  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Isn't that what intelligence is? The nature of intelligence is gathering all the facts, hints, and circumstantial evidence that point to the most probable truth and making a decision of the possibilities of the outcome of that information. It is extremely rare to have a smoking gun in hand whenever making a decision (cuba missile crisis being the ONLY one in modern warfare history I can recall as the exception to this rule, besides waiting to be attacked as proof such as Pearl Harbor and 9/11 which is least to say counter productive).
    I agree with you for the most part. I do think all these things add up to intelligence but IF all these things added up to Sadaam was linked to Al Queda and was making WMD's, then how come we couldnt sell the UN on it? (unless of course its because the UN doesnt have any stamina...that in itself is another thread.)

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    No, I think that was a bold and exaggerated statement, but I think that it is generally recognized that a vast majority of the MSM (main stream media) does lean left.
    I have heard this before and for the most part I believe it. I am not completely convinced on why this is so.

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    I am baffled as well as to why the LA Time, NY papers, etc...have not even mentioned it, especially after the testimonies of those in custody. I have already heard 2 interviews on radio and one on TV about this.
    Probably because of the Dan Rather snafu and other "I gotta get the story out first and check my facts latter" problems.

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    There was a survey down within the last 8 months about the political unbalance in the media...i.e. giving Dems free passes on major issues and drilling Rep on minor issues. I would have to find the exact link again, but I did save the results:

    Members of the Media (taking from TV, Newspapers, and Radio):

    85% Admit liberal standing or affiliation
    7% Admit Conservative standing or affiliation
    4% Independent standing or affiliation
    2% Refused to answer
    I would venture to guess this has something to do with the fact that we have had a Republican in for 5+ years now. I wonder what the results would have been at the end of 1999?

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    As far as Bush is concerned, I don't know. When I listened to an interview on this, he was saying that they were still consulting with the CIA and the Pentagon on this issue to confirm the circumstances, further interrogate those in custody, and gather even more facts. With all the political finger pointing they might just want to make sure of all the facts before they bring it up. Or they may have sources in place that could be jeopardized if it hits MSM. Who knows. But they have not denied these reports either.
    Well, I am sure if he could use it, he would. Public opinion has not been going well (again based on MSM).

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    There is a difference between a country who has an open policy against terrorists and acts on it when they are discovered vs a country who gives them a safe haven to operate, ignore their training camps, and have reports of high ranking officials affiliating with them. For example if a terrorist camp was found in Germany or even France, I do not think they would let it continue to operate and give them free rein.
    I agree. But with all the issues that Sadaam was facing himself with the different ideological and religious groups in his country, I can see why it wasnt something that was high on his priority list to get rid of (which even given that, doesnt make a strong case for invading Iraq...not when other countries have allegedly more terrorist problems/factions.)

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Again, this is still breaking news and more investigation and research is still happening right now.
    Well if you hear any more...keep us informed.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  18. #118  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    I agree with you for the most part. I do think all these things add up to intelligence but IF all these things added up to Saddam was linked to Al Queda and was making WMD's, then how come we couldn’t sell the UN on it? (unless of course its because the UN doesn’t have any stamina...that in itself is another thread.)
    I personally think your assessment of the UN may be more accurate than we care to admit. But, the fact is that all of this is just now coming out.....

    I would venture to guess this has something to do with the fact that we have had a Republican in for 5+ years now. I wonder what the results would have been at the end of 1999?
    Clinton was in office for 8 yrs and they still leaned left....

    I agree. But with all the issues that Saddam was facing himself with the different ideological and religious groups in his country, I can see why it wasn’t something that was high on his priority list to get rid of
    I find this more of an excuse. Was he too occupied managing the institutionalized rape rooms, filling over the mass graves, or monitoring the election to weed out those who voted against him? It seems to be true that those countries that don't actively support terrorist by policy take the time and give the attention to kicking them out of their country......or at bare minimum not allowing training camps.

    (which even given that, doesn’t make a strong case for invading Iraq...not when other countries have allegedly more terrorist problems/factions.)
    This is just one single point (among many others ranging a variety by nature that I mentioned before) of supplying WMDs to terrorist groups to that hate the US and our friends with plans to actively use them to kill tens of thousands of innocent people.

    Well if you hear any more...keep us informed.
    And anyone else....if you get wind of any new developments in this new case let us know.
  19. #119  
    Winning the war against terrorism... That would be something. Terrorism has existed as long as mankind and I don't think any war against it will be won in our lifetime. Maybe some battles. Also, a person could be a terrorist to some, and a person fighting for a good cause to others. I by no means sanction terrorism, but I think you should be realistic.
  20. #120  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    Well if you hear any more...keep us informed.
    Two different parts to this post:

    ======================
    Part One:
    ======================

    Here is another related story. It says "confirmed", but I am not sure it is officially confirmed but at least it is another piece that is now just breaking news:

    The Osama-Saddam Link Confirmed
    http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Rea...e.asp?ID=18476

    Here is a quote:
    The number two of the al-Qaeda network, Ayman al-Zawahiri, visited Iraq under a false name in September 1999 to take part in the ninth Popular Islamic Congress, former Iraqi premier Iyad Allawi has revealed to pan-Arab daily al-Hayat. In an interview, Allawi made public information discovered by the Iraqi secret service in the archives of the Saddam Hussein regime, which sheds light on the relationship between Saddam Hussein and the Islamic terrorist network. He also said that both al-Zawahiri and Jordanian militant al-Zarqawi probably entered Iraq in the same period.

    "Al-Zawahiri was summoned by Izza Ibrahim Al-Douri – then deputy head of the council of the leadership of the revolution - to take part in the congress, along with some 150 other Islamic figures from 50 Muslim countries," Allawi said.

    According to Allawi, important information has been gathered regarding the presence of another key terrorist figure operating in Iraq - the Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

    "The Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi entered Iraq secretly in the same period," Allawi affirmed, "and began to form a terrorist cell, even though the Iraqi services do not have precise information on his entry into the country," he said.

    Last week, King Abdullah told a Saudi newspaper that the Jordanians knew Saddam to be sheltering Zarqawi in the last years of the Ba'athist reign of terror and demanded his extradition. Saddam refused to turn Zarqawi over to the Jordanians. Abdullah had been clear on that point; the Ba'athists had not claimed they could not reach him, but that they flatly refused to hand him over.

    Last year, Stephen Hayes wrote about the Islamist conference in his book The Connection, which outlined a number of such ties between the Saddam regime and the AQ network, as well as other terrorists. Now that the new Iraqi government has possession of Saddam's old files, they have begun to corroborate Hayes' work. Far from being an enemy to the Islamists, Saddam reached out to the fanatics as an ally in order to covertly support attacks on Western nations, either directly or indirectly. The IIS records that Allawi has on Zawahiri shows that al-Douri -- currently running the ex-Ba'athist insurgency in Iraq -- knew who to contact in order to set up those connections.
    ======================
    Part Two:
    ======================

    Never heard of it until last night when a friend mentioned it. Anyone seen this film? It has been shown on Adelphia Public Television on Friday and Saturday Evenings beginning April 8, 2005

    'WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION --
    THE MURDEROUS REIGN OF SADDAM HUSSEIN'

    http://www.iraqitruthproject.com/

    Here is an interview of this film on Hannity and Colmes. Click Here

Posting Permissions